346 



Mr. Laing's Beplj/ to Dr. Gkig. 



[Nov. 1. 



defence of the Qtteen. But MurdinJImll 

 he 'onfuited, and if ihe mdhor's reference 

 he • n/vr'-', <Miy iiiiluikc lliaii be conect- 

 ed." At that j.e:iod tlierctbie lie had 

 jiot een Mindhi, wlioin he piopolcd to. 

 coiduJt ; bur, had coufulted Leli/s De- 

 feme of JMirfs Honour, when upon an 

 autJiority to which 1 did nui api)eid, he 

 chofe to" at cute me of the fabiiciition of 

 fiiHs, mifquotai i'jn, and faifchood. Upon 

 his own contradiction of what, in this, and 

 in the precechng; inftance, he has Itated 

 publicly as tlie fact, I make no com- 

 ment whatever. 



IV". The facts rcfpccting his fonner li- 

 bel againft the IMacgregois, are Ihortly 

 thcfc. His iuterpoiition for the dif- 

 chnrge of a recruit, lor whom the com- 

 manding officer was then employed in 

 procuring a commiflion, was coul.dercd 

 perhaps as officious ; and his refeutraent 

 prompted him to write a libel, not only 

 againft the IMacgregors, but :igainft llie 

 Clan-alpin regiment ftationed at Stir- 

 ling ; one of whole officers he (ligmati/cd 

 as sin excifcnian or innkeeper, (I quote 

 from memory), ai;other as a cowherd, 

 &c. &c. When the libel ap])cared, he 

 Avas immediately fufpccied, and when 

 Sir I. M. M. demanded, whether he was 

 the author of a letter replete with fciirri- 

 lity, which had appeared in one of the 

 Loiidim Mseazi'.ics, he muft have been 

 confcious that the letter was his, wliat- 

 cver means he may have nfed to fup))rcfs 

 it. As he confftlcicd his o«n letter how- 

 cvcr,not as fcuriilous, but as fiillof pointed 

 ridicule, he denied that he was tiio author 

 of a. fntrrihiis letter againll the Macgrc- 

 gors, by a fpecies of etjuivocation which 

 few, I truft, of your readers would either 

 prattice or approve. '1 lie letter contain- 

 ing this latent, mental iciervation, almoll 

 pcrfiiaded Sir Joiiii, that his fufpicions 

 were grou-.;dlef^, till his brother, by Ibme 

 accident, got^ pollt-lfion of the original 

 libel; imd tl*e author was only detected 

 by the haiui writing, in his own denial. 

 His penitence however was qtnckcned by 

 an action brought before Lord Arma- 

 dale ; and Lord Woodhoultlie, to whom 

 he appeals for his innocence, was igno- 

 rant even of his denial of the libel, till 

 informed of it lately by myfelf, and by 

 ihe oppolite counfcl in thefe i\;markable 

 %vords, " that tiio denial was the grcateft 

 aggravation of the offence." But 1 main- 

 tain as a tnilh that requires no illiilira- 

 ti,)n, tisat an author capable of gratifying 

 Jii? rcfrntment by a libel uttered imder a 

 fciitious fignaturc, is ucuily difquaiiiitd 

 foi the office of a ifvi.nv. i. 



V. The two reviews in the Antijaco- 

 bin, and in the Britifli Critic, I confider- 

 ed, and I ilill confider, as written in the 

 ftyle and i'pint of two anonymous libels, 

 replete throughout \vith the moil fcur- 

 rilous abule ; of which e\ery reader may 

 fatisty himfelf by the llighteft infpedtion. 

 The iirft, (which he has not ventured to 

 dilavow) 1 imincdiiitcly pronounced on 

 feeing it, to be the production of the au- 

 thor of Gregor Mac Nab : and in April 

 1802, I was directed for the firft time, by 

 (his friend I^ord ^^'oodhoufelie), to the 

 Edinburgh Encyclopedia for tlie confir- 

 mation of the tiict. On difcovering a re- 

 petition of the lame infults and abufe, bv 

 the fame author, in the Eritilli Critic, I 

 called for his name in fuch pointed terms 

 as no man of fpirit would have attempted 

 to e\ ade ; aiid had he fairly come foi- 

 ward, inftead of trufting to concealment, 

 and declining to be nuide kmncn, he migiit; 

 have avoided the ignominy of a public 

 detection and the a\owal c^'a libel. But 

 the very firil: number, that I met with, of 

 the Britifli Critic, (February 180G) con- 

 tained the moft offenlivc infults to my 

 friends. Profefiors Stewart, Playfaii-j 

 and Lefly, were accufed of a combina- 

 tion among philofophcrs agaitiit the church 

 and religion; it was intim;ijcd, not ob- 

 fcm-ely, that under thejr aafpices iiTcligl- 

 oiis principles were likely to be imbibed 

 by youth at the univeriity of Edinburgh ; 

 and as this article has been afcribcd to 

 the fame author, to prevent all eijuivoca- 

 tioii, ?.Ir. Nares himi'elf muft contradict 

 the fact, if my infonnation be incorrect. 

 Another affociaie of the fame fchooi, tn- 

 coiiiniged by his example, comes forward 

 in the Antijacobin for April, with a tor- 

 rent of abul'e ; affures us that Profeffor 

 Stewart "now Itands convicted not only 

 of grofs niifreprcfentation of facts, but of 

 malignity, liliinefs, and abfolute incapa- 

 city of nictaphyfical difquilition ;" " that 

 his hitherti) fair reputation for veracity 

 and talents, both v\liich are rendered 

 very equivocal, muft unqueftionably b^ 

 inji;rcd ;" " that his pupils would laugh 

 in his face, and he would eveutuaily be 

 obliged to refign his chair for abfolute 

 imbecility ;" " that his talents would be 

 better devoted to the conltructioii of 

 ropes of land ;" aud that his vain-glorious 

 lies were too Ihameful to be repeated, 

 t\.c. ; and fur this ludicrous combinatioa 

 of hupudence and iinpotent malignity, 

 the only apology that can ever be made.is, • 

 that the reputed w riter has fallen a vic- 

 tim to habitual intemperance. 



Ill chcic circumliaiices the propriety, 



auti 



