1806.] On the Meaning of the Word *« Nut-hook:* 



4ST 



ferve ; and you accordingly make ufe of" 

 fome of the harlh teiins which you are 

 fo -vvilling to bellow on others, and fo 

 iludious to merit for youi-fclves. But the 

 ftigmas and anathemas of lijnorfnce or 

 prejudice have l)ten long known to bearno 

 proportion to the oti'ences againll wUch 

 they arc directed. ' Gi;(l confound you," 

 faid one grammarian to another, ' for 

 your theory of imperfonal verbs ;' and 

 much iu the fame manner do you rebuke 

 Mr. Stewart for his tlicori/ of the mini- 

 sters of I^diubui-^h." p. 31. 



It could have no purpofe to enter fur- 

 ther into tills fjueltion. That the iniai- 

 fters of Edinburgh, in tlieir opp;)lition 

 to Mr. Lellie, were not actuated by pure 

 and dihntcrertcJ, and confequently that 

 they combined agamil liini from I'eltiih 

 or fa6tious, •motives, is qu'te apparent 

 from their couceahuent of Mr. Leflie's 

 letter in explanation or juftification of 

 his note to Di'. Hunter, froni the town- 

 councih The Examiner fays, p. C3, 

 " That this letter actually was one of 

 the fubjeCts of conference between the 

 town-council, and the c<jmniittee of mi- 

 niliers at the council-board. The writ- 

 ten rcraonltraiice was no fooner read 

 then the lord provoft introduced the fub- 

 je6t of the letter." 



" Now, Sir," fays Mr. Playfair, in.his 

 letter to the Examiner, p. 51, " it is not 

 laid in Mr. Stewart's Itatcment, that this 

 fubject was not mentioned in the coun- 

 cil ; it is only fignitied ihat ^ou did r,ut 

 introduce it, and that you i:,ave no reafon 

 to fuppofe that you intended doing fo^ 

 This is vi hat ynu adnil,t yourfeives, and 

 is the foundation of the credit whicli, 

 as we havejull ieen, you confider as due 

 to you* ; and you would not furely take 

 merit both from keepins back the le'ter, 

 and from acknowleging it." This is un- 

 anfwerable. There is another ground 

 reforted to by the Examiner, in defend- 

 ing the tonctalmt.nt of ?dr. Leu le's let- 

 ter : if tliey iiad laid it betore the coun- 

 cil, they rai|^ht have dilpleafed Dr. 

 Hunter. For they ufUncurds difcovered 

 that he was " very caicful, very foon to 

 recover polfeHion of the letter ; and 

 when, in the courie of the future pro- 

 ceedlit^'n at a mcetiii?, of the minidors 

 of Edinburiih, he was foriaully alked, 

 whether he would not now put them in 



* The minifters pretended that tney had 

 concealed Mr. Leflie's unj;iiarded vindicatiun, 

 (t§ fear j^ ilfouU a^gi'SYute ht^i olience. 



poffeffion of it, it was not without /ec?7»- 

 ing heJHation that he agreed to deliver 

 it." — An Examination, &c. p. GO. 



If any one, after all this, entertains 

 any doubt whether there wiis ii: reality 

 any combination againll Mr. I.cliie, we 

 refer him, for clearing up his doubts, to 

 Mr. Playfair's Letter to the Author of 

 the Examination of Profellur Stewart's 

 Short Statement of 1 acts. 



On tlie whole, I am of opiniou, 

 notwithltandino; the learned and mgeiii- 

 ous defence by Profefll r Stewart of tlie 

 doctrine contained m Mr. Lellie's note, 

 that it might not unnaturally have givea 

 birth to a iufpicion of a leaiimg toward^ 

 fcepticifm in matters of religion. There 

 was no occalion to dras: in the name of 

 Mr. Hume here, cfpecially as he was by 

 no means the tiril, nor fecoiid, nor tenth, 

 nor twelfth, &c. that had meiiiioued tha 

 fame doctrine. But Mr. Lellie's rellric- 

 tion of that doctrine to phylical fubjeCts, 

 was fuliicu at. 



As to the two other points, I per- 

 fectly agree in opinion with Air. Stewart 

 and Mr. Playrair. 



It is no part of my plan to enter into 

 verbal criticifin ; but 1 cannot htlp no- 

 ticing, in the ■.mniftcrs' pamphlet, the 

 ridiculous cxpreiiion of jmaLl capitals, 

 which very often recurs. T. 



To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 



SIR, 



UNDER the word " nut-hook" John- 

 fon fays, " It was anciently, I 

 know not nhy, a name of contempt ;'' 

 and gives the fpeech of Doll Tearlheet 

 to one of FahhvlF's followers, " Nuthook, 

 nuthook, you lie." One of the commoa 

 editions of Sliakefpeire, in a note in 

 the Merry Wives of V< Indfor, approaches 

 the mark, but unconlcioully, as follows; 

 " Nuthook was a tarn of reproach in 

 caiit Jirain ; and ' If yon run the nut- 

 hook's humour on me,' is m jilain Eng- 

 liili, 'If you fay I am a thief.' " JSsvr 

 it fecins veiy eafv to ihc-w that " thief" 

 was the precfe idea exprefied by the 

 word : for Johnfon gives as his firft de- 

 finition of it, " A liick with a hook at 

 the end, to pull down boughs that the 

 nuts may be gathered ;" and it is liili a 

 vulgar phrafe applied to a perfon addict- 

 ed to pilfering, ihat " his fingers are 

 Viki.' fjh-hooks" (catching up every thing 

 tliat comes in their way). 



1 auij Sir, your humble fcrvant, 



xiii 



