era re es eee 4 
1808.] Correction of a Mis-statement relative to M.de Luc. $$ 
‘y 
" 
J 
< 
rose,* and many others,} have been pro- 
posed as succedanea. Whether any. of 
these are really more salutary or not, 1s 
perhaps undetermined; but we now find 
from the palace to the cottage, every 
her substitute has yielded to the ge- 
nuine Aiatics tea.j i 
So many of your valuable pages have 
been already devoted to an individual 
plant, that the history of its introduction 
into Europe, and the remarks on its in- 
fluence on morals, health and commerce, 
shall be the subjects of a subsequent let- 
ter, Ly your correspondent, 
TsJAAPHILUS. 
London, Fuly 4, 1808. 
eet Scene 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
TAKE the liberty of asking you to 
insert two letters of Dr. Millar as 
soon as it can be done, in order to etlace 
as soon as possible the calumny spread 
against me, Dr. Millar, when aware of 
it, did what remained in his power, by 
retracting it-himself in the Encyclopadia 
Britannica, and consenting that his letters 
should be published, pointing out your 
Magazine as the best channel for the pur- 
pose. Butsuch is the evil produced by 
false reports, that the refutation never 
follows the calumny through all its chan- 
nels. It is therefore well tor me, (though 
not a complete security against a certain 
class of people) that a long life spent in 
many countries, has fixed my character 
in the opinion of the world. 
Your's, &c. 
Windsor, De Lec, 
April, 16th, 1808. 
Letter of Dr. Millar, Editor of the Ency- 
clopedia Britannica, addressed to a 
Friend of M. De Luc. 
“Srr—Some time ayo I received two 
letters on the subject of a mis-statement, 
im the account ef Dr. Black, published in 
the fourth edition of the Encyclop. Britan. 
relative to M. de Luc; in which the latter 
'® Slevoget, de Thea Romana, et Selesiaca, 
An.1721, Aignan, Le Pré.re medecin. avec un 
Traité du Thé de France, Paris 1696, 12mo0, 
Faber de Thea Helvetica 4to Basil. 1715, 
Siegesbeck de Thee Succedaneis, in Kanaldi- 
ana Collectione, 1728 ‘ 
Zanichelli Obzervation! intorno abuso della 
coftea, & della vertute di nuovo Te-Vene- 
ziano, Venez. 1755, 4to, 
“+ K. Collegii medici Kundgiorelse om den 
misbruk som Thee, och Caffe drickande, &c, 
Stockholm, 1746. 4to. 
is charged with claiming, as his own, dis- 
coveries of the former concerning the 
doctrine of heat. But as neither of these 
letters had any specific date, or contained 
any information to admit of communica- 
tion with the writers, I had no opportu- 
nity, till your letter was put into my hands 
a few days ago, of delivering my senti- 
ments with regard to that mis-statement ; 
and of pointing out to the friends of M. . 
De Luc, in what way I meant to have it 
corrected, 
Before your letter arrived, the correc- , 
tion was made in the best way I could 
think ‘on, agreeably to the nature and , 
plan of the work. It is inserted in the 
form of a note, the first time the name of 
the venerable philosopher is mentioned ; 
whose character, I will acknowledge, was - 
unjustly, but permit me to say, also by 
me unintentionally, aspersed, in giving cir- 
culation to a charge which appeared to 
have been rashly and_inconsiderately 
brought forward. I have the most per- 
fect recollection of feeling some reluc- 
tance in introdncing the charge alluded 
to; but Prof. Robison having been the 
pupil and successor of Dr. Black of Glas- 
gow, and having been his colleague and 
intimate friend for a long course of years 
at Edinburg, I regarded his authority as 
above all suspicion, and I could not there- 
fore entertain the slightest doubt of the 
truth of what he had so deliberately and 
so circumstantially detailed. I do not 
mean however to insimuate that Prof, 
Robison has asserted any thing which he 
believed to be false; and it would be 
useless to inquire into the motives, if it , 
could be done, which led him into that . 
mistake. He cannot now answer for 
himself, and I trust we shall not forget 
that his memory is entitled to the indul- 
gence which is claimed in the old adage, 
De mortuis nil nisi tonum. The warinth 
of attection for his deceased friend, an 
excess of jealousy for h‘s reputation, or 
perhaps the indistinct recollection of ° 
some vague conversation on the subject, 
may have given birth to the groundless - 
charge. Your surprise at the mis-state- 
ment having been introduced into the 
Encycloped. Britan. after M. de Lue’s 
-exculpation of himself appeared in the 
12th number of the Edinburgh Review, 
will, 1 presume, entirely cease when I in- 
form you, that the carly volumes of the 
Encyclopedia were printed before any 
part of it was published; and that tie 
volume which contains the biographical 
sketch of Dr. Black was printed before 
the publication of the 12th number of 
that 
