lication respecting a ball in Bathgate, which became the subject of a vexatious prosecution against the editors, at the instance of one JARDINE a schoolmaster. Some time afterwards, on a vacancy of one of the ministers of St Cuthberts parish, immediately on the western skirts of Edinburgh, the Reverend Mr BARRON, then minister of Whitburn, afterwards professor of logic in the University of St Andrews, became a candidate; and it would appear that some sinister means had been used to prejudise the heritors and inhabitants of the parish against that respectable gentleman. In these surmises, Mr SMELLIES name had been falsely implicated, as appears from the following expostulatory letter: But, as we do not wish to rake up the ashes of departed disputes, we have chosen to withhold the name of the person to whom it was addressed. SIR, No. LXXXIII. From Mr WILLIAM SMELLIE to ****** To discover anxiety on account of trifling insinuations, that may tend in some measure to affect character, is no indication of sense, or of a consciousness of integrity. But when malignant lies are invented, and seriously told in presence of respectable people, a man must have lost all respect for reputation, if he takes not proper steps to contradict them. THE fact, Sir, I am about to narrate regards you personally; and, as I have a very high opinion of your honour and veracity, I doubt not but you will instantly do justice to yourself and the other gentlemen concerned. THAT you lately delivered yourself, in a pretty numerous company, to the following effect, I have good authority for saying. The discourse occasionally turned upon the candidates for succeeding Mr STUART as minister of the West Church; when, according to my information, you observed, That it consisted with your knowledge that the Reverend Mr BARRON, one of these candidates, was the author of a note in the Edinburgh Magazine and Review, which has lately been made the subject of a prosecution, at the instance of one JARDINE a schoolmaster in Bathgate; and that you had even an acknowledge ment to that effect from the mouths of Mr CREECH and Mr SMELLIE. Now, Sir, you must give me leave to tell you, that every single word in the above story, said to be told by you, is false,—and not only false, but not a single circumstance ever existed that could have the smallest tendency to give rise to it. You must see the intention. It has been invented with a view to injure Mr BARRON, a gentleman whose character has already stood, and will stand, proof against the most malicious attacks, Mr CREECH and I have been brought on the carpet, to add force to the malevolence of the invention. THE bearer will wait for a pointed and satisfactory answer, which I have a right to demand; and I doubt not you will feel a strong desire to comply, IF my information should happen to be wrong, which I confess would astonish me, you will not find me backward in asking your pardon for writing you in this manner. I am, &c. WILLIAM SMELLIE. P. S.-I FORGOT to mention that, when the above paragraph was written and printed, Mr BARRON, to my certain knowledge, was not nearer than twenty-three miles to its real writer; and that, as I have been in habits of friendship with Mr BARRON for some years, this story, if allowed to pass without notice, would make him regard me in a very despicable light. In the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which met in May 1775, a cause came before that venerable Court, of conşiderable temporary interest, and which produced a long and ardent debate. Mr FINLAY, minister of Dollar, was accused of having admitted Mr THOMSON to the charge of the parish of St Ninians, near Stirling, ❝ in a manner highly disrespectful to the General Assembly, most injurious to Mr THOMSON, and very offensive and indecent to the congregation." It would greatly exceed all due bounds in the present biographical work to give any thing like an entire history of this singular transaction, which will be found detailed in the various parts of the Edinburgh Magazine and Review, beginning at No. viii. p. 446. In this place we have only alluded to it as connected with a virulent attack upon that Magazine, by the Reverend Mr CHARLES NISBET, one of the ministers of Montrose, in consequence of a report given in that work of the debate in the Assembly upon this cause, and in which he complained of his speech upon the occasion having been unfairly reported. As Mr SMELLIE made a conspicuous figure in the consequent literary warfare with Mr NISBET, and victoriously drove him vanquished from the field, it becomes proper to quote the speech as reported in the Magazine, and then to give the controversial writings which passed between Mr NISBET and Mr SMELLIE at full length. THE report of Mr FINLAYS Speech was inserted in the Edinburgh Magazine and Review for June 1775, vol. iii. p. 363. The first violently abusive letter from Mr NISBET appeared in the Caledonian Mercury for Wednesday 19th July 1775. Mr SMELLIES answer appeared in the July number of the Magazine 1775, vol. iv. p. 455. To this Mr NISBET chose to make a reply in the Caledonian Mercury of Wednesday 30th August 1775. This appeared too late in the month |