brother openly profeffed that religion. Notwithflanding the in fluence and example of those princes, very few in this province except the dependents on the family of Gordon, and the Mac Donalds and Chisholms, have been feduced into Popish errors. Among the highland clans, the Frafers, Macintothes, Grants, MacPherfons, MacGilliwrays, fcarce any Papifs are to be found. Even in the county of Badenoch, though all are either vaffals or tenants of the duke of Gordon, there are few, if any, of that religion. This has been owing in a great mea fure to the gentry and chiefs of clans, who early embraced the Reformation, and both encouraged and promoted it in their lands.

The MacDonalds of Glengary, never that I know, were reformed. The gentlemen of that name have their fons educated in the Scots colleges abroad, especially at Doway: and they return home, either avowed or concealed Papifts. In the year 1726, in all Glengary and Achadrom, which may confit of 800 fouls, I could find very few Proteftants. Since that time, they have not become much better; but have diffufed their errors into the neighbouring countries of Abertarf, Glenmoriston, and Strathglafs.

The most noble family of Gordon, till of late, were Roman Catholics; and although now they are Proteflants, yet Popery till prevails in their lands, within this province: particularly in Glenrinnis, Glenlivat, and Strathavon. I remember, when a feminary, or academy of pricfts, was openly kept in Glenliwat, where the languages, philofophy, and divinity were regularly taught; and a draught of the most promifing boys was fent to France, who returned home priefs and jefuits. I am not certain, if fuch a feminary is now kept up there; but a Popish meeting houfe continues; and at high mafs, 600 people er more convene to it. To conclude this accouht, in Glenrinnis, Glenlivate, and Strathavon; in Abertarf, Glengary, and Achadrom, and in Strathglafs, there are, in my opinion, at least 3000 Roman Catholics.

It may not be improper here to obferve, the happy increase of chriftian knowledge fince the Revolution, by means of the early education of youth. All the parishes in this province, excepting three or four, have now schools erected in them according to law and fome fociety fchools are fettled, where Popery prevails, or the extent of parishes requires.'

The ftock of the Society, in the year 1774, is, for ScotJand, 1. 28,901 ferling, and for America 1. 4,032 fterling. They have now established 121 schools (befides fome lately fuppreffed), at which above 6000 boys and girls are educated; and they have miffionaries in Georgia, North Carolina, and other parts of America. The happy effects of this truly pious intitution are visible in this province. Chriftian knowledge is increafed, Heathenifh cuftoms are abandoned, the number of Papis is diminished, diffaffection to the government is lef

B 4

fened,

fened, and the English language is fo diffused, that in the remoteft glens it is fpoken by the young people; and in the low country, in Inveravon, Glenlivat, Knockando, Edinkylie, Nairn, and Arderfier, where, till of late, public worship was performed in Irish, there is now no occafion for minifters having that language.'

To the History is fubjoined an Appendix, containing copies of fifty-three Original Papers, among which we find a tranfcript of the royal warrant granted by king Charles I. to the knights baronets of Nova Scotia.

It is obfervable, that in treating of the popular fuperftitions of the country, Mr. Shaw makes no mention of the second fight, though we imagine the belief of that fupernatural power had its abettors in times lefs enlightened, within the limits of the province of Moray, as well as in the western ifles of Scotland. But, from his filence on this head, we may infer that the idea is now totally obliterated on the continent.-In what relates to the manners and cuftoms of the Highlanders, our author's information has been in great measure anticipated by Mr. Macpherfon; but this reverend gentleman, whofe acquaintance both with written and traditionary authorities refpecting the fubject of his hiftory, appears to be very extenfive, is juftly entitled to the praise of having carried into execution, over a large tract of territory, the plan propofed by Mr. Pennant for obtaining a full account of the antiquities and natural history of the various parishes in North Britain. The narrative is authenticated by intrinsic evider ce of fidelity; and if the author fometimes defcends to genealogical details, which might have been omitted, the fault feems chiefly to arise from an exuberance of his own domestic information.

II. Philofophical Empiricism: containing Remarks on a Charge of Plagiarism refpecting Dr. Hs, interfperfed with various Obfervations relating to different Kinds of Air. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo. 1s. 6d. Johnson.

THE charge of plagiarism, from which, in compliance

with the request of feveral perfons, Dr. Prieftley has here condefcended to vindicate himself, is fo ridiculous in its origin, and fo totally unfupported either by facts or probability, that it is with reluctance we admit any account of it into our Review. We fhall therefore relate the cafe as briefly as poffible, after obferving that the name of the antagonist, by whom the charge is brought, is not published at full length, partly becaufe Dr. Priestley is afhamed of fuch a conteft, and alfo

becaufe

because he would not do the man any more injury than was neceffary for his own justification.'

Before Dr. Priestley left London, in the fpring of last year, in which his acquaintance with Dr. H-~s commenced and terminated, he was told it was reported, that fome of his new experiments, of which he had sent an account to the Royal Society, fubfequent to his acquaintance with the abovementioned person, were only the refult of Dr. H-s's general principles concerning air. The only evidence in fupport of the charge, is the vague teftimony of Dr. Brocklefby, who, upon Teeing fome of Dr. Priestley's experiments at Shelburne house, in company with Dr. Fothergill, the two Dr. Watsons, and Dr. and Mr. John Hunter, is faid to have observed of them all, without diftinction, that they were those which Dr. H-s had fhewn. In order to elucidate the matter, Dr. Priestley wrote both to Dr. H-s and Dr. Brocklesby, requefting an explanation of the fubject in difpute. We are here prefented with a copy of each of these letters, and likewife of the anfwers; from the latter of which it clearly appears, that neither Dr. H――s, nor his friend, was willing to give any fatisfaction. In this dilemma, therefore, Dr. Priestley was under the dif agreeable neceffity of entering into a detail of the history of his intercourfe with Dr. H-s. The narrative of their correspondence is related with great perfpicuity and precifion, interspersed with a variety of juft reflections, and pertinent remarks; but it may be fufficient for the doctor's vindication to prefent our readers with the following passage.

My acquaintance with Dr. H- --s commenced on the 6th of February 1775; and he fays (for I happen not to have any note of that memorable æra myfelf) that it had been difcontinued nine months, on the 3d of December following. It muft, therefore, have terminated in the beginning of March. But I believe he is mistaken about two months, and that it was in the beginning of May; fo that I give him two months more than he claims. Three months, then a great part of which I spent in the country) my acquaintance with Dr. H-s lafted.

The fecond edition of my Treatife on Air had been publithed fome time before I had fo much as heard the name of this gentleman, to whom it has been faid, and with very great confidence, that I owe all my difcoveries; fo that he can have no claim to any thing mentioned in that volume. At the fame time, also, it is well known to my friends, and I mentioned it to Dr. H――s himself, the first time I saw him, that I had materials for a fecond publication on the fubject. muft, therefore, at that time, have had the materials for the bulk of the fecond volume, I suppose about three fourths of it. The remain

I

ing fourth part, therefore, is all that can lie open to his claims and even with refpect to this, he will find that I am able to produce evidence, that every courfe of experiments, of any confequence, was begun, and pretty far advanced, before I knew him; fo that I had little to do befides merely completing them, excepting what relates to the vegetable acid air, which is a thing of very little value, and the experiments on the fluor acid, which Dr. Brocklesby, the only evidence that has yet appeared against me, does not pretend to have feen with Dr. H-s.

In fact, therefore, there remains nothing of any value for him to lay his hands upon, except the completion of the dif covery concerning depblogifticated air, which I had begun before I knew him; and though his friend has afferted, in general, that he faw all the experiments I fhewed him (and these were among them) with Dr. Hs, the circumstances of that fact have been ftated to be fuch, that I am fatisfied my reader must be fomething more than prejudiced, to imagine that it was even poffible he should have feen them.

• When I first mentioned the facts to Dr. H―s, he even pofitively denied that any air could be got from the substance from which I actually procured that specific kind of air; and the neceffary conclufions from thefe experiments are not only not found in his printed fyllabus, but are the very reverfe of the fundamental doctrines of that fyllabus.

Now I will venture to fay that whenever any other article is examined, his claim to it will appear to be equally unreafonable and abfurd. The book, however, will foon be before the public, and he may then caft his rapacious eye over every paragraph of it; and let him diftinguifh his property there, if he can.

I am very confident, that if the dates annexed to any of the articles were concealed, and he was required to name his own, he would just as foon take what was done before I knew him, as what was done after that time. In fact, he has an equal right to all, or none.

It feems, however, very extraordinary to me, that he fhould, at the fame time, defpife all that I have done, calling my difcoveries mere conceits, and fay that I am poffeffed of nothing but a knack of rendering what was intelligible before, myfterious and obfcure, and yet covet thofe things for himself. The fecond volume, I can affure him, contains nothing but more conceits, of the fame kind with thofe in the firft, and nothing is exhibited in it but the exercife of the fame knack, whether of darkening or enlightening things, that was displayed in the former volume.

According to Dr. H-s's account of the ufe that I have made of the difcoveries of chemifts, neither himself, nor any other perfon, has been really injured by me; for I have only difgraced myfelf. What reafon, then, can he have to com plain? Let him only publifh his experiments, which are fo very

intelligible; and if it appear, by comparison, that mine are only calculated to throw darknefs upon his light, their credit' cannot last long: and every thing that I have done, contained in both my volumes, muft vanifh before his publication, like: Satan, the prince of darkness, at the touch of Ithuriel's fpear.. If all that I have done be what he reprefents it, a mere impofition upon the public, why cannot he be content that I should have all the infamy of it to myself. Is it that he is willing, out of a principle of compaffion, to fhare the burden with me?

As he fays that I have treated others as I have treated him, I think I may fafely conclude, that I have only treated him as I have treated others; and therefore that I have ftolen no more from him, than I have done from others. Now, as my works are open to the public, let him fhew what it is that I have taken from others, without acknowledgement. But as I am confident that all the world will acquit me of any thing like plagiarifa with refpect to them, they will as readily acquit me of the fame charge with refpect to him.'

It would be fuperfluous to take any farther notice of a charge of plagiarifm which, in all probability, will be treated with univerfal ridicule and contempt; and we shall therefore only obferve, that, though few readers may be induced to perufe this publication for the fake of the fubject in controverfy, it has a claim to their regard on an account more interefting to philofophy, as it refutes fome prevailing mistakes concerning the doctrine of air.

III. Experiments and Obfervations on different Kinds of` Air, Vol. II. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo. 6s. boards. Johníon.

IN

N our Review for June 1774, we gave an account of the first volume of this valuable philofophical work, which we are happy to find that the learned author profecutes with such extraordinary industry and fuccefs. The world is not only indebted to Dr. Priestley for the continuation of his own experiments and obfervations on air, but likewife for having excited a fpirit of inquiry into the fame fubject in every nation of Europe. The refult of thefe inveftigations, as our author juftly obferves, is not now entirely confined to elucidating the nature of air as it was at the firit inftitution of the experiments ; but appears to diffufe light upon the moft general principles of natural knowledge, and especially the province of chemistry.

It is to be regretted, that, amidst the great avidity with which thefe inquiries are received by philofophers in foreign countries, the author's meaning fhould in feveral places have been grossly misreprefented, through the inaccuracy of those

who