/) TTI SON HJwxatU^ SW^>
4
'  t ...

^
>
0 ^
I

4
±1*'
.£■' 
 
1W JO  ABV1BI1 IVNOIIVN    3 N I 3 I 0 i W JO A.V.RI1 IVNOIIVN  1NOI0JW JO ABVH..1 H
NAl  LIBRARY  OF MEDICINE   NATIONAL LIBRARY OF  MEDICINE  NATIONAL LIBRARY  OF M
*
i     ^d
,,„  JO ABVBlll IVNOIIVN    1NOI03W JO A»V»SI1  IVNOIIVN  I N I 3 I 01 W JO A»V»9I1 H
NAL  LIBRARY  OF MEDICINE   NATIONAL LIBRARY  OF MEDICINE  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF M
      .✓  r
)NAl LIBRARY  OF MEDICINE   NATIONAL  LIBRARY OF MEDICINE  NATIONAL  LIBRARY OF «
 
 
A
FINAL  REPLY
"tO TlUK
GXHCTJLATED BX
3/4=
        NATHANIEL CHAPMAN, M. D*

PROFESSOR Of THE INSTITUTES AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE IN THE VXIVKRS1TT
                      »F PENSSTLVANIA.
BY GRANVILLE  SHARP PATTISOtf.
  *' Jin hypocrite -with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour ; but through
(* knowledge shall the just be delivered."------Prov.—Chap. xi. v. 9.
             SECOND EDITION.

                  BALTIMORE:
Printed by J. Robinson, corner of Market and Belvidere-streetB*
                      1821, 
      joo




      1881

NATIONAL LTBRARY OF MEDICINE
   WASHINGTON, D. C. ' 
A REPLY, &c.
  As I stated in the conclusion of my " Refutation of Certain Caitjmnies,
&c. that I should never notice  any thing Dr. Chapman  might print on the
subjec of Mrs. Ure's divorce ;  my again  coming before the public in answer
to his two new publications,  may seem, when first considered, to convict me
of vacillation and indecision of character.  But when the object  of these
pamphlets is exhibited ; when it is shewn that a period of nearly ten months
has been  allowed  to elapse since  the publication of the "Refutation, &c."
and the appearance of these pamphlets  which  are  avowedly  answers to it,
and more especially, when, if the voice of the public of Philadelphia is to be
believed,  during this period an emissary has been  sent  to Europe for the
a< owed purpose of raking together  and collecting information against  my
character, and when it  is proven  that numerous agents  have been applied
to in Scotland with the same intention,  and that Dr. Chapman and his friends
have been unceasing in their endeavours to obtain from gentlemen who have
lately been in my native country, stories which might  tend to criminate me ;
when all  this  is remembered  by  the  publick,  and  when, from this, it  is
demonstrated that these pamphlets  contain every item  and iota of accusation
which has ever, as a shadow, been  thrown upon my reputation, since  the hour
of my birth, until the present day,  it cannot appear wonderful, possessing as
 I do ample evidence to refute these, that I should' be most desirous to come
before, the members of the country of my adoption, and vindicate  to them
the  hti'nor  and integrity of my character,  which places  it high  above  the
pitiful shafts that have been  directed against  it by  my fallen and degraded1
enemy.
   In this second " Refutation" I shall, in the first place,  give a short history
of  the divorce.  2dly,  An  examination of the .evidence  adduced  by  the
pursuer, and a refutation of it, so far as it seems to criminate me.  3dly, A
proof that there was collusion betwixt the pursuer and defender.  4th, A few
remarks on the notes added to Dr. Chapman's former pamphlet,  and, lastly,
a few concluding observations.
   Dr. Ure, the pursuer in the action of divorce, is a  man of about 40 years of
age, and of considerable scientific acquirements, but of degraded moral charac-
ter. Mrs. Ure, the defender, was a woman about 34 years of age. The parties
 had lived  together as man and wife, from the year 1807 until  a few months
before the passage of the bill of divorcement. I was acquainted with them for
 some years before this time, but, became more particularly associated with Dr.
 Ure during the winter of 1817—18, from the circumstance of my then becom-
 ing a professor in the same institution with him, and from  the necessity there
 was for our being-frequently together with the view of making arrangements
for the erection of the  new buildings contemplated  by the  Managers of the
 Andersonian University.  On the 5th of April, 1818, I left Glasgow for  the
 purpost of  paying a six months visit to the French Metropolis ;  at that time 1
 would wish it to be  particularly observed, that Dr.  Ure entertained no suspi-
 cion of his wife's inftfieUiy, that  the parties -were living  together in all the
intimacies of husband'and wife, and that they  continued  to do so until the month
 of August, nearly fve months after my departure from Glasgow.  (See Dr. Ure's
 petition, p. 2.)
   As it appears in evidence (see examination of Agnes Blair, p. 25) Mrs.  Ure
 is conveyed by her husband to tlie house of Jlgnes Blair i.t Falkirk,  on the 12th
 of August,  and *'he then took lodgings  for  her."  It  may be remarked  that
 Falkirk is a small country town, on  the direct  post  road betwixt Glasgow
 and Edinburgh, one through which several hundreds of persons pass daily in
 their journey betwixt the two towns, and  consequently a place, of all others,
 the most unfavourable as a place of concealment.
   In tlie month of October,  1818,  I arrived  in Edinburgh, where 1  spent se-
 veral clays,  in my way home from Paris,   Mrs. Ure had written to an acquaint 
4
tatice, to request me, to call upon her on my return to Glasgow. Thist n.-ivi ed
to ■  , as i-alk:rk was in my d.rectio.it home, ,.;i;ias there was a detention ot
the passengers from hah  past  11  o'clock, u.e hour ot their arrival, until 1
o'clock,  tne hour wuen ihev started for Glasgow.  Tlie visit was made open-
1}, and  noc under  any conccabnent.  Tlris evidence proves  tha*  / \ialked
in a garden overlooked by the surrounding houses, with  .Mrs.  Ure,  (see  evi-
dence p. 3>,) whicii no man would have done if conscious that Mrs. Ure  had
separated from her hua.mr.d on  account of adul.cry, alleged  to have been
committed by him.   On my return to  Glasgow, Dr. Ure met  me and conti-
nued to hold" inu.;course with me, as he had been wont to do  previovisly to
nrv visit to Paris.  There was no enmity  nor hostility expressed, and up to
tlu- very  day ■■■•.. >»hich trie decree of divorce passed, his  conduct was  such as
to make  me suppose that he was oji the very best terms with me.
  On the 5th day  of  February,  lc(19,  the  very day on which the bill of
divorcement was granted, I,  for the first time, heard fat 1 was suspected of a
criminal  intercourse with Ms. Ure, and was told that an application had been
made to  the commissaries for a divorce, for adultery, alleged to have been
committed by me.   I immediately called on Dr. I re for the purpose of ascer-
taining whether there was any  foundation in this report,  but he being from
home, I  wrote to a writer to the signet in Edinburgh,* and requested him to
call at the Consistorial Court and ascertain whether such  an ac ion, had been.
en.cred.   Tlie  moment I became satisfied of the fact,  1 left Glasgow for
jEMiiiburgh for the  purpose of  taking the advice of counsel.   I  saw  Messrs.
Jeftery and Cockburn,  and was informed by them that I could not move in the
all air, that I was no party in the case, and that the supposed paramour only
became so in the second action, which usually followed in a case of this kind
—the acdon for  damages.   That unless  an action  for damages is  brought
foi v.ard by Dr. Ure, and of this there was no chance in  the present instance,
it was impossible for me to appear in court*  I was advised to see Mrs. Ure,
and ascertain her object  in supporting her husband in this infamous transac-
tion, and by showing her the ruin in which it would involve herself, to endea-
vour to get her to send  into court a reclaiming petition.  Fearful that iny seeing
her ihvself might lead to a suspicion of an undue influence, having been  em-
pire  d, i directed my agent to wait upon her at her lodgings. Mrs. Ure, on my
agent's visiting her, made  a  full confession of tlie collusion; stated  that she
had been induced to go into it, from promises made to her by her husband, and
that as he had deceived her, and his promises had not, nor wen: likely to i>e
fuJidied, she most readily consented  to send into  court a reclaiming  petition.
T»i>, she herself, employed an agent to prepare, and gave up, for the purpose
of supporting it, several documents,  among which,  Tilt letter mentioned as
a forgery,  by Dr. Chapman, but whicii I shall sumrientlv  prove in the sequel,
to have been a £.<. :".ine letter, and which of itself, is sufficient to prove  that
I)r. Ure and his wife were  so  debased as to be capable,  of the most infamous
of actions.
  I'he letter here mentioned, is on« of so  infamous a  character,  and contains
  xpressionsso gro.-sh indelicate,  that it is not lit that it should be  brought
  tfore the public.   Dr. Chapman, him—if,  seems willing to admit, that if I can
only prpve Dr. Ure  to be  the author of this letter, that I  am admitted of
every charge. " F-iihe,"  he observes) "  lh. Ure or Mr. f'ati'aon is the  ;r.cst
foiuvmate of villein/! in e.r' te> <■<•.- the one or other wrote th  '-tier in  c/uettion ..
the latter is found i:i pos'.ex-innnfi:, and let him *7j-;.•:■ hon hn «ot  i'."  This
I .shall do in the sequel of this history, and in proof of it.  I shall' 1>;•':■;  .forward
a mass of testimony so strong, so  satisfactory, and so con, hi.sive, that it >auI
force, even upon my  enemies, an  iireiislible  conviction oi  the groundless
nature of the charges broug.-tagain'.L mv ehaiv.cter.
;  That I was most anxious that the reclaiming petition should ha. - been  sent
m and supported by Mrs  Urie,  I have no hesitatfon to confc-ss.   It vas in this

  *  The writers to his  Majesty's Signet are composed of the firs* clasr of Law-
yers in Edinb rgh :  Mr. Bum, my agent,  stjincH nre-emin. »i as i.  gentleman
aftd a man of honor,                                                 •  > '•
£ 
5
Tray, and in this way alone, that my character could be cleared by a court ojf
justice, of the  charge brought against it.  If 1 had really been guilty of a
criminal connexion with  Mrs. Ure, 1 would  ask, what object coulH I have in
jetting the case again brought into court.  Or if Dr. Ure was not conscious
that he had obtained the divorce by the collusion of  his wife, what objection
could he have had, to permit the case again to be brought under the considera-
tion of the commissaries.  That Dr.  Ure was most unwilling that the case shouid
not be permitted again to be brought into court,  is evident, from his petition
presented to the commissaries, the 5th of March,  1818;  and from the fact
that he had his wife removed from Edinburgh by one  of  his agents,  to the
bouse  of Mrs. Cameron, in Port Glasgow, where  he kept up a correspondence
with her, and induced her, by settling  more money upon her than would have
been awarded  by the commissaries, allowing they had, as they most certainly
would, had the petition been supported, have removed the decree of divorce.
   From the following letter, written by a respectable Medical Student of Glas,
gow, and the facts ef which are substantiated by an affidavit, it is proved, that
Dr. Ure, in two several instances, when he ordered the porter at the institution
to state to his class that he was confined to bed from sickness, visited Greenock,
situated two miles from Port Glasgow,* the residence of his wife, and thatduring
his first visit he had written her, wishing her to agree to something, to which she
had refused her consent.—During  tlie second visit,  it is to be presumed that
he did not satisfy himself with writing, but that he had an interview, as imme-
diately afterwards his wife became  moulded to his purposes, and gave up that
prosecution which was to restore to her character, and some measure of re-
spectability.
                                           Glasgow, 10th March, 1819
iMa. Gtiasville Pattisow,
   Sir,—In answer to your request, I am now going to give you a short detail
of what happened on my  visit to  Mrs. Cameron's at Port Glasgow.  I have
been this  season, a  pupil of Dr.  Andrew Ure ; Thursday, 16th February,
1  went up to his class as  usual,  but  I found there  was no lecture ;  1 then
asked  the porter  what was the  reason, when  he told me that the Dr. was
confined with a sore throat;  I went up the next day, and as  there was no class,
the same enquiry was made and answer given.  I had occasion to go down to
Port Glasgow the following day, and happened to call upon  Mrs. Cameron, and
after seeing her, I asked if Dr. Ure was in the house, she said no ; I  then asked
her when he had been there, she answered me, he had not, but that she believed
that he was in Greenock, for that he had sent up a letter from Greenock to Mrs.
Ure, wanting- her to agree to something, to which his wife refused to consent;
but as it was none of her business, she did not enquire particularly regarding it.
   I had occasion to go down another  time (24th February) to Greenock and
Helensbiurgh; 1 accordingly went in the Dumbarton  Castle steam boat, and
some time' after having sailed  from the  quay,  Dr.  Ure came  up to me while
walking on the deck—he seemed to be in great confusion when he saw me—
he asked me where I was going ?  I told  him 1 was going to  Greenock
and Helensburgh, and that  1  was  gomr to  put some goods on  board the
Fanny, for New York.   He then  asked me if I was going to stop in Gree-
nock  all night  ?  I said I was not.  He then told me  that he was going to
Greenock to get the Town Hall fitted up with seats, in which he was going to
give a course of lectures;  he then begged 1 would not repeat our conversation,
and  immediately upon making this request,  he said lie was going to give  a
very interesting course of lectures in  Glasgow, and tjiat he would  give me  a
ticket to attend them, gratis,  t came  from  Helensburgh to Greenock on the
following morning- (viz. Tuesday) and  while on  the  quay, 1 sw Dr. Ure.  1
came up to Glasgow on the same day.  I went up to his class on Wednesday,
and on asking one of the students if there had been a class on Tuesday, he
told me there was not. I asked what excuse the porter gave ? Ha said the
excuse was that the Dr. had a severe head-ach.
          l^am, Sir, Your most obedient, humble servant,
                                         ALEXANDER STEPHE.V.
   • Port Glasgow is situated on the liver Clyde, 22 miles  below  Glasgow. 
6
  So  soon as I  learnt that Mrs. Ure had withdrawn her reclaiming petition,
the  hope  which  I  had  indulged,. that  my  character  would  have  been
vindicated by a  court of justice, was destroyed, and the only line of conduct
which was left me to adopt, was to  come before the public with a stitemext.
of facts.  I  accordingly inserted the following advertisement in the  Glasgow
newspapers of the 6th of March, 1819 :—

               IX THE PnESS AND SPEEDILY TO BE PUBLISHED,



                           ILLUSTRATED WITH

              FAC-SIMILES OF  DR. URE's LETTERS,

         Bx GRANVILLE  SHARP PATTISON, Esa. Sorgeox.

                    " F.vi'n handed justice
. .          Returns the iugredienls of the poison' d chalice
             To your van lips."
  On the morning of the 26th of March, the day before the one on which the
statement of facts  was to  have been published, I received  a letter from my
agent in Edinburgh, which stated that a bill of suspension  or interdict had
been applied for at the Chancery Court, against the publication of the docu-
ments referred to in my advertisement,  on the  plea, that as Dr. Ure, and not
Mr. Pattison, was the author of these  documents, the  latter had not the right
of authorship, and consequently was not entitled to publish them.  Immediately
on obtaining this information, I went to my printer, and  having procured twenty
copies of my pamphlet, 1  distributed  them amongst respectable gentlemen  of
Glasgow, with Facsimile copies of Or.  Ure's most infamous letter, with the view
of giving a limited circulation to my statement, before the bill of interdict to pre-
vent me was served.  At 12 o'clock, noon, the interdict was executed, but  as
this only prevented my publishing Dr.  Ure's documents, I read  my statement  in
the evening, with the exception of the part which related to them, to my class.
The effect produced,  w as most triumphant; the audience, consisting of above
500 of the most respectable citizens, continued  fir above a quarter of an hour
afterwards, to express by reiterated plaudits, their conviction of my innocence,
and  at a meeting  of  my  class,  convened  a   few days afterwards,  it was
unanimously resolved, that  a diamond ring  should be  presented to me  in
testimony of the high sense they entertain of my character, as a man of honor
and a gentleman.  A handsome ring was accordingly presented,  accompanied
with the following letter,


                                             Glasgow, April 6th, 1819,
Mr.  Graxville Pattisox,
  Sir,
      The gentlemen attending your  Course  of  Lectures on Anatomy and
Surgery, beg leave at this time, when  the present  session  is  drawing to a
close, to present you with a diamond ring, as a  small  testimony  of their high
opinion of your talents ; of ihen- gratitude for your exertio-.s ;  of their sense of
your obliging, liberal,  and  gentlemanly conduct on all occasions, and  of their
heartfelt wishes for your future happiness and prosperity.
                  WFLLLVM  Mc KAY"i
                  JOHN CONNOLLY      Committee
                  JAMES. HROWN     > appointed by the
                  WILLIAM  DUURY         class.
                  JOHN GARDINER. J 
r
  I trust  I  shall be excused making here a short digresssion in the history,
that I may  call my reader's attention to a statement made by Dr. Chapman
in his preface to the case of divorce, p.  VI. which proves that that abject-
individual is so lost to every correct and honorable principle, that he assert*
his falsehoods in opposition to the most direct and positive evidence.  Having
made the absurd statement, that the court issued sua  sponte the injunction to
prevent the  publication  of my pamphlet, he goes on  to add, that when I
attempted to read  it to my audience, they became so disgusted that an inter-
ruption, " which ended in the dispersal of the company, before one third of my
defence was read," took  place.  He informs  us that he had this statement
" from several gentlemen," but, as usual, mentions no names ; apd, to confirm
the statement of these several  gentlemen,  he has the  effrontery  to  quote
a passage from Mr. Walker's letter,  published in my former refutation, the se-
quel of which letter, most positively contradicts the fact  assumed from it, viz.
That  my  audience  were  so disgusted that they would not permit me to pro-
ceed  in my defence. After a  piece of conduct like  this, so base and so dis-
engenuous,  what, I would  ask, can we expect from the Professor of the Prac-
tice of Medicine in the University of Pennsylvania.
  I again publish Mr. Walker's letter, that my reader may himself judge whal
c6nfidence is to be placed in Dr. Chapman's facts.
                                             Glasgow, March 30, 1819.
To Johx Pattisox, Esq.
      Dear Sir,
  Through your kind letter, which reached me in London, I have had thepleft*
sure of becoming acquainted with your respectable mother  and her family.'
I was, therefore, in common with their other friends, much mortified at the in-
jurious report respecting your brother, Mr. G. S. P., which got into circulation
about a month after my arrival ; the more so,  as it appeared to be justified by
the sentence of a court.  It was some relief however, to be assured that it was
false, and would, in a little time be  proved so.  I waited,  therefore, with
some impatience,  for  your brother's " Statement of Facts, &c." Being pre-
vented by some legal restraint,  on the part of lus adversaries, from publishing
it, I attended and heard it read (as far as was permitted) to his class, a few
evenings since ; and  I have now no hesitation in  saying, that the whole evi-
dence taken together, and in connexion with other circumstances, -which could
not be known to the court,  did not justify the sentence ;  and on the contrary, I
think your brother has  been  grossly abused, and  become the dupe of Afoul
conspiracy between Dr. U. and others; for I cannot otherwise account for many
circumstances that I  have become acquainted with.  Indeed, the conduct of
that man  stamps him the most depraved of human beings.  With regard to the
sentence of the court, it is only to be accounted for  by  recollecting, that as far
as regards your brother, the evidence was exparte.   It is unfortunate,  too, thsflf
he appears to have  no legal remedy—immediately available.
  1 hope to have the pleasure of seeing you in the fall; mean time, remember
me respectfully to  Mrs. P.* not forgetting our poor friend Simpson,  to whom
1 wrote some time  since.
                       Believe me very sincerely, yours,
                                                 DAVID  WALKER.
  P. S.—T might add that, judging by the loud and repeated plaudits of his-
audience, consisting of 500 people, the effect of your brother's expose- was common
to all.
  But, to proceed with the history.  The day after I had vindicated my inno-
cence  to the public,  with the'view of forcing Dr. Ure to bring before them,
evidence of the charge which he had*brought against my character,X inseite«
fhe following advertisement in all tlie Glasgow newspapers. 
8
      STATEMENT OF FACTS,  &c. &e»

»*----" Even handed justice
*' Returns the ingredients of the poison'd chalice
** To your own lips."
  " Some weeks ago, I inserted the above ad'ertisment in the Glasgow* news*
papers; and have since been  busily employed in correcting the press, and
preparing for publication " The Statement."  Yesterday, at twelve o'clock,
noon, I had served upon me, a bill of suspension, and interdict against the pub-
lication of the documents referred to in the said advertisement. This has both
astonished and gratified me—1 have felt struck that I should, after my charad
ter has been injured, be prevented from publishing  any thing which might
be necessary for my justification—I have felt pleased that this interdict should
absolve me from the necessity of publishing, wliat was of a very unfit character
for general circulation.  My only wish throughout the whole oftfris publication,
has been to have a full and a clear exposure of facts—I therefore now challenge
Dr.  Ure  and his wife—to  lay before any committee, formed of the most res«
pectable  of our citizens;  all the documents which they may have against me ;
and further to lay before them the whole of tlie correspondence, which passed
betwixt them after Mrs. Ure's  separation—allowing  me at the same time t©
produce that part of it, which 1 have been interdicted from publishing."

                                   GRANVILLE SHARP PATTISON,
George Souare, 24th March, 1819.
  It must be palpable to every man who has the capacity to think, that if Dr.
Ure had really possessed evidence to convict me, that he would at once have
accepted my challenge, and laid before a committee, composed of respectable
gentlemen, his proof.  The fac simile of his letter—a letter which  stamped
both his own  and his wife's reputation, with unheard of depravity, had been
circulated by me, before the interdict had been executed.  A  refusal on his
part, to come forward, was a silent, but damning confession of all the charges 1
bad advanced both against him and Mrs. Ure ; and  a triumphant refutation  of
the implied charge which the sentence of the court  had seemed to  throw upon
my reputation.   The parties, however, were conscious of their guilt; and dared
not come  forward as accusers in an assembly where I was permitted to be a de-
fender.  I remained in Scotland for nearly two  months after the  publication or
the advertisement, and when I left it, I did so,  loaded  with the  most satisfac-
tory testimonials of the high  estimation in which my character was held, as a
man of science and a gentleman.  (See appendix to former Refutation, all of
which were written some months afterwards, letters class II and text p. 35.)
  That Dr. Ure  had the disposition had he possessed the ability to injure me,
is rendered evident by  the conduct he pursued a few months after my depar-
ture for America.  So long as I remained  in the country he did not even whis-
per a doubt as to the genuineness of his letter, of which I have circulated/ac-«*»«/«
copies, but after 1 had sailed be began first by hints, and some  months after-
wards,  by bold  assertions to  state that it was a forgery, and having by bribes
and threats induced his wife to grant him a declaration to that effect, he pre-
pared a large octavo volume for the press, to prove that I had really been guilty
of  a  criminal connexion with Iris wife. The whole argume tt of which rested
npon tlte assumption that I had forged the letter, of which  the facsimile had
been published.  He printed in  the Glasgow'newspapers of date the 27$ I
.August, the following advertisement.     *                                 I 
9
                In the Press, and speedily will be published,

                       IN ONE VOLUME  8vo.

  sr£TyecTiox,  divorce,  cmasmixx.

                         NO NOVEL.

Printed from attested documents in  vindication of one Husband,
                  and for the instruction  of all,
                      FELICES TER ET AMPLIUS,
                      HUOS IRRTJPTA TEWET COPPEA.


  Ix this work will be developed, the progressive corruption by a religious
devotee, of a respectable wife and mother.   The new system of dishonoring a
husband, with legal impunity, by making a writer to the signet the go-between:
and the new art of calumny, or the fabrication of the forged letter, lately print-
ed by Granville Sharp Pattison, in a flagitious pamphlet,  and circulated by him
and his friends, for ruining the gentleman's character, whose family peace he
had destroyed.
  This publication was long suspended from motives of delicay towards the de-
luded lady, and is now most reluctantly brought forward,  solely to defeat a vile
plot of moral assassination.
  The present advertisement has been delayed, only till the chain of evidence
could be rendered complete.  The document forming the last link arrived but
two days ago, though the succession of dates will testify that the utmost dili-
gence has been used for several months, in seeking evidence to expose the
conspiracy.
  This work is such, as virtuous  women may read with  pleasure, and vicious
ones with profit.
  Glasgow, 27th August, 1819.
  I think it hardly necessary to remark,  that this advertisement is characteristic
of a base and degraded mind.  Independently of its coarseness and vulgarity
the1 author from it, is evidently desirous to convert that which to every man
of feeling would have been  a subject  of shame and mortification, into one of
profit.
  On the morning of the 9th of October, the day on which the packet letters
leave Philadelphia, I  received the above advertisement, and by the post of
that day I forwarded the following address to the publick of Glasgow, which
was received and printed there the beginning of November following:

A short letter addressed to the  public, by Granville Sharp Pattison, Esq.  on  his
  seeing an advertisement inserted by Dr. Ure, in the Glasgow Herald, on the 27th
  August last.----Glasgow:  Printed by Young,  Gallie & Co.  1819.
TO THE PUBLIC.
      I have this morning received, by the Ship Albion, the Glasgow Herald
of the 27th August, and, were it possible for me to be astonished at any thing
which proceeds from Dr.  Ure, I should have felt wonder-struck at the adver-
tisement which he  has thought fit to publish.  But I, and not only I, but th«
Glasgow public, know the individual referred to sufficiently  well to believe
him eminently  qualified for a line of conduct which is marked by Effrontery,
Falsehood and Cowardice.   The impudence of the man  is indeed unique, in
supposing that he will make a sensible public believe to be a forgery the most
infamous  of all written productions; one which he got me interdicted from
publishing; one which I begged him, both publicly in my Class, and by adver-
tisement, to allow  a respectable Committee to examine;  one which proves it-
self to be in  his hand-writing, and bears in its matter and style the marks of
                                 o 
10
truth, so forcibly that no unprejudiced person acquainted with his hand-writ ■
ing, can look upon it without conviction ; one, which he through a female friend
and his agent, made ev\ ry effort to get out of Mrs. Ure's hands, while she resided
in Edinburgh, weeks before I was aware either of its existence, or that of the di-
vorce ; one which he did not even deny until he found thathis apology of its hav-
ving been -written in raillery would not go down with his acquaintances, and that
on account of it he was shunned like a being under  a moral putrefaction; one
which I declare, by all that is sacred, I never saw, until the moment, when before
two most respectable advocates, it was produced by the gentleman to  whom
Mrs. Ure had delivered it within an hour previously;  and one, on account of
which, although I continued in Glasgow for months after I had given it out ta
be a letter of Dr. Ure's to his wife, he took no legal measures for redress •  a for-
bearance which, to every person of common sense,  must demonstrate what
were the responses of his own conscience on the subject—yet, incredible, and
monstrous as this piece of impudence is, Dr. Ure's history and character can
justify it.   He who knows Dr. Ure's former actions, can realise such a speci-
men of our species.  It was also necessary to know Dr. Ure, to know the cow-
ard, who, so long as a single male member of my family remained in Glasgow,
durst not  give vent to the heart-burnings of his disappointed malice.  I doubt
not but that in the proposed publication the most unheard of impudence and
falsehood  will be advanced.   There is, however, a mightiness in truth which
at once overwhelms falsehood, and compels it to shrink from its searching and
exposing glance.
  Dr. Ure may flatter lumself of three things by this publication.
  1st, To restore some shade  of character to himself.
  2d, To injure me in America.
  3d, That a voyage of 4000 miles will prevent my calling him to an account.
  These anticipations I have to assure him, are vain.
  1st, As Dr. Ure's present  desperate attempt to shake himself free of his
letter of 12th October, 1818, must be founded on some piece of maclunation,
only worthy the author of that most foul and damning document, such an at-
tempt can only  increase his infamy.
  2d, My character here is too  well known to be injured by any thing which
can proceed from so contemptible a creature.
  3d, 1 have to promise him,  that sp soon as my Lectures are finished,  which
will be by the end  of February next, I shall visit Glasgow, and make him, an-
swerable for every falsehood which he may, in my absence, have dared to print.*
  As to the Divorce, Dr.  Ure,  his wife,  and her friends, know that had she
persisted in her opposition it could never haye been obtained, and as she was
bribed by Dr. Ure to withdraw her opposition, by the settlement of an annui-
ty, the divorce  was collusive and illegal.

                                   GRANVILLE SHARP  PATTISON.
  Philadelphia,  9th October,  1819.

  P. S.  Dr. Ure gives me a very pretty specimen of the consistency of his
proposed  work, in the advertisement.  " The work has been solely delayed
from motives of delicacy towards the deluded lady ;" and adds in the next sen-
tence, " that' it has only been delayed until tlie chain of evidence was com-
plete."   A contradiction which it is surprising the Doctor could not detect.
  A few  days  before the one fixed on for the publication of Dr. Ure's Book,
and after he had gone to the expense of some Hundreds of pounds Sterling for
paper, printing, &c. &c. the edition, consisting of two thousand copies, was
suppressed. My reader, will no doubt, be anxious to be informed of the cause
of this:—Dr. Ure  having "through threats and promises," induced his wife to;

  * As the book advertised by Dr. Ure was never published, it was hot heces-
sary for me to visit Scotland-. 
11
perjure herself, by granting him a false affidavit, which went to state, HiiTthe
fetter of which I had circulated facsimile copies, was a forgery, prepared for the
press, the work above mentioned.  The foundation on which the whole of it
rested was this affidavit.  Having however had the baseness, with the usual in-
consistency of an unprincipled man, to refuse to pay the promised reward to his
wife, she came forward, and by the following letter addressed to my agent,  the
»acts of which were afterwards confirmed by an oath, made a confession of the
infamous part she had acted in the transaction.

                                          Greexock, 23d August, 1819.
  Sir,
      You are  perhaps already aware that Dr. Pattison published, what he
called his Statement of Facts, containing a fac-simile of the letter whicn I gave
to you to be shewn to counsel.  The letter is of such a nature, that much odium
has been attached to Dr. Ure's character as the author of it.   His character
and situation were in fact likely to be completely forfeited,  unless the effects
of the letter were counteracted in some shape or other:  accordingly, finding
that nothing short of his having written any such letter as is copied into  Dr.
Pattison's pamphlet would have that effect;  and that even his own denial or
assertion on this head might  be unefficacious, the Dr.  was forced to have re-
course to me, and through the medium of a friend for whom I had always en-
tertained the highest respect, and through threats and promises held out, re-
garding fay  future prospects in life, and also that of my dear children, I wans
prevailed on to give a writing under my hand, containing, that the letter as it
appeared in Pattison's pamphlet was not a genuine copy, but a fabrication, or
something to that effect: this step I have ever since regretted, for a three fold
reason -.—1st, because what I  stated was not consistent  with truth—2d, because
the provisions made to me have not been made good, nor are they likely to be realized;
and 3dly, because I find that more serious consequences than I apprehended are
in all probability to result from it, I am told that my declaration is to be made the
ground of a criminal action against myself, as well as against those who were in
any way connected with the publication of the pamphlet, and against you in par>
ticular, as it has been said, that Dr. Ure has traced out, that it  was you who
gave the letter to the engraver; under these circumstances, the preservation
of the original letter has become a matter of the greatest moment, and it will
at once occur to yourself, that it is absolutely necessary to the  vindication of
your own character and honour,  that the letter be exhibited as publicly as pos-
sible,  to  satisfy the public by a fair comparison of it with the Doctor's other let-
ters, that it is truly a genuine  letter,  and not a fabrication or forgery as is now
alleged,  and that the copy in the pamphlet is a true copy.  Such an exposure
will surely have the  effect of deterring the Dr. from persisting in using the evi-
dence I have so improperly afforded him, in support of any prosecution he may
be induced to raise.  Notwithstanding of my having by letter retracted the state-
ment, on the ground that it had been extorted by false threats  and promisee,
it has been laid before the Managers of Anderson's Institution, and all my rela-
tions,  and some of my best friends are likely to turn their backs upon me, un-
less they  are satisfied by a comparison of the hand-writing of the Dr. that the
letter in your custody is really and truly one  penned by Dr. Ure.  I therefore
beg of you to deliver up the letter to Messrs. Smith & Craig, that they may fos-
ward it to me, and I will instruct them to pass from the proceedings against
you in the interdict  question; or if you do not wish to part  with it,  but for a
short time, give it these gentlemen,  and they will pass their  word of honour,
or grant an obligation, to return it to you in the course  of eight days.
                             I am, Sir,
                                 Your most Ob't Serv't,
                           folBJTED)         GATHARINE MONTEATH.
Addressed,
  James Burx,  Esa. W.S.
          Edinburgh. 
12
   This letter places the characters of both the pursuer and defender in the &
 vorce, in sufficient relief.  Dr. Ure, that he might free himself from the odium
 and disgrace which had been attached to his character as the author of the in-
 famous letter of which I had published facsimile copies, did not hesitate, for
 the accomplishment of this purpose, to adopt means the most infamous ;  and
 to second him in a plot which placed the lives of several innocent persons-in
 danger, it was only necessary to bribe his wife.  She no doubt  afterward*
 confessed this; but she did so,  not from any feeling of remorse, but out o'
 revenge, because the provisions promised to her had  not been made good,
 nor were they likely  to be realized.  Her  confession necessarily put a com-
plete stop  to  Dr. Ure's publication 5 for the argument on which the whole
 of it  rested was  by  it destroyed,  and had he  now  attempted to circulate
 a single copy, he would have made himself liable to a criminal prosecution,
 That I could have no  agency in inducing Mrs. Ure to come forward with her(
 confession, will be admitted, when it is recollected, that I was at the time it
 occurred in the United States ; and to prove that it was spontaneous, and writ-
ten without any application on the part of my friends, it is only  necessary to
compare its date, (23d August,) with the date of Dr. Ure's advertisement,
 (27th August,) as by doing so, it will be-observed that my agent was in pos*
session of the confession before he could have had any knowledge of Dr. Ure's
intention to publish his book.
  Immediately after Mr. Burn had received Mrs. Ure's letter, he addressed the
following communication to the trustees of the Andersonian University; which it
will be observed, confirms and corroborates all the  facts of the preceding history.

                                       Edinburgh, 28th August, 1819.
 G£WTtEMEX,
      In the absence of Mr. Granville Sharp Pattison, Dr. Ure has attempted
to vimdicate his character at the expense of truth and the characters of others.
So long as his assertions were merely verbal, I determined to take no notice of
kirn or them; but now that he has, by the medium of a newspaper, called upon
the attention of the public,  I conceive that my farther silence might be impro-
perly interpreted.
  In the Glasgow Herald of yesterday, an advertisement appeared bearing the
title of " Seduction, Divorce, Calumny," in which the letter printed by Dr.
Pattison in his pamphlet, is expressly stated to be forged.  The friends of Mr.
Pattison have no  wish to prevent the  publication of Dr. Ure's work—Mr. P.
has ever courted publicity; and in order to satisfy you and the public of the au-
thenticity of the letter; and that every opportunity was afforded Dr. Ure of
proving its fabrication if he had dared to stand the test.   I beg leave to call your
attention to the following statement :—
  In the Glasgow  Chronicle of the 5th March last, the following advertisement;
was inserted by Mr. Pattison :—(Already inserted, see page 6.)
  Dr. Ure,  dreading the consequences of this publication, had sufficient influ-
ence with Mrs. Ure to induce her to apply to the Court of Sessions in her own
name, for an interdict against the publication of his letter to her of 23d of Octo-
ber,  1818,  which was granted  against Dr. Pattison, myself,  Maurice Ogle,
bookseller, and Young & Gallie, printers, in Glasgow.
  Several copies of Mr. Pattison's pamphlet, so far as finished, including a copy
of Dr. Ure's letter,  23d of October, and fac-simile engravings were circulated
previous to the information of the interdict; but after it was intimated,  Mr. Pat-
tison, in deference to  the Supreme  Court, refrained from farther circulation,
and inserted the fo'lowing advertisement in the Glasgow Courier:—( Already
inserted, see page 8.)
  To this challenge Dr. Ure returned no answer, and sought no opportunity
of bringing the matter to a public test; from the  first he  did not even attempt
to deny the authenticity of the letter, and endeavoured to get clear of the odi-
um by raillery.  His Agent here even called on me, and did not deny its genu-
ineness, but maintained that it was  mere  badinage,  and could be-explained as
written  in a spirited manner to raise Mrs. Ure's spirits* 
V?
  Dr/tJre finding however, that his raillery and his Agent's badinage were npi.
well received, began gradually,  first to express doubts of part of the letter,
then of the whole ; and no sooner had Mr. Pattison left Glasgow for America,
in pursuit of an honourable und lucrative situation there, than Dr. Ure loudly,
but still verbally asserted that the letter was a forgery.
  Last month he was in Edinburgh, endeavouring to impose on others.  He con- ■
Suited Mr. Wm. Patrick, W. S. to whom he maintained the letter was a for-
gery, upon the legal steps he ought to adopt to vindicate his character, and
punish the fabricators of the letter.  Mr. Patrick waited separately upon Mr.
Francis Jeffery,  advocate, and myself, and both Mr. Jeffery and I explained
to him the whole matters connected with the letter;  and I offered to produce
it to Mr. Patrick for his inspection;  and at his request agreed that Mr. Gem-
meU, Dr. Ure's Agent, should be present: accordingly, on Saturday, the 24th
ult.  by which time Dr. Ure  had returned to Glasgow, I, in company with Mr.
Pattison's Agent in Glasgow, who happened to be here, waited on Mr. Patrick
at his house, where Mr. GemmeU joined us, and compared the letter with oth-
ers of Dr. Ure.  At the meeting I engaged on the part of Mr. Pattison, that
the letter would be produced before you, and as Mr.  GemmeU hesitated to stand
that test, that it would be produced before any  number of respectable gentle-
men whom Dr. Ure might-name: both Mr. GemmeU and Mr. Patrick agreed
that the offer was a fair one; the former promised to communicate the offer to
Dr.  Ure, and the latter declared that he would have no farther concern in the
business.  Since that period more than a month has elapsed, and Dr. Ure has
taken no notice of the affair.
   It appears however, that Dr.  Ure has not been idle,*but that he has been
making every attempt, however dishonourable, to extricate his name from the
infamy to which it is consigned.  Mrs. Ure's letter to me of the 23d inst. will
explain one of the means used by him to impose on you and" the public, a copy
of which letter, and my answer of the 26th, addressed to Mr. Craig, W. S. J
now enclose.  In conclusion I beg leave to state, that on the part of Dr. Patti-
son  and his friends, I am willing to produce before you, or the public, the
original letter of Dr. Ure to Mrs. Ure, of 23d October, 1818, which is alleged
to be a forgery;  and Dr. Ure and any of his friends may be present at the exa-
mination of it.
   I  trust you will not conceive any apology requisite for thus intruding on your
attention: I consider this statement necessary  not only in vindication  of Dr.
Pattison, myself and  others, but also in deference to you in consequence  of
the  imposition which Dr. Ure has used towards you.  I have confined myself
 to a mere  statement of facts, without comment, and to shorten the statement
 I have even omitted additional evidence of the  genuineness of Dr. Ure's letter.
                        I am, gentlemen,
                           •       Your most Ob't  Serv't,
                             (signed)            JAMES BURN,
                                                      Writer to the Signet.
 To the Trustees and Managers or the Andersonian Institution.
(Copy of a Letter from Mr. Burn to Mr. Craig, referred to and enclosed in the
                             above letter.)
                                       Edinburgh, 26th August, 1819,
  Dear Sir,
      In addition to, and explanation of,  the conversation betwixt us to day, I
beg leave to state, that in the letter from  Mrs. Ure, dated Greenock, 23d inst.
delivered to-day by you to me, which you mentioned came  under cover to you,
and which  I read to you, she writes, in relation to Dr. Ure's infamous letter,
** It is necessary that the letter be exhibited as publicly as possible, to satisfy
the public,  by a fair comparison of it with the Doctor's  other ietters, that it is
truly a genuine letter, and not a fabrication or forgery a* is now alleged, and
rtnrt the cppjy.m the pamphlet is a true cop;.'" 
14
 v If these are Mrs. Ure*s sentiments there is no farther occasion for the inter-
dict, and whenever she chuses to consent to its being withdrawn, I engage  uat
the letter will be exhibited to any number of respectable persons who... she
may name, proper caution being taken that the letter be not destroyed.  Whilst
writing, 1 may here repeat what I mentioned to you to day, that on the 24til
ult. the original was exhibited  to Mr.  Patrick  and Mr.  GemmeU,  and  that
the latter person compared it with other letters of Dr. Ure's.   That on the
part of Dr.  Pattison and his friends, I engaged that the original letter wou'd >e
produced,  either before the trustees of the Andersonian Institution, or  my
number of  gentlemen in Glasgow, whose respectability was  previously ascer-
tained, whom Dr. Ure might name;  providing always,  Mrs. Ure's consent .vas
obtained;  and that no notice has since  been taken of the offer, either by Dr.
Ure or his agents.
  The contents  of Mrs. Ure's letter  do  not surprise me, they are what I would
save expected of Dr. Ure.—I am,
                                 Dear Sir,  Youi-'s truly,
                             (signed)                 JAMES BURN.
Addressed, Wit. Craig, Esq.. W. S.
  A few days after writing this letter, Mr. Burn went on to Glasgow, and laid
the original letter of Dr. Urebefore the managers of the Andersonian Institu-
tion ;  who were fully satisfied of his being its author.
  In conclusion,  Mr.' Burn got another Agent  on the 7th November, to insti
tute an action against Dr. Ure for nominal damages,  on the charge that he
had falsely accused me of forgery ; merely that  he might have an opportu-
nity of calling into court, evidence to prove that the  divorce had been ob-
tained through a conspiracy,  formed betwixt Dr. Ure  and his wife; and his
object in employing another  agent was that'he  himself might be subpoened
as a witness, his evidence being of a character which would clearly go to the
support of the action.   This action was, however, resisted by Dr. Ure,  on the
plea of its being an action of feeling; and that no mandate from an absent party
was sufficient to support it, the more especially as the person granting it had
threatened personal chastisement rather than a prosecution.  This objection
was entertained in the Inferior Court, and as the Supreme Court would proba-
bly have required me to appear personally in support of my prosecution, and
the more especially as the only object  I had in view, a  vindication of my cha-
racter, had been accomplished by the  steps already taken, my friends have
not considered it necessary to  push the affair further.
  All of these facts are proved by a long letter written to me by Mr. Burn, from
Edinburgh, of date the 11th November, 1819; 4he genuineness of which let-
ter is certified by the gentlemen before whom the documents have been placed.
  The greater part of the facts stated in the preceding history, do not rest up-
on my simple dictum, but are established and proved by unquestionable and
authenticated documents.  But as there are some statements given, which rest
upon  my assertion, and as these may at first seem rather incredible, I shall, be-
fore I proceed to the second division of the subject,  make  a  few remarks up-
on some of these particulars.  And  1st.  It may  seem incredible to those  who
are not acquainted with the character of the Consistorial Court, that the action
for divorce should have been entered on the 2d December, 1818, and that I
should have remained ignorant of it until the 5th of February, 1819.  If I
shall,  however, be able  to prove, as I shall most satisfactory hereafter,  that
Mrs. Ure assisted her husband in obtaining the  divorce, it wili be  eyident that
there  was no reason why  I should come to a knowledge of the act; on before the
public generally.  That  the public  were not aware of the existence of the ac
tion,  until after the 5th  of February, 1819, two months after it  had been in
court,  Dr. Chapman's  own  pamphlet   inadvertantly  proves.   From  the
extract of a letter printed there, addressed tq Dr.  Mason of N. York, from 
u
fir. Chalmers of Glasgow, it is proved that had Dr. ChalmeEs even heard a
hint of this divorce, that he would not have granted me the recommendatory
letter which he had previously addressed in my favour to Dr. Mason.  Now if
the date ot this letter  (5th January, 1819) be appealed to, it will be seen
that  it was written more than a month after the divorce had been entered in
court; and from  the correspondence  which passed betwixt myself and Dr.
Chalmers, hereafter to be published, it will be demonstrated, that the fact of
a bill of divorce having been applied for, did not become public until after the
5th of February.  But, that 1 did not come to a knowledge of the divorce until
it was obtained, it is unnecessary for  me to employ arguments to prove.  Dr.
Ure himself, in his answer to Mrs. Ure's reclaiming petition, corroborates and
proves the truth of my statement.  He  there observes, the fact was, that
no sooner was the divorce passed and tlie fact known in Glasgow, than Mr. Pat-
tison came to Edinburgh for the purpose of inducing Mrs. Ure to send in tlie
reclaiming petition.  (See proceedings, p. 35.)
  2dly. It is somewhat  difficult to  reconcile to  reason the fact that although
my name had been used by the pursuer in  obtaining the bill of divorcement,
that no remedy was open to me ; that I was not permitted to come into court to
vindicate my character.  But when the subject is fully considered this difficulty
disappears.  In a note in my " Refutation," which u here again published, I ob-
served that the consistory court of Scotland is an ecclesiastical court in which all
prosecutions connected with marriage, &.c. &c. are settled.  If A is desirous to
obtain a divorce from his wife B, all that A is required to do, is merely to go
into court, and file  a bill, alleging that B had an adulterous intercourse with
C.   It is obvious that there are only two persons connected with this action;
A the person  prosecuting, and B  the person prosecuted.  C, the individual
who is the reputed paramour may be an ideal personage; he, it is evident is no
party in the cause, and consequently, as parties  only are qualified to lead
proofs in court, allowing that he was aware of the suit, and could  prove that
he has only the day before returned home, after an absence of 20 years in
India, and that the alleged crime, as said to have been committed by him must
be groundless: still it is impossible for him to  appear in court to  prove this,
and as judges are only entitled to judge from the facts delivered in court,  al-
though the fact of his absence be notorious,  no  notice could be taken of it by
the  court; and if the wife did not resist the action, and this she will most cer-
tainly not do,  if she colluded with her husband, as a matter of course the bill
of divorce would be granted.
   In all cases where a husband A obtains a divorce from his wife B, from her
having really been guilty of  an improper intercourse with C,  a^second action
immediately follows.  A. now prosecutes C. for damages; and in this second
action, C having become a party,  he  can  appear in court, and endeavor to
put aside the charge made against him by  A. of guilt with B.  But it will at
once occur to my reader, that if A. has obtained his divorce by a collusion
with B, he will not proceed to an action for damages, seeing it gives C. a pow-
er which, in the former action, he did not possess, viz. to appear in court, and
prove the nullity of the charge brought against his character. Dr. Ure,  al-
though in very needy circumstances, aware had such an action been instituted,
that 1 Would bring forward incontrovertible evidence of tlie conspiracy, wisely
declined entering on it.
   From this statement  it is obvious that I had nothing to do with the action of
divorce.   Mrs. Ure alone was the defender, and she only was intitled to ap-
pear as such in the court.  But it may be supposed, that after tlie sentence of
divorce had passed, that I might then have brought an action against Dr. Ure
for defamation of character.  But this idea will at once be set aside by recol-
lecting that the court, deceived by the collusion of the parties,  had sanctioned
the defamation, and against a court  no action could have been entertained;
moreover,  it must be borne  in mind that my name is introduced only inciden-
tally and collaterally, and in such a way as not to entitle me to an action against
Dr. Ure any more than against the court or the witnesses;  and, of this opinion
were Messrs. Jeffery and Cockburn, the very distinguished counsel whom I con- 
16
suited.  The charge of adultery was made against Mrs. Ure; no charge whate-
ver,  was made directly against me.  But although, it  was not in my power
to bring an action against Dr.  Ure,  he was clearly intitled to bring one
against me, and had the evidence by which he obtained the divorce, not been
collusive, had  it not been made up  of a tissue of falsehoods and inconsisten-
cies, which would have been exposed in all its viliany by an actual defender,
is it to be believed that Dr.  Ure, would not  have availed himself of the action
for damages, which invariably in these cases follows tlie action for divorce.
The courts of  Britain, it  is well known, are particularly severe in their sen«
fences on these occasions, and as Dr. Ure must have spent  a very considera-
ble sum of money in prosecuting the suit, and as this would have been ordered
to have been paid along with a large sum as damages, had he satisfied a  jury
that  I was really guilty.  Nothing it  is evident, but a consciousness that 1 was
innocent of the .mputed charge, and a conviction that were I only permitted to
appear in a court, that I should prove tlris to the satisfaction of tlie public, could
have deterred  him from bringing this action.
  I placed tlris matter in my former pamphlet in its true light.   That this state-
ment is consistent with truth, 1 will with confidence appeal to every intelligent
lawyer who is conversant with the courts of Scotland.  Yet Dr. Chapman asserts
that I am guilty of falsehood, that " 1 represent the tribunal as clerical in its na-
ture."   1 should have expected, as he was the avowed author of the " Fore> sic
Speeches," it would not have been necessary for me to tell him that an ecclesi-
astical court is  not necessarily one composed  of clergymen ; the Orphans' Courts
of this country being such, although all their  members are  of the laity.  To this
I ma>  add, that its decisions and practical proceedings are regulated by the
Canon law, and not the Common or general  law of the land.  The quota-
tion whicii he  gives from Ferguson's History of the Courts of Scotland, does
not militate in  one particular against my account of that court.  It is no doubt
mentioned that if the  decisions of the  Consistorial  Court " be alleged to be
wrongously pronounced," an appeal may  be  made to the  Supreme Court.
But  this appeal it is evident can only be made by a party.
   From the history of the divorce which has been given,  and the truth of
which has been proved  by unquestionable and authentic  documents -,  it is
demonstrated,  that both tlie pursuer and defender in  the action,  were
persons of the most abandoned character.   Dr. Ure's most infamous letter,
of which I published in Glasgow a facsimile  copy, has been  proved beyond
a question, to  have been  a genuine letter;  and this  of itself is sufficient to
acquit me,  with every person who reads  it,  of the crime with  which I
have been charged.  But as this letter,  from the reasons already mentioned,
is of a character which forbids its general publication, it may perhaps be ex-
pected that I should make a few observations on the evidence which was adduc-
ed in support of the prosecution.   These will,  however, be very short, because
the  documents already published vindicate my reputation, and because it would
be necessary in entering into an extended argument on tlie evidence to use in-
delicacies of expression, which I should be very unwilling to employ.
   Before I enter on an examination and refutation of the testimony advanced in
support of the divorce, I shall indulge myself with a few observations on the
hardship of the  situation  in which Dr. Chapman's most shameful and unheard
of attack has  placed me.  The testimony advanced in all divorce cases, whe-
ther false or true, is of a  character ill suited for circulation amongst the mem-
bers of a virtuous community.  Dr. Chapman, however, regardless of the pub-
 lic morals; intent only upon injuring me,  and through me the University of
 Maryland, has allowed no feeling of decency to restrain him, but has thrown
 on the table of almost every family in the country, his gross, and impure accusa-
 tion.  He knew well that I possessed ample evidence to refute the charge, fof
 he had himself seen my documents, and had repeatedly declared that they were
 such as must satisfy the most sceptical as to  my innocence.   But as 1 had had
 sufficient magnanimity, when he attacked me in presence of his  wife,  to re-
 frain,  on hearing her screams, from beating his coward soul from his body, and
 although possessed, on the publication of my Refutation, of authenticated anec- 
tf
dotes of his history, of a much darker shade than the accusation he had false!*
brought against me ;  yet as I had in pity to his wife spired him, and in res-
pect to myself had not condescended to recriminate, he flattered himself that
rather than violate decency, by the publication of those documents which  he
from general recollection, may have considered necessary for my justification,
I would have allowed my character to suffer.   He was  correct in his- opinion,
that rather than give publicity to documents which could have the effect of in-
juring the feelings of the chaste and virtuous, that 1 would have remained silent,
but he has most fortunately been mistaken in his belief, that I could notjustify
my character to the public without publishing those documents.
   Another ungentlcrnan-like unfairness, which Dr. Chapman has been guilty of
in the publication of his last pamphlets is, that he  has  allowed ten months to
elapse between the publication of iny Refutation of his first attack, and the pub-
lication of the present pamphlets, which are avowedly answers to it.  This lapse
ot time is apt to make Iris new publications convey very unfavourable and incor-
rect impressions.   It is not to be expected that the public will take more than a
very general and partial interest in personal controversy.  The publications of
the opposing parties may be read, but the impression they produce is necessarily
ephemeral, and the facts they contain are soon dismissed from the memory. Ne-
ver 1  believe was any reply more triumphant than my " Refutation op certain
Calumnies, Sic."  It convicted Dr. Chapman of the most gross and wilful false-
hoods, and set aside by irresistible proof, the aspersions which he attempted to
lix on my reputation.  It threw hiin from the rank he had before possessed in so-
ciety, and made every man of honour and feeling view  him as a degraded and
base calumniator.  Yet altliough this was universally admitted, when the facts
of my Refutation were fresh on the public mind, now that these are in a great
measure forgotten, his new pamphlets, although they consist of merely the old
charge dressed out in a new g?rb, are by many considered as containing a new
accusation.  I never denied in my Refutation,  that Dr.  Ure had obtained a di-
vorce from his wife, on account of adultery alleged to have been committed with
nirv On the contrary, I admitted the fact in the most unequivocal manner.  I then
stated that the divorce had been obtained through collusion, and having placed
my documents before four of as respectable gentlemen as any in this country,
they gave me their .certificate, by which they testified to the public, "that the
charge of an  adulterous intercourse betinixtMr. Pattison and Mrs.  Ure, was
wholly destitute of foundation."  I would ask, if any other charge is contained in
these  pamphleUr than the one from which  their certificate  acquitted me ?
There is none.  I allowed before that this divorce had,  from an ex parte state-
ment, been sanctioned by the sentence of the court,  and surely in doing this,  I
was not desirous to mislead and deceive the community with which I had be-
come associated.
   No charge can be brought against the reputation of  a man, of a character
so difficult to put aside, as the one advanced against me.  If an abandoned fe-
male  asserts, that she has been engaged in  a criminal connexion, with the
most  virtuous  and  honourable member of society, even although, he has
never seen her, it  is impossible for him to  bring forward a positive  tes-
timony to prove that he is not guilty.  And in  general  in such a case all that
is left for a  virtuous man, is merely to place his assertion against that of his
accuser.  Mine is  not the first instance where a divorce has be- n obtained on
the plea dfci criminal intercourse, whicii had never existed ; but mine, I most
sincerely believe,  is the first, where the injured individual has been enabled to
bring forward  an overwhelming mass of testimony to  inforce  a conviction of
his innocence.  It is  ungenerous and unmanly to bring a charge of so pecu-
liar a character, so difficult of refutation, even against  a man, who, residii.g
in his native city, has his reputation established with the public, and who is
supported by the influence of his numerous friends and connexions; but, to
publish such a scandal against a stranger who stands alone single,  and unsup-
ported, who is far removed from his friends, and from those sources from which
evidence alone can be obtained to vindicate his character, is ten thousand told
more so.  "This shameful ealumiy was proclaimed by Dr. Chapman, when I 
18
 first entered Baltimore, a stranger, unknown and unsupported.  I repelled
 the charge, and have since held that rank in society  which I feel conscious
 I am justly entitled to occupy.  I would again repeat, that this is no new
 charge;  every item of it was  contained in Dr. Chapman's first publication,.
 and  everv tittle of it  was disproved by my " Refutation."  All that is here
 new is the testimony furnished oh the trial;  and surely this must,  by every
 considerate and candid mind,  be viewed as wholly exculpatory.  But I would
 even caution my readers to receive Dr. Chapman's edition of the trial cum gran*
 salts.  For it will be recollected that  1 have convicted him already of a most
 audacious attempt to mislead  his reader.  I would refer to this " Reply," p. 7, •
 where my reader will see Dr. Chapman's quotation from Mr. Walker's letter,
 and the letter itself.  He will there find the following extract:—" I attended and
 heard it read as far as was permitted,-" by which extract Dr. Chapman assures
 his reader, that Mr. Walker evidently alluded to an interruption which Mr Pat-
 tison experienced from the disgust felt by his audience, and which terminated in
 the " dispersal of the company before one third of the defence wasread."   JVow
 the sole obiect  of Mr. Walker's  letter was, to state in the  clearest and strongest
 manner, the satisfaction evinced by my audience at iny triumphant vindication.
 After Dr. Chapman has been convicted of such an unheard of piece of audacity,
 it is certainly  no act of injustice to believe him capable of any misrepresenta-
 tion.  But as the " decree of divorce" contains really nothing which can be con-
 sidered as criminating me; I believe that Dr. Chapman has been afraid to make
 any very  glaring change, in the official document.  There are, however,  occa-
 sional typographical errors whicii tend to confuse tlie subject, which I have no
 doubt were intentional.  In the analysis too, anxious to prove that there was a
 very particular intimacy betwixt Mrs. Ure and my sister, lie misquotes the terms-
 of the cards which passed betwixt them.   In "the Dopument," Mrs  Ure in
 her card addressed to Miss Pattison, addresses her in the common way—Dear
 Miss Pattison—and Miss Pattison  in her reply in like manner begins, " Dear
 Mrs. U."   Dr. Chapman commenting on tlris as illustrative of the "great inti-
 macy," misquotes and adds my, which materially alters the sense.
  I owe to Dr. Chapman's exertions,  and his liberality in  sparing no expense te
 obtain a copy  of the examinations  of the witnesses, the  first sight I have  been
 able  to procure of their depositions.  Dr. Ure himself,  aware of the weakness
 of the proof, and satisfied if examined by me, that its contradictions and absur-
 dities would enable me to expose the conspiracy and collusion, wisely   .tve
 orders to  his agent, two days after the bill of divorcement had been obtained,
 to prevent tlie evidence  bsing examined  either by  me  or by my friends.
 This may appear strange to those who do  not bear in  recollection the fact,
 that  I was no party in the action.   If this is only kept  in recollection, it
 will be at once admitted that  I  had no power to claim  the right of examin-
 ing the evidence.   That 1 cotdd  not obtain a sight  of the examinations of
 the witnesses  will be proved, by my calling on Dr. Ure, in my second adver
 tisement,  to lay before a committee all the evidence he possessed of my assert-
 ed guilt;  (See this Reply, p. 8.)  and by the following  observations wir:  h I
 made upon  his preventing my seeing it, which I now quote from the " State-
 ment ofEacts," published by me in Glasgow; observations  which I durst nothave
 made there,  unless they had been strictly consistent with truth.
  " I am sorry that in giving their  evidence, I cannot be  so full and explicit as
 i could w ish.  One would suppose that although it was possible t"conjure  up
 some shadow of an apology for their concealment of the process of divorce  from
 me, until it was decided,  that tlris being accomplished, everv semblance of
fe?9°n tor further privacy, for longer mysterv, was removed. "But with them
 it is different,  when they have by tlteir ex pprte evidence, got the sentence of
 a court in their favour,  still are they unwilling to show to  the criminated indivi-
 dual,  the  evidence of his crimination.  Surely if truth was the standard of their
evidence, they would glory in its  unfurlment.  Surely if baseness and  viiW
had not congregated their evidence, they would not refuse it to the public.
 surely, it they were not conscious in their own minds of  its  weakness,  if they
were not persuaded that it would dissolve into nothingness in the hands of him 
14
whom they have attempted to criminate, they would not refuse him a copy of
it.  Yet true it is, that most sedulously have they prevented me from seeing it,
and their agent  in Edinburgh has declared, that he has their positive orders
not to allow it, on any account, to come into my possession.
  |* Fortunately they have not been able to keep me in perfect ignorance of their
•vidence.  Having written to my agent in Edinburgh,  when the rumour first
began to be circulated in Glasgow,  he called at the Commissary Court the day
on which the sentence of divorce was passed, (5th February,) and was allowed
by the clerk to read it hurriedly over, before they had given instructions for its
being kept private.  At this time he took notes with a pencil, of every  thing
which he conceived  could possibly  throw a shadow of suspicion upon my cha-
racter.  His notes are as follows:—
  ' The witnesses examined are Agnes Sydeserf and Jean Lindsay,  servants at
the time in Dr. Ure's family;  Mrs. Mary Park;  James GemmeU, Writer in
Edinburgh;  James Monteath, Writer in  Glasgow ;  Agnes Blair,  Spouse of
Wm. Mitchell, Weaver in Falkirk,  with whom Mrs. Ure resided; Christian
Stirling,  Wife of James Baird, residing at Falkirk, who lived in the flat above
Mrs. Ure; and Ann  Simpson, servant with Mrs. Mitchell.  The citation was
executed the 2d December, 1818, against Mrs. Ure personally.  The exami-
nation of witnesses began the  19th January, 1819.  Mrs. Ure appeared  to be
identified by witnesses.  The  sentence is passed in her absence.   The writings
produced are—1. Mr. Pattison's address in Paris, written in pencil.  2. A card
from Mrs. Ure to Miss Pattison,  requesting her to send said address. 3. The
draft of a letter dated Falkirk, holograph of Mrs. Ure, but unsigned and unad-
dressed.   4. A holograph prescription of Mr. Pattison's.'
  ' The substance of the servants' evidence is as follows:—That Mr. Pattison
had called frequently at the house, and had occasionally remained in the Din-
ing-room alone with  Mrs. Ure—That once on entering the room, one of them
had seen Mr.  Pattison standing at the fire beside Mrs. Ure, and she thought
he had his hand touching her  shoulder.—That one forenoon Mr. Pattison called
for the keys of the Institution, that he got a key from Mrs. Ure, but that she
shortly afterwards left the house, saying,  that she had given Mr.  Pattison a
wrong key, and that she  would require to carry him the right one—That on
one occasion,  one of  them returning home from a message, had the  door open-
ed by Mrs. Ure,  whose dress  seemed a little deranged—That without asking
any questions, her mistress had told her that Mr. Pattison  was with her; but
that she neither saw him nor heard  him go out.  Lastly, that they had never,
at any time, when Mr. Pattison  was alone with  Mrs. Ure, heard any noise nor
observed the  slightest derangement  of the furniture.  One of the servants says
she was suspicious of Mr. Pattison,  from seeing him standing at the fire with
her mistress,  and from his calling frequently at the house.'
  « Mrs.  Park swears that on  a visit  to Mrs. Ure in Edinburgh, Mrs. Ure told
her that Mr. Pattison  was the father of her child.'
  ' Messrs. GemmeU  and Monteath merely swear that they had been consulted
by Dr. Ure as to the divorce."
  ' Dr. Geo. Monteath and Mrs. Park identify the hand-writing of Mrs. Ure.'
  ' Agnes Blair alias  Mitchell, Ann  Simpson and Christian Stirling alias Baird,
swear, that Mr.  Pattison had called once upon Mrs. Ure at Falkirk, and had
walked with her in a garden behind the house.*
  ' The copy of the letter which was said to be returned from Falkirk to Glas,
gow in an empty box, and identified  to be  in Mrs. Uj-e's hand-writing, states
that she  is with child to the person for whom  it was intended.  It is neither
signed nor addressed, but tlie exclamation, O  Granville !  is occasionally em-
ployed in it.'
  4 The letter from Mrs. Ure to Miss Pattison merely requests her Brother's ad-
dress in Paris, for the information of a gentleman of her acquaintance,  The
address is simply Mr.  Pattison  in Paris, written in pencil.' "
  The above abstract of the testimony, furnished me by my agent, was the on-
ly one 1 could ever, until the  present, obtain of the evidence advanced in the
trial.  It was from this that I prepared my " Statement of Facts,"  several do-
cuments  from which are published in this " li^rii."

                     NATIONAL UBRAftfOF MEDICIUF

                            WASHINGTON, D. C. 
20
    Since I have obtained the copy of Dr. Chapman's pamphleta, T have studied
 ■with considerable attention aud care the depositions of the witnesses ; and 1 feel
 satisfied, that were I permitted with this single document, to plead my cause be-
 fore any assembly of gentlemen, that with it alone I would compel them to grant
 me a verdict, acquitting me even of the slightest indecorum.  There are some
 parts of it, the meaning of which I cannot even guess at.  We are told for in-
 stance,  in the petition of the pursuer, that particular acts of adultery were com-
 mitted " at the pursuer's sea-bathing quarters, at Fairlie near Largs, in June and
 July,"  1818.  Tlris is not stated merely pro forma, for the pursuer having stated
 some months in the beginning of the year, makes an  omission of the month of
 May, and then makes the assertion, that acts of adultery were committed dur-
 ing" the  months of June and July.  And condescends particularly on the situ-
 ation where these were committed.  I was in France from April until nearly
 the end of October, and I therefore  assuredly could  not be the guilty person
 stated to have committed these acts of adultery.  Again, acts of adultery are said
 to have  been committed at Edinburgh,  in the house of Douglas, Taylor in Car-
 negia-street; and with the view of proving this, the names of Douglas, hi9 wife
 and their servant, are all entered on the list of witnesses.   Their names would
 cen ainly not have been mentioned, had they not possessed tlie power to prove
 the tact of fin adultery with Mrs. Ure andsojne person ; and that I was not that
 person,  will I think be admitted,  when it is observed that their evidence is not
 called for in the proof, which is led with the vi"ew of obtaining the divorce for
 acts of adultery, asserted to have been committed by me.  I merely  call  Th-
 reader's attention to these facts at present, hereafter I shall perhaps take occa-
 sion to reason upon them.                                           »
   The evidence may with propriety be divided into two parts:—1st, The facts
 testified to by the witnesses, who had no interest in the result  of the trial:
 and secondly, The proof furnished  either directly or  indirectly by the defen-
 der herself.
   The  only witnesses who furnish the first class of evidence are the two ser-
 vants, Agnes Sydeserf and Jean Lindsay, who were living at tlie time the cri-
 minal intercourse is asserted tohave been carried  on, in the  house with Dr.
 and Mrs. Ure. To their examinations I would particularly call the attention of
 my reader, and I think he will, after a careful and attentive examination of
 them, admit that they, if divested of the presumptive colouring and support
 which is given to them by the second division of the evidence which was furnish-
 ed, either directly or indirectly by Mrs. Ure, that  they in  fact do not contain
 one tittle  of evidence which  might not be brought against the character the
 •most upright and honourable member of society; who, without any suspicion
 of a conspiracy against his reputation, was in the habit of visiting intimately
 and familiarly in a family.
   In every case of mm. con. which has ever been tried, where the parties were
 really guilty, it has been almost invariably by the testimony  of  the servants
 residing in the family,  that the paramour has been found guilty.  They,  from
 their, situation, must necessarily,  if such a connexion existed, bring forward
 damning proof as to the fact; but here the servants' evidence, if properly un-
 derstood, is altogether exculpatory.   When interrogated, as to whether  they
 ever observed any derangement in the furniture of the room after my visits,
 or whether during them, they ever head any noise, they answered in the ne-
 gative.
   Another important fact to be carried in recollection is, that these examina-
 tions were wholly ex parte—that the person who interrogated them was Mr.
 Prentice, the agent for the pursuer, and that  of consequence he would be O.v
 sirous so to lead the questions, as to support  the action of his client, and that
 there was no counsel employed by  Mrs. Ure to destroy or counteract  this.
 That he did so, and gave them a bearing inconsistent with the truth, I trust I
 shall be able satisfactorily to prove.
  GreaJ:  weight is evidently  given in the evidence of the servants, to a story
 about my having called for the key of the institution,  &c. &c.  (See page 11.)
 and the  inference directly drawn from  this  is, that  this story furnished un-
questionable proof of a criminal understanding betwixt Mr>. Ure and myself. 
1*1
That my calling for the key of the institution was a mere excuse—that my trofc
object was to concert  a meeting with Mrs. Ure in the institution buildings—
that she, haying given me a wrong key, might by telling the servants that she
had done  so, leave  home without suspicion, by  simply stating that she was
going to carry me the right one.  Now from the following letter, it will be prov-
en that  when I went for the key, I was accompanied by Mr. Scott the archi-
tect, that he remained at the door of Dr. Ure's house, until I went -in and ob-
tained the key—that I did not remain longer than was required to go and re-
turn—that the key was discovered to be a wrong one, and that Mrs. Ure came
shortly afterwards to the institution with the right one. Had Mrs. Ure mention-
ed tome, in giving me the wrong key,  that  her object was to have  a meeting
with me in the institution,  which she most certainly would have done had any
guilty connexion existe^between us, my informing her of the  fact that Mr.
Scott was with me,  and waiting for me at the door, would assaredly have put a
stop to such an intention,

                                          Glasgow,  20th Mabcu, 1819.
Mb. Granviixe Pattison,
    Sir,
      I recollect particularly of you calling on me, about the end of March ot
beginning of April  last, (previous to my making  sketches of plans for the in-
tended Andersonian College,) to go  with you to examine the present building,
to see the elevation and width of the seats, &c. &c. that you called at Dr. Ure's
house for.the key;  that I waited your coming down,  which was not longer than
to have-gone and returned; that the key intended for the entry-door wa.> ;iot
the right one; after repeatedly trying all the keys we had,  to open the door,
we requested James Gillan, Mr. Gordon's shop-man, to look at the* keys and
see if he could open the door; it was concluded there was some mistake; you
immediately went across the street intending to proceed to Dr. Ure's house;
that Mrs.  Ure met you before you turned the corner of John-street Church,
carrying another key in her hand,  which after trying, was found to be the right
one; that on seeing the door opened, Mrs. Ure immediately went away with.
out entering the premises ; that we staid some time in the place, and that we
came away together without your returning to Dr. Ure's house at that time.
                                       I am, Sir, Your's, &c.
                                                      JOHN SCOTT.
  That my visit for the key, was an  innocent one, will I think now be admits
ted,  and this being granted, it is worthy of remark, how the most innocent act
may  be so distorted by the misconceptions of a witness, and by a law; , r, leading
the questions, as to put on the semblance and character of a guilty one.  The ser-
vant  depones that when Mrs. Lire told her she was going to the institution with
the key for Mr. Pattison, that she was very much agitated, "she looked flurried and
not as usual," and again she depones  " we the servants knew that Dr.  Pattison
had a key of the institution, as one of the surgeons who lectured there."   Now
two facts are here sworn to which are inconsistent with  truth,  Mrs. Ure could
not be flurried when she went out with the key, as I  have  proved that there
could be no  intention of a meeting, and at tlris time I had no key of the institu-
tion.   I had-only been elected aprofessor in it about a month before, and did
not lecture in the buildings of the institution, until the following session.  The
fact  that I had no key at this time need not rest on my own testimony—Air.
Scott's letter,  written to me in answer to certain  queries,  proves it beyond
question, for if 1  had had  a key, what object could I have  had in taking that
gentleman to Dr. Ure's house to ask for one.  From these observations it will, I
trust be admitted, that had the evidence of the servants even gone to state very
suspicious circumstances, which it does not, that still nothing short of their swear-
ing to the fact ought to have the effect  of injuring my  reputation.  The wit,
aesses from Falkirk swear,  that 1 called once on Mrs, Ure wkei; residing there^ 
22
 This is certainly a fact, from which no criminating inference can be drawn.
 It will be borne in mind,  as I have  already explained, how Mrs. Ure con-
 trived to have  an interview with  me  as  I  passed through Falkirk in my
 way to Glasgow, and as this was my direct way home, and as I was necessa-
 rily  detained  there for an hour and an half, the Edinburgh stage  arriving
 at $ past 11 o'clock, and the Canal boat not leaving Falkirk until 1 o'clock,
 and having no suspicions it is not to  be supposed 1 would have refused to make
 this visit. In fact my making the call tends to prove my innocence, for as I must
 have known, if guilty, the object of Mrs. Ure's removal from Glasgow ; it is
 not to be believed that I would,  with this knowledge, have called in open day
 on Mrs. Ure and " walked in a garden with" her.
   The Only part of the evidence therefore,  which appears to criminate me, is
 the second class,—that furnished either directly or^indirectly by  Mrs. Ure.
 The monstrous  absurdity, if she had actually been guilty of adultery with
 me, that she would herself have come forward and furnished her husband with
 the  only evidence which could tend to support the divorce, must startle and
 confound every candid man who looks at  the evidence.   I am certainly en-
 titled to the privilege possessed by the lowest member of society, to be con-
 sidered innocent until  I shall have been proved to have been  guilty.   Throw
 aside Mrs. Ure's most unnatural testimony,  and my  character is cleared from
 all suspicion.   Her testimony,  if J had ever been guilty of adultery with
 her, she most  certainly never  would have  furnished.   But, had Mrs. Ure
 been differently situated, had  she been simply in the relation of a witness,
 and not the  defender in the  action,  still, I  would insist that her evidence was
 not entitled to the weight of a feather, when it went to criminate a.respecta-
 ble character.   The most infamous letter addressed to her by her husband, of
 which I published a facsimile  copy, proves  her to have been a woman des-
 titute of all  principle and qualified for the perpetration of  any  act of abandon-
 ment; when she finds herself deceived by her husband as to certain promis-
 es made to her,  she sends in her reclaiming petition, where she herself states
 under the sanction of a. most awful oath, that she was innocent of  the adultery
 with which she was charged, &c. &c. (See page 32.)—when again under the
 control and  direction  of her husband, she  withdraws this petition, which if
 supported must have removed the sentence of divorce, and some months after--
 wards she is induced by Dr. Ure's bribes and threats to give a writing under her
 hand,  which was neither more nor less  than  an  affidavit that the letter I had
 published was a forgery, an affidavit which placed my life in jeopardy ;—and
finally, she comes forward  and  makes to my agent a spontaneous  confession,
 that she  had been guilty of this perjury.  Was it remorse  it may be enquired,
 which induced her to  make this confession ? Not at all,  she  comes forward
 spontaneously with her confession,  because,  as  she  herBelf states in it, the
 bribes made have  not been  paid,  nor are they likely  to be realised.  If
 the  evidence of a woman whose character is thus proved to have been the
 most infamous,  alone  and unsupported, is to be received, however strong,
 against character, the most virtuous and honorable member of society is not
 safe.   That my character remained  unblemished, and that it had never been
 charged with the slightest indecorum, is abundantly proved by the fact, that
 Dr.  Chapman,  with  all his  agencies and exertions, has been unable to rake
 up a single peccadillo  against it, and that such a character should be  allow-
 ed to be injured by so  infamous a couple as Dr, Ure and his wife, or their ve-
ry suitable representative in  this country, Dr, Chapman, is contrary to every
principle of  justice.  But 1 shall not content myself with resting  my acquittal
on the  fact, that there is no evidence adduced in the proof which tends even to
throw suspicion upon my character,  except  what isfuruished either directly or
indirectly by Mrs. Ure, but I shall demonstrate it from the  contradictions and
absurdities, which that evidence itself involves.  Mrs. Mary Park, a woman of co\
lour, swears that Mrs. Ure told her when she paid a visit to her in Edinburgh, that
I was the father of her child;  this proves nothing more than that Mrs. Ure said
so, and the absurdity of this confession will at once be admitted, when it is
remarked to have only been made the 2nd December, 1818,  (See proceedings
p. 17.) and when turning to the letter adduced in proof and said to  have been 
2?
written by Mrs. Ure to the said Mrs. Mary Park, and bearing date the 23rd Octo-
ber, 1818, (Sec p, 20.) it is clearly proved that Mrs. Park was all along privy to
the asserted cause of separation betwixt Dr. and Mrs. Ure.   Another absurdity
which every  sensible  man  must perceive  this confession involves, is Mrs.
Ure's assuming to  herself the knowledge that I was  the father of her child.
It is admitted that at the period of the conception of this child, Dr. and Mrs.
Ure were living together in all the intimacies  of the married state, had she
therefore at the same time been carrying on an intrigue  with another man,
still she could not  have  pretended to say that her child  was his offspring,
more than that it was the offspring of her husband.
  All the remaining testimony is furnished directly by Mrs. Ure herself, the
nominal defender  in the action.  It consists of a copy of a letter which she
sent to her husband from Falkirk, and a letter which she wrote Mrs. Mary Park
from  Edinburgh, and my address in Paris written by Miss Pattison with a pencil.
  We shall consider these documents in order,  and first the copy of the letter
which is asserted to have been  the copy of one sent  to me.   It is sworn to
be  in Mrs. Ure's hand writing, and is dated the 14th August, 1818.  This let-
ter has evidently been written ad captandum,- but a more awkward and clum-
sy piece of evidence has never been introduced into a  court of justice.   I
would ask, can tlie absurd supposition be for a  moment entertained, tii.if thia
letter was truly and honestly written with the intention of being sent to me ?—
is it to be credited that a woman situated as Mrs. Ure is represented to have
been  " hiding herself from her friends," as she  expresses herself in the letter,
and  " concealing the situation she was in," that she would ha^ e made a copy of
a letter which contained a confession of her shame and infamy;  or if she had
been so illiterate,  which is contradicted by the style  of the letter, as to re-
quire to make a copy, that  she would not have immediately here destroyed
it?   But  there is  another  gross absurdity involved in  this letter:  we  are
told, first, in  evidence,' fsee Dr. Ure's petition, p. 2.J " That Mrs. Ure her-
self," prior to the  1st of August, 1818, " confessing her guilt, and stating that
she was with child from an adulterous intercourse, she was  dismissed the society
of the pursuer and his family, and had since been maintained and supported under
false names and obscure lodgings in an adulterous manner at Falkirk,"  &c. &c.
and again, at p. 7 we are told, "that the defender,  being in an unhappy state
of mind, made a confession of her guilt by said letter, (dated 14th August,) .
and that she sent the pursuer a copy of said letter.  It must strike e > ery reader
that this statement cannot be consistent with truth, for we are first informed
that Mrs. Ure,  having before the 1st of August,  made a confession of her guilt,
was dismissed the society and family of the pursuer; and again  it is stated, that
this confession was made by Mrs. Ure, sending the pursuer the  copy of a letter
falsely asserted to have been sent to me ; and which, as it bears date the 14th
of August, could not consequently have been received until sometime after the
defender had  " been dismissed the family of the pursuer."   I shall be  excused
calling my reader's attention more particularly to the absurdities which this
statement involves.
   Supposing for a moment,  that an improper connexion had existed  betwixt
me and the defender, Dr. Ure, to come to a knowledge of it, must liave had
some evidence of it.  It appears on evidence, that I left Glasgow for Paris the
5th of April, 1818; and  that Dr. Ure entertained no suspicion of me up to the
day of my departure, is rendered evident from my visits being continued up to
that  date ; and from Dr. Ure's living with his  wife at that time,  and for four
mouths afterwards,  in all the intimacies of  the married  state. When 1 had left
Glasgow, the or.ly possible way in which the pursuer could come to the know-
ledge of my g. dt, still going on the supposition that I was guilty, was, through
the medium of a correspondence, or by a confession.  That there was no corres-
  fmndence, is proved by the fact, that this is neither produced nor referred to-
  t may be said, that his finding my address at Paris in an old trunk of the defen-:
 der,  was what first made Dr. Ure suspicious; but this idea is immediately con-
tradicted; for, in referring to the eviilcii-e, (see ;;. 19,) it will be seen^that
 tl :^ address was not discovered  until after the action  had been commenced.
 Prewtice  fur the pursm ■»• stated on the 26lh January, 1819,  " that since last diet ^ 
of court, the  pursuer had discovered in an old trunk of the defender's in his
house, a note holograph of the defender's," enquiring my address in Paris, &.c.
&.c.  It is hardly necessary to reason on the absurdity of Mrs.  Ure's making a
confession.  Is it to be for a moment believed,  that she,  living and cohabiting
with her husband,  who could not in relation to me entertain any suspicion of
her, would come  spontaneously forward and  make confession of her guilt f
Mrs. Ure was not at a period  of life, she was 34 years of age, the mother of
several  children, and married for 12 years, that it would have been possible
for her to have been led from the path of virtue, by the seductions of a villain.
If she had been guilty, Iter's must have been a delibeiate act of abandonment,
and consequently it is not to be believed that when no ground of suspicion ex-
isted, she would have made a spontaneous confession of  her guilt to her hus-
band.  But even allowing what is most positively contradicted by the letter of
Dr. Ure, of which  1 published  a facsimile copy,  that her feelings were natu-
rally piire and chaste, and that from an horror and repugnance  of the crime she
had committed, she was led to make a confession of her  guilt to her husband,
why would slie, after having done  so, write the copy of the letter which was
asserted to have been intended for me ? The truth is, this copy of the letter is
a mere link in the  chain of the conspiracy.  The letter in all  probability was
written  by Dr. Ure himself,  and afterwards copied by his wife,, and was never
intended either to  have been sent to me or any other person.   But the single
object of its composition and preservation was, that it might be introduced as
evidence into court.  But as it was  necessary to support the idea that the origi-
nal of the copy was sent to me,  Mrs Ure goes  to the Post-office with a letter,
and that she may have a witness, she takes the servant of  the lodgings with her,
she shows her a letter, (elh her it is for France,  and not content with this, she
quarrels with the Post-Master about the price, tells him she did not pay so much
in Glasgow, which must have been false, as the inland postage is the same on
all foreign letters sent from Scotland; and lastly, to give her husband sufficient
proof that a letter  for France was put in the Post-office, she no sooner returns
home than she tells her landlady that she had been at the office  with a letter for
France: and  although this is supposed to have been.the letter, of which the
copy is introduced  in evidence, and which begins, " With a mind overwhelmed
with grief, and a breaking heart," yet the landlady informs us, that having re-
turned from *'ie sorrowful duty of putting this melancholy epistle in the Post-
office, that this  lady with the broken  hcqrt sat down and began to joke and
laugh with the servant  about the Post-office adventure.  " They,  (Mrs. Ure
and servant,)  were lauglung and talking about  the defender's quarrel with the.
Post-Master," &.c.   (See p. 28.)
  One of the strongest presumptive evidences furnished in support of my sup-
posed guilt, is the  fact which both the pursuer and defender are most desirous
to assume, viz :■—That after Mrs Ure was dismissed the family of the pursuer,
that she was maintained  and supported by me.  When a  person reads without
attention the testimony, they are apt, from both  parties making this assertion, tu
suppose that  the fact was proved.   But of this it will be found there is not a
tittle of evidence ;  on the contrary, there is the most positive proof that it was
not so.   If I had supported and maintained Mrs. Ure at Falkirk and Edinburgh,
as Dr. Ure assumes in his petition, (see p. 2)  1 must have supplied her with
money; now  I could only do this in one of two  ways, either  by enclosing it in
a letter,  or by sending it by my agent.   Had it been sent in the former way,
as it is  evident Mrs. Ure was willing to furnish Dr.  Ure  with proof, from her
giving up to  him the copy of letter, &c. &c. my letter  enclosing the  money
Would most certainly have been delivered to him, and exhibited in evidence.
Or if my agent hud call- i on Mrs. Ure with money,  she knowing who he was,
he would have been subpa-naed on the trial as a witness.  It may, however, be
said, that there was evidence furnished in proof,  as to Mrs. Ure's having been
supported by me-that my agent provided the lodgings for her in Edinburgh.
But I would enquire how is this proved ? Exactly as every thing else in the tri-
al, by the assertion of Mrs.  Ure. In her letter  to Mrs: Mary Park,  she states
that a Mr. B: had provided lodgings for her in Edinburgh—" that he was most
attentive," and that " ho brought her supplies of books," and that lie was a 
25
most " gentlemanly lad."  Now if Mr. Burn, my agent, is intended by this Mr.
B. as it is wished to be believed, it is very remarkable that he should be called
a "gentlemanly lad,-"  a Scoticism which conveys the idea of a youth  not yet
entered the age of manhood.   Mr. Burn,  my agent, is a most respectable gen-
tleman, betwixt 30 and 40 years of age,  and could not therefore be designated
as a " gentlemanly lad."  But let this stand as it will, whoever was intended by
the "gentlemanly lad,"  who took the lodgings and brought books to them,
must have been known to the landlady ;  and if she could have proved, as she
certainly could have done,  who the  person was who took the lodgings and
brought books to them, her evidence would no doubt have been called for in
court, provided it would have gone to establish the fact, that this was my friend.
It will be observed, that Mr. Burn and Mrs. Ure's landlady in Edinburgh, are both
entered in the list of witnesses affixed to the summons served on the defender,
and as the  pursuer had the power to subpcena both of these persons to furnish
evidence, it is certain that he would not have neglected to have done so,  had
he  not  been  persuaded,  that  they   staing  the   truth, their  e idence
would  have gone against the action for the divorce.  That my friend  and
agent was anxious to come forward as a witness,  is proved by his letter, refer-
red to in this reply, and we  have  from this the most satisfactory proof, that
what he had to say must have been exculpatory.
  Another e< idence, that there was an  intention by  this letter to enforce the
belief, that Mrs. Ure was living under my protection in Edinburgh, is the  re-
quest that she makes Mrs. Park, to enclose her letters to  Mr. B. She, howe-
ver,  very inad ertently  pro* es, that those letters which were really intended
to be written to her, would require her  real address, for she in another sen-
tence of her letter says, " Address to me at Mr. James Brown's, Wright, No. 2,
Arthur street."   This very particular address would certainly not have been re-
quired, had the letters been addressed under cover to a person who was seeing
her daily.  But it is unnecessary to  go on reasoning on this subject.   Dr. Ure
himself furnishes  us with evidence, that his wife  at Falkirk at lea»,  was main-
tained and supported under false names by himself.  Agnes Bl.uh, (see p. 25.)
ilrjoues, " That Mrs. Ure came to deponent's house in Falkirk,  on the 12th of
August, 1818, accompanied by Dr.  Ure,  the pursuer ; and that  HE  then took
lodgings for her under the name of Mrs. CAMPBELL."   This fact,  therefore,
contradicts most positively the assertion which Dr. Ure makes in his petition—
that his wife, having made a confession of her guilt was dismissed his society,
and supported at Falkirk by me ;  and as there is  not one tittle of proof adduc-
ed, that I supported her in Edinburgh, it is but reasonable to infer that she was
there likewise, supported by her husband.  Mrs. Ure thus addresses Mrs. Park
in the letter we are now considering:—" I know not how I am to write to my
husband."  That this could not be the genuine sentiment of Mrs. Ure will be
proved, when it is recollected that it was her husband who himself took her to
Falkirk ;  and more positively,  when the infamous letter of Dr. Ure to  his wife,
of date the 12th of October, 1818, is read,  which proves beyond all question,
that the understanding betwixt Dr. Ure and his wife, after their separation was
perfect; and that they still continued to correspond on the most familiar terms
  1 feel that  I should be fatiguing my reader, were 1 to dwell  longer on the
absurdities and insonsistencies which the evidence adduced in support of the
prosecution presents.  I feel persuaded that no man  who has the capacity to
reason  or think,  will be able to go over it. without coming to the conclusion^
that in no single particular can it be supposed to criminate me.
  It will be allowed,  that all that species of evidence which invariably is adduc-
ed in support of a criminal connexion, is in this case  wanting.   The  servants
proved nothing; and although we have had sufficient evidence that Mrs. Ure
kept carefully every scrap of paper which could tend in the slightest degree
to criminate me,  and delivered them to her husband, not a  single Billet-doux,
nor letter of mine have been introduced into the proof.   Is it not customary
when a man seduces a woman, for him to commit himself in this way by writing
letters, making appointments, ? &c.  &c.  Yet in this proof, although Mn. Ure
did all in her power to support her husband, not one si!>;.:V iCi-;ip of ; a[>cv,
with my hand writing upon it is introduced.  Is it to be be-hsved,  that had I
                                   4 
26
 actually been engaged in a connexion of that kind with Mrs. Ure, that I would
 not before setting off for Paris,  have made arrangements for carrying on a cor-
 respondence during my absence ?   Is it to  be  credited that I should not have
 furnished myself 'my  mistress with my address in Paris ?  Such gross absurdities
 cannot be got rid of, and force  the conviction that I was, to use the language
 employed by Mr. Walker, in his letter written from Glasgow,  at the time when
 all the facts of the affair were fresh before the public, made " the dupe of a foul
 conspiracy."
  As what has been already said proves that this divorce was obtained through
 a conspiracy, and by the collusion  of Dr. and Mrs. Ure, it will be unnecessary
for me to dwell long on this division of my subject, 1  shall indeed only give
an analysis of  the proof which was adduced in  support of the  prosecution,
being persuaded that tlris will be quite sufficient  to enforce the demonstration
 with every intelligent reader.
                                ANALYSIS.

   Mr. Pattison in the habit of visiting with Dr. and Mrs. Ure leaves Glasgow on
 the 5tli  April  1818, at which  time no suspicion  eaisied with Dr.  Ure that he
 had been engaged in an intrigue with Airs. Ure;  both the pursuer and defen-
 der in the action of divorce living at that time and continuing for four months after-
 wards, in all the intimacies of the married state.  In the beginning  of the month
 of August Mrs. Ure, it is said, when there could have existed no suspicion of her
 having been engaged in a criminal connexion with Mr. Pattison,  came forward
 and made a corfession of her  guilt to her husband who very politely took  her
 himself to Falkirk, a small town on the direct road betwixt Glasgow and Edin-
 burgh where he provided lodgings for herunder the name oi'Mrs. Campbell, that
 after she had remained two  days there,  not satisfied with the confession she
 had made her husband, which if sincere and honest, must ha' e determined her
 hever  again to  think  of  her paramour she  wrote a letter  or  rather  the
 copy of letter which contained  a confession  of her guilt  to her paramour,
 beseeching him to prevent her  shame from being discovered,  &c. &c.  and
 sends to her husband the copy of this letter avowedly written for the purpose of
 adopting some plan to conceal her shame.   Mrs. Ure aware that  Mr. Pattison
 must pass  through Edinburgh,  on his way home from Paris,   requests an
 acquaintance  to beg him to call on her  as he passed through Falkirk, the
 place of her concealment,  which had been most conveniently and  judiciously
 fixed in a small town on the direct road betwixt Edinburgh and Glasgow ,• and
 one through which Mr. Pattison would pass  on his way  home to the latter place.
 Mr.  Pattison  having called,  Mrs. Ure  requested  him to take  a walk in a
 garden  with her, in order that her land-lady, and some of her neighbours might
 have an opportunity of identifying his person.   Mi-s.  Ure having accomplished
 this, leaves Falkirk immediately afterwards, goes to Edinburgh, where she ad-
 dresses a letter to Mrs. Mary Park, a woman of colour, with  confessions  of  her
 shame—and not content with this written confession, she has the woman of colour
 conveyed to Edinburgh, where she tells her, most pointedly that  Mr. Pattison
 is the father of her  child.
  The action of divorce is commenced the 2nd December, 1818, no resistance
 is  made by the defender, on the  contrary she  does all she can to assist the
 pursuer.  She comes  obligingly when requested into court and exhibits herself to
 the witnesses to save them trouble in identifying her person, £3c. &c.
  Dr. Ure meets Mr. Pattison on  his return  from Paris as he had been wont
to do, before his departure from Glasgow ; all politeness, attends frequently at
Mr. Pattison's .ectures, and up till the day when the sentence of divorce was pass-
ed exhibits in his  demeanor to .Mr. Pattison, a line  of conduct which no man
could show to a person whom he considered the destroyer  of his peace.  Finally
Mr. Pattison is kept most sedulously both by the pursuer and defender, in ig-
norance of the proceedings of the divorce, until after the action is finished.
Such is the evidence, and all the criminating evidence, as was before stated, has  *,
been furnished either directly or indirectly, by the nominal defender m the ac-  ' 
27
lion.  It will be admitted that nothing is said by the servants, but what might
be said against any gentleman who was in the habit of visiting frequently and
familiarly in a family,  and consequently their evidence is wholly exculpatory,
for the belief  cannot for  a  moment be entertained,  that if Mr.  Pattison Lad
been engaged in  a criminal connexion with  Mrs. Ure, they would not havs
been able to furnish unequivocal and certain proof  of it.   The fact which is
therefore, abundantly proved that the only evidence furnished on the trial, was
furnished  by  the defender herself, is proof  positive of the collusion.  For
where is the woman to be found, who, if she did not collude with her husband
for particular reasons and purposes, would when no suspicion existed against
her reputation, come spontaneously forwards, to proclaim her own sham?, dis-
grace, and infamy.
  The question  cui bono, is naturally suggested :  What could have induced
Mrs. Ure to  collude with her husband, when by her collusion her own character
was \ i suffer?  It is not to be expected that I can pretend to divine or explain
the reasons  which induced Mrs. Ure to act as she has done in this affair.  All
that can be expected from me, is to vindicate my own character ;  and this I am
persuaded I have most  satisfactorily done.  But I  may state that a rational
theory, at least, may be offered as explanatory of Mrs.  Ure's conduct,  the data
of which are supplied by the evidence. Mrs-. Ure is accused of having commit-
 ted particular acts of adultery during the months of June and July, at Fairlie,
near Largs—which acts of  adultery must have been committed by some other
person than Mr. Pattion, as he was at that time living in Paris.   Now we may
suppose thai Dr.  Ure, did at that time, discover that his wife was engaged in a
criminal connexion with some servant, or some inferior  persons ;  and thus pos-
s. - n.,  evidence, which would have convicted her of an act of adv 1 ery with said
peis'M, de had induced her to agree to go into a  plan which  might place Mr.
Pali'son, who had visited familiarly in the family, in such suspicious circumstan-
 ces as would enable him to obtain the divorce in his name,  as this would not be
so disgraceful, and damages might possibly be obtained.  At the same time he
guarded against a failure,  by stating the acts of adultery, regarding whicii he
 possessed proof;  and which if the Commissaries had refused the divorce for
 the alleged adultery, said to ha.e been committed by Mr.  Pattison,  b.z could
 not have failed to obtain the divorce in the name of the actual paramour.
   These observations are merely offered as a  probable explanation of Mrs.
 Ure's conduct.   The pub lick are as well qualified as  I  am, to judge of their
 eorrectness.  It will by all,  be admitted that it is not more difficult to explain
 the reasons which could have induced Mrs. Ure to  collude with her husband,
 than to give a rational explanation of the causes, which could induce a woman,
 possessing a respectable character, to come spontaneously forward, and when
 neither her husband nor the world, entertained any  suspicion of her conduct,
 to proclaim, her shame and infamy.
   As all the allegations which Dr. Chapman  made in the 1st edition of  his
 " correspondence," were  most satisfactorily and triumphantly  refuted in my
 " refutation ;" which was published in  answer to it, it will be unnecessary
 for me now to enter again  on  an exposition  of the falsity of the calumnies,
 which are contained in that publication.   1 shall  confine myself to a very few-
 observations on the notes, which he has added to the 2nd edition of his " cor-
 responhunce," and first, Dr. Chapman affirms, in several  of his notes, that I
 made assertions in my Refutation, which  are not to be found there.  One  ex-
 ample will  be sufficient to prove tlie truth of this,  in a note to page 33rd,  of
 " Correspondence," he states,  " it cannot have escaped the recollection of the
 reader of Mr. Pattison's pamphlet, how artfully he attempts to fix upon mc,
 the character of  a professed duellist, and of a turbulent and sanguinary charac-
 ter."  Now this  is really too bad,  to  accuse me of an attempt  to exhibit Dn.
 Nathaniel Chapman, as a Professed Dvellist, and as a Sanguinary Charac-
 ter.  1 declare seriously upon my honour, I never entertained such an opinion
 in relation  to Dr. Chapman, and how he can possibly think, that I was desir-
 ous in my " Refutation" to picture him to the public as Such, is beyond the pow-
 er of my comprehension to divine.  But let the reader judge for himself.   It
 my pamphlet be turned to,  it will be  observed that I published in it the Post, 
28
which I put up in Philadelphia, when he refused to render me the satisfaction
I hail demanded, and if the terms of tlris Post be examined,  it will be seen that
1 proclaimed Nathaniel Chapman, M. 1). as a " Liar," a " Scoitndhkl," and a
" Coward," and surely tlris is not an artful attempt to fix on him, the imputation
of a " Professed Duellist," and" Saniuiwaiiv Character."  1 have no hesi-
tation in  admitting, that Dr  Chapman  is the very  last man  living,  who
on "ht to have such imputations fixed on his character.  I consider him, so far
as relates to fighting, to  be perfectly  harmless,  and  that the public may be
satisfied that I am not too liberal in my admission on this subject,  I would beg
leave to state, that this opinion of his character, has  not  been formed singly
from the manner in which he conducted himself in relation to me, but that it
has been strengthened and confirmed by the meekness and humility, with which
he twfo months  ago, submitted to  severe  chastisement bestowed  upon him,
for  his falsehoods and insolence, bv  Dr.  Hall of Philadelphia.   Although the
Professor of  the Practice of Physick, seems very  much alarmed at the idea,
that 1 shall misrepresent his true character, and endeavour to make the public
believe that he is a man  of courage ;  still  he appears exceedingly jealous of
my reputation on the score of fighting, and seems determined  to destroy it.
If,  he demands in a note, Mr. Pattison  was really so fond of fighting, why
did he not meet Drs. Horner or Gibson.  He knew well that a man of my con-
sequence could not  condescend to meet him, but either of my friends would have
done him that favour, if he had asked them.  I shall myself answer these que-
ries.  Dr. Chapman mistakes my character very  much if  he  supposes 1  am
emulous to be considered a " man of war," I  am not at all fond of fighting,
and most certainly  shall never engage in a duel, unless  I  am compelled to  it.
With Dr.  Horner,  I had no quarrel, I knew that  individual indeed, only as a
well behaved inoffensive young man.  I heard it is true, after I had posted Dr.
Chapman,  and when 1  was  arrested  by his  brother-in-law,  on  account
of  the  challenge,  and  taken to  the court-house, that he came in and told
Mr. Webster, that  if I had wished to fight, he would have fought me.  Mr.
Webster's reply that lie could not expect me to fight him, as  [ knew very lit-
tle  about him, and had never spoken of him either in terms of praise or censure,
was the only answer 1 conceived such a boyish remark required.   It would have
really been an unheard of piece  of condescension, if I had gone out to the
field with every young man, the professor could persuade to agree to fight ine.
As to Dr. Gibson,  my controversy with lrim was purely scientific, our weapons
were pens, and 1 believe the Professor of Surgery will confess, that 1 have
fought him to his heart's content.*   One word more on the subject and I have,
done.   Dr. Chapman appears, now that he has been posted, and consequently
deprived of all title to expect to be called on to fight, to  insult without hesita-
tion—for lconceiv that both Drs. Gibson and  ilorner must consider themselves
very much insulted, in being told by him,  as they are, that although Mr. Pat-
tison is  a very unworthy character, and one whom no  gentleman can fight,
still he is quite good enough for either of them to be engaged in an affair of ho-
nour with.
   That Dr. Chapman 's regardless of all evidence,  and repeats his false calum-
nies in opposition to the most positive and direct proof, is abundantly proved
by his publishing in the second edition of his correspondence, all the statements
which  had been disproved  by my Refutation.   I shall however quote a few
passages from the notes, to convince my reader that he is a man  so shameless,
as to publish his "facts"  in despite of all testimony.  In theTirst edition of his
correspondence, he asserts,  that to " resist the clamour  raised against" me, I
was banished from my native city, and that 1 went to London, where " / linger-
ed  a few weeks," ill the hope of being able to do something with the view of
gaining a livelihood, but finding that I could  not succeed, " after lingering a,
few weeks," I embarked for America. Now if my Refutation be turned to, it will
'be  observed, that  by Dr. Barclay's letter, dated Edinburgh the 19th, 1819,
it is proved that 1 did not leave Glasgow until the day before,  more than three
months after the publication of the divorce, and that I did so on account of
the letter of  invitation  written  me  by Dr. Dewees, which assured me " that
* See  Postscript to  my second  edition  of my  " Answer," 
29
were I on the spot  mt, election would be certain" to the Anatomical  chair  in
Philadelpli a, and that 1 was not  banished from  Scotland, Dr. Barclay's letter
most unequivocally proves, for it alludes particularly to the divorce in the fol-
lowing passage, " even he too has had his enemies and opnonents,  who have
been active and indefatigable, and who not being able to depreciate his pro-
fessional talents and acquirements, have tried to censure the correctness of hi*
conduct in point of morals, and  to convict him  of some gallantries.   The im-
pression, however, they have made is confined to their own party.   And he-
has openly repelled the charge,  and in  such a manner that the blow they in-
tended for him,  is now recoiling on  their own heads, by which means it has
neither diminished the number of his former friends, nor darkened his future pros-
pects  were he  to return."   (Refutation p. 39.)  In my refutation, J further
proved  that 1 only arrived in London  on the 24th of May, and as I sailed from
Liverpool in the Packet Courier on the 1st of June,  it was necessary for irie
to leave London on the evening of the 28th May, so that so far from " lingering
therefor a few weeks," as Dr. Chapman asserted, it is evident that I only re-
mained there for five  days.  " During the short period of my stay there,"" as J
observed in my refutation, " the  attentions I received were of a most gratifying
character.   I was visited by  Sir James M'Gregor, Sir Wm. Adams, Messrs.
Astley Cooper,  Wadrop, Travers, Lawrence, &c.  Sec. and received from all
of them warm letters of  introduction to distinguished characters in the United
States ; and meeting accidentally in the  city, Mr. Stirling of Glasgow, a man
of the first honour and respectability, and a gentleman who is connected in
Philadelphia, I  received from him letters to Doctors Hare and Chapman, which
he read to me.   They were couched in the strongest language, and begged of
Dr. Hare  and the other individual to receive me with  attention and kindness,
and to introduce me to all their friends.  Having been honoured by being made
a Fellow of the Royal College  of Surgeons, and a member  of the Medico-
Chirurgical Society of London,  I left that city  on the 28th,  and early on the
morning of the 30th May an-ived at Liverpool, from wkich place I embarked
on the  following  day,  in  the packet ship Courier, bound for New-York."
The letters given me by the gentlemen above mentioned, which speak of me
in the handsomest terms, were  published in the refutation. They, with Dr.
Barclay's  letter, which was likewise published,  afforded incontrovertible evi-
dence that 1 left my own country with honour,  and that my stay in London did
not exceed Jive days, yet  Dr.  Chapman has had the audacity still to persist  in
his assertion, and adds in a note  in the new edition of  his correspondence, the
following observation.  " This is now put beyond the possibility of a doubt" (al-
ludingto his assertion that I had been driven with dishonour from Scotland, and
that I lingered for a few weeks in London attempting to gain a livelihood.)  " I have
lately been assured by Dr.  Dewees,  that he has seen a letter to  Mr. John  Pat-
tison, from a very near relation,  about the date of the receipt of his  brother's
recommendations, stating that in consequence of his amour -with Mrs.  Ure, he
had determined to quit Glasgow, and seek a settlement in London.   He does
so accordingly,  but not meeting  with encouragement,  he set sail for tlris coun-
try,  in the spirit of an adventurer, to try anew his fortune—and such is the
true history of his emigration."  As the documents published in my " Refuta-
tion," to establish the fact of my leaving home  honoured and respected," and
that my stay in Loudon did not exceed five days, were of such a character that
it was impossible to put aside the evidence they furnished of these facts, it is
unnecessary for me  to  show the  weakness of the testimony, on which Dr.
Chapman has the effrontery to assert, that his first calumny "is now put beyond
the possibility of a doubt."  I shall merely ask the question, can it be supposed
that if Mr. John Pattison did receive a letter,  such as Dr. Chapman on Dr.
 Dewees' authority asserts he did, that he would have been so regardless of his
own, and his brother's reputation, as to go and publish his brother's disgrace,
by showing this letter to a man, with whom he had but a very general acquaint-
ance, and one who was on very intimate terms with those men, who wished il
to be believed, that they had great power in influencing  the minds of the
gentlemen who had the gift in their hands, which Mr. Granville Sharp Pattison
was at the time anxious to obtain. 
40
  Again, the extracts of the letters written me by my brother from Philadel-
phia, on the subject of the professorship, and which were published in my
"Refutation," were all written  in  such a style as to  prove satisfactorily,
that he was averse to  my removal to  America.   He consequently  could not
feel very desirous that I should  succeed in my application.  Yet Dr. Chapman
in despite of the evidence which this and several other facts mentioned in my
"Refutation,"  furnished  on this subject,  gets  his  ever ready and  con-
venient  friend, Dr. Dewees, to assert that my brother was distressed beyond
measure at the little encouragement my claim received from Dr. Chapman, and
" conjured him to endeavour to enlist Dr. Chapman in my interest ! ! !"
  Dr. Chapman affirms that I liave been  guilty  of making certain  false
statements in my " Refutation ;" and solemnly denies the truth of them.  1
shall quote an example to  prove  that what I did state,  was literally true, and
that Dr. Chapman, in denying it, is guiltv of a  deliberate falsehood.  I had
asserted in my Refutation that when Dr. Chapman challenged Dr. Dewees he
had a family : Dr. Chapman accuses me of stating what I knew to be false,  and
observes, " Concerning  the  affair (challenge) with Dr. Dewees, I shall only
observe, that it happened fifteen or sixteen years ago, and that at the time he
was without  children."  Yet in  despite of this positive contradiction,  Dr.
Chapman must have known that my statement was consistent with truth,  li
is notorious in Philadelphia, that  this challenge was given on account of some
quai-rel  which had  occurred in regard to  the canvas, in which both parties
Avere engaged for the chair of midwifery, to which  Dr. James was appointed.
The election took place in the year 1811, at least 7 years after Dr.  Dewees
had been married to his second wife,  and when he had either two or three chil-
dren.
  The fact of Dr. Chalmers having  recalled the  letter he wrote in my fa-
vour  to  Dr.  Mason, immediately on the publication of the  divorce, although I
satisfactorily explained in my "  Refutation" the circumstances attending it, is
again brought forward and enlarged upon.  All I have now to repeat on that
subject  is, that this second letter of Dr  Chalmers to Dr Mason, was written
before I came before the public with my defence.  So soon as I did so, I have
most unequivocally proved, that all who heard it were convinced of my inno-
cence.  Dr. Chalmers had refused to suspend his judgment, and as I had, by
a note written immediately on my coming to a knowledge of the charge which
had been brought against my character, requested him to do so, I felt hurt by
his conduct, and very indifferent  about his  opinion, and most certainly never
would have received  from him any other letter of recommendation.  What
may have been his opinion en  the subject, on my leaving Glasgow, I have no
knowledge, and  will not therefore pretend to say.  All  I shall state is, that I
have never yet shewn my documents to any gentlemen who did not, whatever
may have been their previous sentiments, become  instantly convinced of my
innocence in relation to the charge inferred from the divorce.   That there may
even at this moment, be  persons in Scotland, wdio, having never heard any
statement from me, may believe that I was guilty of a criminal intercourse with
Mrs.  Ure,  is very  possible, but it is certain that I left  home honored  and
respected by the great mass of society,  and if Dr. Chalmers, or any other
individual, should be  doubtful  of ray innocence, the reading of this pamphlet
will, I trust, dispel from their minds all doubt on the subject.
  Dr. Chapman is very desirous  to exhibit Dr. Ure as a very good man,  and
one who is universally respected in Glasgow.  I stated in  my "Refutation" in
opposition to  tlris opinion, the fact, that he had only with difficulty been saved
from Botany Bay,  on  account of his hoving destroyed his father's will with the
view of defrauding his brothers  and 3isters of their patrimony.  This,  Dr.
Chapman, of course will not give credit to, and to convince his reader that it
is not so, and that all the charges 1 have brought against that man are false and
unfounded, he quotes a passage from a dedication letter addressed to Lord
Glasgow, appended to a  w-ork of Dr. Ure's.  That the fact in regard to the
will is correct, does not now rest upon my authority, as respectable a clergyman
as any in this  country, now residing  in  Baltimore, who was educated in  the
University of Glasgow,  was there when the affair about the will occurred, and 
31
is familiar with the fact.  And that Dr. Ure  was the  author of the most infa-
mous letter addressed to Mrs. Ure of date the  12th October, 1818, is now proved
beyond all question,  and consequently, even according to Dr. Chapman, he is
proved to be "the most consummate vllian in existence !"  That  many books
are dedicated to gentlemen  who despise the  characters  of their authors is
certain.  Dr. Chapman has himself,  it is known, after  having been guilty to
one  gentleman of the most  shameful deception, dedicated to nim, not, it is
true, a work of his own, but a London translation of a French work which he
edited, and having as it is stated, purloined the  subject  of his thesis from
the work of a most distinguished medical character,  he  has  had the audacity
to  dedicate  to him, a  work  of  which he  was merely the  editor.   Now,
as  these facts  arc not to be  controverted, and as there seems to be a twin
resemblance between Dr. Ure and Dr. Chapman, Dr. Ure's having dedicated his
work to the Earl of  Glasgow,  cannot certainly be considered as any proof that
he is a man of " great consideration and standing."
  There is a strong disposition in the author of these pamphlets to convince
his  reader  that my family were on very intimate terms with  Dr. Ure's.  Of
this, however,  there is no evidence—it was not  so.  I was the only member of
my family who  was in the habit of visiting familiarly at his house,  and when it
is recollected that 1 had just been  appointed a professor in the same institution
with him, it  was most»natural that I should  be anxious to restore by every
means in my  power, respectability to his character.
  As Dr. Chapman's pamphlets contain a kind of omnium gatherum of slander
and  defamation, he is not content with attacking my moral  character, but
makes a thrust at my professional reputation.  He even  goes the length of
observing in relation to the  controversy in which I was  engaged with Dr.
Gibson that,  " Totally unable to  sustain himself,  he is silent, &c."  Now, the
medical public from Maine to Georgia, are in  possession of the last publication,
which  appeared in that controversy, my " answer," &c. &c. audi believe that it
is universally admitted that the unfortunate  " Aristides,"  alias  Dr.  Gibson,
is prostrate, and " hors de combat."  As to review to which Dr. Chapman refers,
I would only observe, that when engaged in the controversy, I mentioned to
Dr. Elberle that I thought it very probable that Dr. Gibson would send a review
to  his  old  preceptor, Mr. Charles  Bell, for insertion in some of the British
Journals;  whether the  one referred to was manufactured in Philadelphia, as
I have no evidence  I  would  not pretend to say.  I will only remark that it
comes directly from the office of  Mr. Charles Bell, having been avowedly
written by his dissector, Mr. Shaw.  Dr. Gibson or Mr. Shaw being unwilling
to give me credit for my observations on Lithotomy, is no proof that they are
of no  value.   Another British  Journal which  has been  lately put  into my
hands  (The Medical Intelligencer) speaks in terms of high  commendation of
my essay, and  so satisfied  were they that the  Surgeons of Europe were not.
acquainted with the Anatomy and Pathology  of  the Prostate Fascia, that they
have gone to the very unusual expense  of ha. ing  engravings of my plates
entered in their periodical  publication for more  clearly illustrating the
subject.
  As to the other professional  charge (viz.)  that T  stated to  Dr. Physick that
I was  at once admitted a member of Societe Medicale D'Emulation,  without
undergoing the usual routine, and that this statement is proved to be false, I
will  answer, that it is  a pity for Dr. Chapman to  expose his ignorance of the
learned Societies of  Em-op c by his obser ations.   All I stilted  was strictly
true.  When I was  introduced by my friends Baron Larrey and Dr.  Magen-
die,  and about to begin to  read" to the Society an essay on wounds of the
abdomen,  the President begged me  to  wave the  ceremony,  and come and
take my seat on his right hand, whic'v I accordingly did.   All  the  papers read
in the course of the vear, either by gentlemen who are members of the Society,
or others, are  delr ered to committees to be reported upon, and the reports
on  those  essavs which are considered as containing new  and valuable infor-
mation, are published in an annual  volume  e.idtled +h?  " B-uletins of the
Socibtt," and it is always considered as the highest compliment for an essay 
32
to be  introduced into this volume.  It is so long since I read the observations
of the committee upon my paper,  that 1 cannot now speak decidedly  as to its
contents.  I recollect, however, perfectly, that upon my arrival in Philadelphia,
my brother  mentioned to me that both Drs. Dewees and Chapman had been
much delighted with the notice  which had been taken of me in the Bulletins
of the Society.  I was the first in Europe who recommended the opening of the
belly for the removal of tumours from that cavity, and it is true that it was
stated in the " Bulletin" that what " t had done was in opposition to the estab-
lished principles and authority of Surgery."  But the object of my essay was
to overturn some  of these, and to prove  by the recital of a  case, where life
was  certainly saved  by the operation, that the axiom delivered to  us from
Hippocrates," "  that wounds  of the belly  were fatal," was one supported
not by  truth, but by prejudice.  My proposal for removing diseased ovaria
which  was  chiefly objected to, has, by the experience of an eminent Sur-
geon of Kentucky, Dr. McDowell, who  has  several times  with success, per-
formed the operation, been demonstrated to have been most just and scientific.
  The last observation I shall make on the correspondence, is that all its allega-
tions are unsupported.  I say unsupported,  for Drs. Gibson and Dewees, are
almost the only  names advanced in confirmation of Dr. Chapman's statements.
As the  former individual stands at this time, charged before a court in Phila-
delphia, of  having circulated  through  part of  Maryland, the  most gross
and  false  calumnies  against  the  reputation of one of the most respectable
and enlightened physicians in the  country, he must  not consider that I do him
an injustice in refusing to receive his testimony, until he has been acquitted of
this very high charge, by a verdict of his countrymen ; and as to poor  Dr. De-
wees, I  would only refer my reader to an  account of the manner he has acted
in this business, (~see Refutation,p. 33J and allow him to let his  testimony
have then all the weight he may consider it worthy.
  I am fearful my reader will think that I have been guilty of making a false as-
sertion in this "  Reply,"  for 1 have again and again,  stated that Dr. Chapman's
new publications, did not contain any new  charge against my reputation. I con-
fess my  error, and as I shall now fully state the New Charge, I trust to the in-
dulgence of  my reader.  The New Accusation is, that I, a Professor  of Ana-
tom r in Glasgow, was once accused of having in my dissecting rooms, the  dead
body of a female that was stolen from the grave.  I confess that this is a charge
of a grave character, and what is  more, I honestly allow that it is consistent
with truth.  The  charge however, is  not according to the  Philadelphia Pro-
fessor,  confined to the simple act of taking a body from the grave, but it is as
much aggravated.  1st. The body taken was the body of a " lady of distinction,"
and 2ndly, it was taken with the view of  improving the Science of Medicine,
the person having " died of a disease^ that excited" my " curiosity."  As I was,
however, acquitted by the verdict of  a jury of this charge, had it therefore
been one of a more serious nature, my character in relation to it was exonerated.
That the Professor of the Practice and Institutes of Medicine, in the University
of Pennsylvania, should feel a horror at  dissection, I can easily understand.
He  is   himself most  grossly ignorant of  Anatomy,  the  ground-work  on
which  all Physiological reasoning must rest; he advances in his  lectures
when they are original, the most absurd hypotheses,  and attempts to  support
them by anatomical data which do not  exist, he has  even  had the hardi-
hood in an essay on the nourishment of the Foetus lately published,* to attempt to
support the  hypothesis he  defended,  by  the  assumption that the  epigastric
artery,  was  the one  which supplied  the uterus  with  blood, an anatomical
blunder so gross, that the greatest tyro in anatomy, could have corrected  it,
and one so shameful as to be enough to destroy forever, the reputation of the
University from which it emanated.  That a man, so  ignorant, should have
dared in the enlightened 19th centurv,  to assert that' a  professor  of ana-
tomy, who was acquitted from a charge of tlris kind, one to  which every
teacher of Anatomy must be exposed,  is on a par in guilt with him who steals
his father's will, and is nothing better than an  " acquitted felon," hardly aston-

  * See Medical Recorder, Vol. IV. Page  169. 
 
,11*1111 IVNOIIVN   JNI3I01N JO 1IVHI1 TVNOIIVN  1NDI01W JO A»V»SU TVNO
lolivaan ivnoiivn    jnijiosw jo iiyiiii tvnoiivn jniskmw j
O AlVllll TVNOI
|| A • Y OF MEDICINE   NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDIC
(0 i«V»9ll IVNOIIVN   INDIOlN JO U»«lll  TVNOIIVN  3NI3I03W JO AIIV II a II 1VNOI.



 I  5
LIBRARY  OF MEDICINE   NATIONAL  LIBRARY OF MEDICINE  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDIC
7 2   V
10 11*1111 IVNOIIVN   3NI3IQJW JO A II V II a 11 TVNOIIVN 1NI3IQ3W JO A a V II a I T TVNOI
 
 
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE
NLM D32D2A31  1
NLM032028319