ページの画像
PDF
ePub

say, most new things, could be said upon it. Sir, there is nothing for which you may not muster up more plausible, arguments than those which are urged against wealth and other external advantages. Why now, there is stealing; why should it be thought a crime? When we consider by what unjust methods property has been often acquired, and that what was unjustly got it must be unjust to keep, where is the harm in one man's taking the property of another from him? Besides, Sir, when we consider the bad use that many people make of their property, and how much better use the thief may make of it, it may be defended as a very allowable practice. Yet, Sir, the experience of mankind has discovered stealing to be so very bad a thing, that they make no scruple to hang a man for it. -When I was running about this town a very poor fellow, I was a great arguer for the advantages of poverty; but I was, at the same time, very sorry to be poor. Sir, all the arguments which are brought to represent poverty evil, shew it to be evntly a gr

[graphic]

because they are deprived of the greatest of all satisfactions, easy and unreserved society. Johnson said, "That is an all-founded notion. Being a king does not exclude a man from such society. Great kings have always been social. The King of Prussia, the only great king at present, is very social. Charles the Second, the last King of England, who was a man of parts, was social; and our Henrys and Edwards were all social."

Mr. Dempster having endeavoured to maintain, that intrinsic merit ought to make the only distinction amongst mankind, Johnson observed, "Why, Sir, mankind have found that this cannot be. How shall we determine the proportion of intrinsic merit? Were that to be the only distinction amongst mankind, we should soon quarrel about the degrees of it.-Were all distinctions abolished, the strongest would not long acquiesce, but would endeavour to obtain a superiority by their bodily strength. But, Sir, as subordination is very necessary for society, and contentions for superiority very dangerous, mankind, that is to say all civilized nations, have settled it upon a plain invariable principle. A man is born to hereditary rank; or his being appointed to certain offices gives him a certain rank. Subordination tends greatly to human happiness. Were we all

upon an equality, we should have no other enjoyment than mere animal pleasure."

Mr. Boswell said, he considered distinction of rank to be of so much importance in civilized society, that if he were asked on the same day to dine with the first duke in England, and with the first man in Britain for genius, he should hesitate which to prefer.-" To be sure, Sir (said Johnson), if you were to dine only once, and it were never to be known where you dined, you would choose rather to dine with the first man for genius; but to gain most respect, you should dine with the first duke in England. For nine people in ten that you meet with, would have a higher opinion of you for having dined with a duke; and the great genius himself would receive you better, because you had been with the great duke."

He took care to guard himself against any possible suspicion that his settled principles of reverence for rank and respect for wealth were at all owing to mean or interested motives; for he asserted his own independence as a literary man. "No man (said he) who ever lived by literature, has lived more independently than I have done.” He said he had taken longer time than he needed to have done in composing his Dictionary.

In an eloquent argument he maintained that

the situation of Prince of Wales was the happiest of any person's in the kingdom, even beyond that of the Sovereign. Among other things he mentioned the enjoyment of hope,-the high superiority of rank, without the anxious cares of government, a great degree of power, both from natural influence wisely used, and from the sanguine expectations of those who look forward to the chance of future favour.

LAW.

WHEN Mr. Boswell meditated trying his fortune in Westminster Hall, Johnson said to him, "You must not indulge too sanguine hopes, should you be called to our bar. I was told, by a very sensible lawyer, that there are a great many chances against any man's success in the profession of the law; the candidates are so numerous, and those who get large practice so few.” He said, it was by no means true that a man of good parts and application is sure of having business, though he, indeed, allowed that if such a man could but appear in a few causes, his merit would be known, and he would get forward; but that the great risk was, that a man might pass half a life-time in the Courts, and never have an opportunity of shewing his abilities,

"I asked him (says Mr. Boswell on another occasion) whether as a moralist he did not think that the practice of the law, in some degree, hurt the nice feeling of honesty."-JOHNSON. "Why no, Sir, if you act properly. You are not to deceive your clients with false representations of your opinion: you are not to tell lies to a judge." -BOSWELL." But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?"J. "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad till the Judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning; must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the judge to whom you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong, and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion."-B. "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of opinion when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same

« 前へ次へ »