« PreviousContinue »
“ These papers you will please to peruse, and give your opinion, “Whether there is a probability of the above decree of the Court of
Session's being reversed, if Mr. Thomson should appeal from the
same?" “I don't think the uppeal advisable : not only because the value of the judgment is in no degree adequate to the expense; but because there are many chances, that upon the general complexion of the case, the impression will be taken to the disadvantage of the appellant.
“It is impossible to approve the style of that sermon. But the complaint was not less ungracious from that man, who had behaved so ill by his original libel, and, at the time, when he received the reproach he complains of. In the last article all the plaintiffs are equally concerned. It struck me also with some wonder, that the Judges should think so much fervour apposite to the occasion of reproving the defendant for a little excess.
Upon the matter, however, I agree with them in condemning the behaviour of the minister; and in thinking it a subject fit for ecclesiastical censure; and even for an action, if any individual could qualify a wrong, and a damage arising from it. But this I doubt. The circumstance of publishing tha reproach in a pulpit, though extremely indecent, and culpable in another view, does not constitute a different sort of wrong, or any other rule of law, than would have obtained, if the same words had been pronounced elsewhere. I don't know whether there be any difference in the law of Scotland, in the definition of slander, before the Commissaries, or the Court of Session. The common law of England does not give way to actions for every reproachful word. An action cannot be brought for general damages, upon any words which import less than an offence cognizable by law; consequently, no action could have been brought here, for the words in question. Both laws admit the truth to be a justification in action for words ; and the law of England does the same in actions for libels. The judgment, therefore, seems to me to have been wrong, in that the Court repelled det
“ E. TAURLOW.”
I am now to record a very curious incident in Dr. Johnson's life, which fell under my observation ; of which pars magna fui, and which I am persuaded will, with the liberal-minded, be much to his credit.
My desire of being acquainted with celebrated men of every description, had made me, much about the same time, obtain an introduction to Dr. Samuel Johnson and to John Wilkes, Esq. Two men more different could perhaps not be selected out of mankind. They had even attacked one another with some asperity in their writings; yet I lived in habits of friendship with both. I could fully relish the excellence of each ; for I have ever delighted in that intellectual chemistry which can separate good qualities from evil in the same person.
1 It is curious to observe that Lord Thurlow has here, perhaps in compliment to North Britain, made use of a term of the Scotch Law, which to an English reader may require explanation. To qualify a wrong is to point out and establish it.-Boswell..
2 Alderman and Lord Mayor of London, M.P. for Middlesex, and the proprietor of “The North Briton.”. His violent opposition to the government led to the abolition of general warrants. He was born in 1727, and died in 1797.-ED.
Sir John Pringle,“mine own friend and my father's friend," between whom and Dr. Johnson I in vain wished to establish an acquaintance, as I respected and lived in intimacy with both of them, observed to me once, very ingeniously, “ It is not in friendship as in mathematics, where two things, each equal to a third, are equal between themselves. You agree with Johnson as a middle quality, and you agree with me as a middle quality ; but Johnson and I should not agree.” Sir John was not sufficiently flexible—so I desisted ; knowing, indeed, that the repulsion was equally strong on the part of Johnson ; who, I know not from what cause, unless his being a Scotchman, had formed a very erroneous opinion of Sir John. But I conceived an irresistible wish, if possible, to bring Dr. Johnson and Mr. Wilkes together. How to manage it was a nice and difficult matter.
My worthy booksellers and friends, Messieurs Dilly in the Poultry, at whose hospitable and well-covered table I have seen a greater number of literary men, than at any other, except that of Sir Joshua Reynolds, had invited me to meet Mr. Wilkes and some other gentlemen, on Wednesday, May 15. “Pray,” said I, “let us have Dr. Johnson.” “What, with Mr. Wilkes ? Not for the world,” said Mr. Edward Dilly; “Dr. Johnson would never forgive me.”—“Come,” said I, “if you 'll let me negociate for you, I will be answerable that all shall go well.” DILLY: “Nay, if you will take it upon you, I am sure I shall be very happy to see them both here."
Notwithstanding the high veneration which I entertained for Dr. Johnson, I was sensible that he was sometimes a little actuated by the spirit of contradiction, and by means of that I hoped I should gain my point. I was persuaded, that if I had come upon him with a direct proposal, “Sir, will you dine in company with Jack Wilkes ?” he would have flown into a passion, and would probably have answered, “Dine with Jack Wilkes, Sir, I'd. as soon dine with Jack Ketch.”i I therefore, while we were sitting quietly by ourselves at his house in an evening, took occasion to open my plan thus :—“Mr. Dilly, Sir, sends his respectful compliments to you, and would be happy if you would do him the honour to dine with him on Wednesday next along with me, as I must soon go to Scotland.” JOHNSON : “Sir, I am obliged to Mr. Dilly.
I will wait upon him." BOSWELL: “Provided, Sir, I
suppose, that the company which he is to have is agreeable to you." JOHNSON : “What do you mean, Sir ? What do you take me for ? Do you think that I am so ignorant of the world, as to imagine that I am to prescribe to a gentleman what company he is to have at his table?”
1 This has been circulated as if actually said by Johnson; when the truth is, it was only supposed by me.-BOSWELL.
BOSWELL: “I beg your pardon, Sir, for wishing to prevent you from meeting people whom you might not like. Perhaps he may have some of what he calls his patriotic friends with him.” JOHNSON : “Well, Sir, and what then? What care I for his patriotic friends ? Poh!" BOSWELL: “I should not be surprised to find Jack Wilkes there." JOHNSON : “ And if Jack Wilkes should be there, what is that to me, Sir? My dear friend, let us have no more of this. I am sorry to be angry with you ; but really it is treating me strangely to talk to me as if I could not meet any company whatever, occasionally.” BOSWELL: “Pray forgive me, Sir: I meant well. But you shall meet whoever
comes, for me.” Thus I secured him, and told Dilly that he would find him very well pleased to be one of his guests on the day appointed.
Upon the much-expected Wednesday, I called on him about half an hour before dinner, as I often did when we were to dine out together
to see that he was ready in time, and to accompany him. I found him buffeting his books as upon a former occasion, covered with dust, and making no preparation for going abroad. “How is this, Sir ?” said I. “Don't you recollect that you are to dine at Mr. Dilly's ?" JOHNSON :
Sir, I did not think of going to Dilly's : it went out of my head. I have ordered dinner at home with Mrs. Williams.” BOSWELL: “But, my dear Sir, you know you were engaged to Mr. Dilly, and I told him 80. He will expect you, and will be much disappointed if you don't come.” JOHNSON: “You must talk to Mrs. Williams about this."
Here was a sad dilemma. I feared that what I was so confident I had secured would yet be frustrated. He had accustomed himself to show Mrs. Williams such a degree of humane attention, as frequently imposed some restraint upon him; and I knew that if she should be obstinate, he would not stir. I hastened down stairs to the blind lady's room, and told her I was in great uneasiness, for Dr. Johnson had engaged to me to dine this day at Mr. Dilly's, but that he had told me he had forgotten his engagement, and had ordered dinner at home. “Yes, Sir," said she, pretty peevishly, “ Dr. Johnson is to dine at home.”—“Madam,” said I,“ his respect for you is such, that I know he will not leave you, unless you absolutely desire it. But as you have so much of his company, I hope you will be good enough to forego it for a day; as Mr. Dilly is a very worthy man, has frequently had agreeable parties at his house for Dr. Johnson, and will be vexed if the Doctor neglects him to-day. And then, Madam, be pleased to consider my situation ; I carried the message, and I assured Mr. Dilly that Dr. Johnson was to come; and no doubt he has made a dinner, and invited a company, and boasted of the honour he expected to have. I shall be quite disgraced if the Doctor is not there.” She gradually softened to my solicitations, which were certainly as earnest as most entreaties to ladies upon any occasion, and was graciously pleased to empower me to tell Dr. Johnson, “That all things considered, she thought he should certainly go.” I flew back to him, still in dust, and careless of what should be the event, “indifferent in his choice to go or stay;” but as soon as I had announced to him Mrs. Williams's consent, he roared, “Frank ! a clean shirt”—and was very soon drest. When I had him fairly seated in a hackney-coach with me, I exulted as much as a fortune-hunter, who has got an heiress into a post-chaise with him, to set out for Gretna Green.
When we entered Mr. Dilly's drawing-room, he found himself in the midst of a company he did not know. I kept myself snug and silent, watching how he would conduct himself. I observed him whispering to Mr. Dilly, "Who is that gentleman, Sir ? "_"Mr. Arthur Lee.”JOHNSON : “Too, too, too,” (under his breath,) which was one of his habitual mutterings. Mr. Arthur Lee could not but be very obnoxious to Johnson, for he was not only a patriot but an American. He was afterwards minister from the United States at the Court of Madrid. “And who is the gentleman in lace ?”—“Mr. Wilkes, Sir.” This information confounded him still more ; he had some difficulty to restrain himself, and taking up a book sat down upon a window-seat and read, or at least kept his eye intently upon it for some time, till he composed himself. His feelings, I dare say, were awkward enough. But he no doubt recollected having rated me, for supposing that he could be at all disconcerted by any company, and he, therefore, resolutely set himself to behave quite as an easy man of the world, who could adapt himself at once to the disposition and manners of those whom he might chance to meet.
The cheering sound of “Dinner is upon the table,” dissolved his reverie, and we all sat down without any symptom of ill-humour. There were present—beside Mr. Wilkes, and Mr. Arthur Lee, who was an old companion of mine when he studied physic at Edinburgh—Mr. (now Sir John) Miller, Dr. Lettsom, and Mr. Slater the druggist. Mr. Wilkes placed himself next to Dr. Johnson, and behaved to him with so much attention and politeness, that he gained upon him insensibly. No man eat more heartily than Johnson, or loved better what was nice and delicate. Mr. Wilkes was very assiduous in helping him to some fine veal. “ Pray give me leave, Sir ;-It is better here-A little of the brown-Some fat, Sir-A little of the stuffing—Some gravy-Let me have the pleasure of giving you some butter-Allow me to recommend a squeeze of this orange ; or the lemon, perhaps, may have more zest.”. “Sir, Sir, I am obliged to you, Sir,” cried Johnson, bowing, and turning his head to him with a look for some time of “surly virtue,"! but, in a short while, of complacency.
Foote being mentioned, Johnson said, “He is not a good mimic." One of the company added, “A merry Andrew, a buffoon !” JOHNSON : “But he has wit, too, and is not deficient in ideas, or in fertility and variety of imagery, and not empty of reading ; he has knowledge enough to fill up his part. One species of wit he has in an eminent degree, that of escape. You drive him into a corner with both hands ; but he's gone, Sir, when you think you have got him-like an animal that jumps over your head. Then he has a great range for wit; he never lets truth stand between him and a jest, and he is sometimes mighty coarse. Garrick is under many restraints from which Foote is free.” WILKES : “ Garrick's wit is more like Lord Chesterfield's." JOHNSON : “ The first time I was in company with Foote, was at Fitzherbert's. Having no good opinion of the fellow, I was resolved not to be pleased ; and it is very difficult to please a man against his will. I went on eating my dinner pretty sullenly, affecting not to mind him ; but the dog was so very comical, that I was obliged to lay down my knife and fork throw myself back
1 Jolinson's “ London a Poem,” v. 145.-BOSWELL