cond, who was a very good king--but unhappily believed that it was necessary, for the salvation of his subjects, that they should be Roman Catholics. He had the merit of endeavouring to do what he thought was for the salvation of the souls of his subjects, till he lost a great empire. We, who thought that we should not be saved if we were Roman Catholics, had the merit of maintaining our religion, at the expense of submitting ourselves to the government of king William, for it could not be done otherwise; to the government of one of the most worthless scoundrels that ever existed. No; Charles the Second was not such a man as

(naming another king). He did not destroy his father's will. He took money, indeed, from France; but he did not betray those over whom he ruled : he did not let the French fleet pass ours. George the First knew nothing, and desired to know nothing; did nothing, and desired to do nothing; and the only good thing that is told of him is, that he wished to restore the crown to its hereditary successor." He roared with prodigious violence against George the Second. When he ceased, Moody interjected, in an Irish tone, and with a comic look, "Ah, poor George the Second!"

Dr. Johnson said that general Paoli had the loftiest port of any man he had ever seen. He denied that military men were always the best bred men. "Perfect good breeding," he observed, "consists in having no particular mark of any profession, but a general elegance of manners: whereas, in a military man, you can commonly distinguish the brand of a soldier, l'homme d'epée."

Boswell started the question, whether duelling

was consistent with moral duty. The brave old general Oglethorpe fired at this, and said, with a lofty air, "Undoubtedly, a man has a right to defend his honour." GOLDSMITH, turning to Boswell, "I ask you first, sir, what would you do if you were affronted?" BOSWELL. "I should think it necessary to fight." GOLDSMITH. "Why, then, that solves the question." JOHNSON." No, sir, it does not solve the question, that what a man would do is therefore right." Boswell said, he wished to have it settled, whether duelling was contrary to the laws of Christianity. Johnson immediately entered on the subject, and treated it in a masterly manner; and so far as the narrator could recollect, his thoughts were these: "Sir, as men become in a high degree refined, various causes of offence arise; which are considered to be of such importance, that life must be staked to atone for them, though, in reality, they are not so. A body that has received a very fine polish may easily be hurt. Before men arrive at this artificial refinement, if one tells his neighbour he lies, his neighbour tells him he lies; if one gives his neighbour a blow, his neighbour gives him a blow: but in a state of highly polished society, an affront is held to be a serious injury; it must therefore be resented-or rather a duel must be fought upon it; as men have agreed to banish from their society one who puts up with an affront without fighting a duel. Now, sir, it is never unlawful to fight in self-defence. He, then, who fights a duel, does not fight from passion against his antagonist, but out of self-defence; to avert the stigma of the world, and to prevent him

self from being driven out of society. I could wish there was not that superfluity of refinement; but while such notions prevail, no doubt a man may lawfully fight a duel."

Let it be remembered, that this justification is applicable only to the person who receives an affront. All mankind must condemn the aggressor.

The general told the company, that when he was a very young man, serving under prince Eugene of Savoy, he was sitting in a company at table with a prince of Wirtemberg: the prince took up a glass of wine, and, by a fillip, made some of it fly in Oglethorpe's face. Here was a nice dilemma; to have challenged him instantly, might have fixed a quarrelsome character upon the young soldier; to have taken no notice of it, might have been considered as cowardice. Oglethorpe, therefore, keeping his eye upon the prince, and smiling all the time, as if he took what his highness had done in jest, said in French, "My prince, that's a good joke; but we do it much better in England ;" and threw a whole glass of wine in the prince's face. An old general who sat by said, "Il'a bien fait, mon prince, vous l'avez commencé :" and thus all ended in good hu

mour.

Johnson another day again defended duelling, and put his argument upon what may be thought the most solid basis; that, if public war be allowed to be consistent with morality, private war must be equally so. Indeed we may observe what strained arguments are used to reconcile war with the Christian religion. But it is exceedingly clear, that duelling, having better reasons for its barbarous violence,

is more justifiable than war, in which thousands go forth, without any cause of personal quarrel, and massacre each other.

When Mr. Vesey was proposed as a member of the Literary Club, Mr. Burke began by saying, that he was a man of gentle manners. "Sir," said Johnson, "you need say no more: when you have said a man of gentle manners, you have said enough."

The late Mr. Fitzherbert told Mr. Langton that Johnson said to him, "Sir, a man has no more right to say an uncivil thing, than to act one; no more right to say a rude thing to another, than to knock him down."

No, XV.

CONVERSATION.

On this subject, Johnson laid down the following general rules: "Never speak of a man in his own presence; it is always indelicate, and may be offensive. Questioning is not the mode of conversation among gentlemen: it is assuming a superiority; and it is particularly wrong to question a man concerning himself; there may be parts of his former life which he may not wish to be made known to other persons, or even brought to his own recollection. A man should be careful never to tell tales of himself to his own disadvantage: people may be amused, and laugh at the time, but they will be remembered, and brought up against him upon some subsequent occasion."

The uncommon vivacity of general Oglethorpe's mind, and variety of knowledge, having sometimes made his conversation seem too desultory, Johnson observed, Oglethorpe, sir, never completes what he has to say."

He, on the same account, made a similar remark on Patrick lord Elibank: " Sir, there is nothing conclusive in his talk."

When Boswell complained of having dined at a splendid table without hearing one sentence of conversation worthy of being remembered, he said, "Sir, there seldom is any such conversation." BOSWELL. "Why then meet at table?" JOHNSON. "Why, to eat and drink together, and to promote kindness; and, sir, this is better done when there is no solid conversation: for when there is, people differ in opinion, and get into bad humour, or some of the company, who are not capable of such conversation, are left out, and feel themselves uneasy. It was for this reason sir Robert Walpole said, he always talked bawdy at his table, because in that all could join."

Being irritated by hearing a gentleman ask Mr. Levet a variety of questions concerning him, when he was sitting by, he broke out, "Sir, you have but two topics, yourself and me: I am sick of both.” "A man," said he, "should not talk of himself, nor much of any particular person: he should take care not to be made a proverb; and, therefore,` should avoid having any one topic of which people can say, We shall hear him upon it.' There was a Dr. Oldfield, who was always talking of the duke of Marlborough: he came into a coffee-house one day, and told that his grace had spoken in the house