tion and information; and I remember this remark

of Sir Thomas Brown's,

Do the devils lie? No; for then Hell could not subsist.""

"Many things which are false are transmitted from book to book, and gain credit in the world. One of these is the cry against the evil of luxury. Now the truth is, that luxury produces much good. Take the luxury of buildings in London. Does it not produce real advantages in the conveniency and elegance of accommodation, and this all from the exertion of industry? People will tell you, with a melancholy face, how many builders are in gaol. It is plain they are in gaol, not for building; for rents are not fallen. A man gives half a guinea for a dish of green peas. How much gardening does this occasion? how many labourers must the competition to have such things early in the market keep in employment? You will hear it said, very gravely, "Why was not the half-guinea, thus spent in luxury, given to the poor? To how many might it have afforded a good meal. Alas! has it not gone to the industrious poor, whom it is better to support than the idle poor? You are much surer that you are doing good when you pay money to those who work, as the recompence of their labour, than when you give money merely in charity. Suppose the ancient luxury of a dish of peacock's brains were to be revived, how

many carcases would be left to the poor at a cheap rate? And as to the rout that is made about people who are ruined by extravagance, it is no matter to the nation that some individuals suffer. When so much general productive exertion is the consequence of luxury, the nation does not care though there are debtors in gaol; nay, they would not care though their creditors were there too."

DUELLING.

MR. BOSWELL, in a conversation with General Oglethorpe, Johnson, and Goldsmith, started the question whether duelling was consistent with moral duty. The brave old General fired at this, and said, with a lofty air, "Undoubtedly a man has a right to defend his honour."-GOLDSMITH (turning to Mr. B.) " I ask you first, Sir, what would you do if you were affronted?" He answered that he should think it necessary to fight." Why then (replied Goldsmith) that solves the question."-JOHNSON." No, Sir, it does not solve the question. It does not follow that what a man would do is therefore right.”—Mr. B. “ I 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. His thoughts were these: "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 be easily hurt. Before men arrive at that 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 himself 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.”

This justification is applicable only to the person who receives an affront. All mankind must condemn the aggressor.

The General said, that when he was a very

young man, only fifteen, 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, "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 humour.

At another time Johnson defended duelling, and put his argument upon what is perhaps the most solid basis; namely, that if public war be allowed to be consistent with morality, private war must be equally so*.

* "Indeed (says Mr. Boswell) we may observe what strained arguments are used to reconcile war with the Christian religion But, in my opinion, 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."

135

WOMEN.

JOHNSON thought portrait-painting an improper employment for a woman. "Public practice of any art (he observed), and staring in men's faces, is very indelicate in a female."

He remarked once, at Sir Joshua Reynolds's, "that a beggar in the street will more readily ask alms from a man, though there should be no marks of wealth in his appearance, than from even a well-dressed woman; which he accounted for from the greater degree of carefulness as to money that is to be found in women; saying farther upon it, that the opportunities in general that they possess of improving their condition are much fewer than men have; and adding, as he looked round the comapny, which consisted of men only, there is not one of us who does not think he might be richer if he would use his endeavour."

He talked with serious concern of a certain female friend's" laxity of narration, and inattention to truth."-" I am as much vexed (said he) at the ease with which she hears it mentioned to her, as at the thing itself. I told her, Madam, you are contented to hear every day said to you, what the highest of mankind have died rather than