66 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 topicks, 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 topick 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 coffeehouse one day, and told that his grace had spoken in the House of Lords for half an hour. Did he indeed speak for half an hour?' (said Belchier, the surgeon). Yes.'-' And what did he say of Dr. Oldfield ?'- Nothing.'- Why then, sir, he was very ungrateful; for Dr. Oldfield could not have spoken for a quarter of an hour, without saying something of him."" "Every man is to take existence on the terms on which it is given to him. To some men it is given on condition of not taking liberties, which other men may take without much harm. One may drink wine, and be nothing the worse for it on another, wine may have effects so inflammatory as to injure him both in body and mind, and perhaps make him commit something for which he may deserve to be hanged." 6 Liu Lord Hailes's Annals of Scotland' have not that painted form which is the taste of this age; but it is -a-book which will always sell, it has such a stability lofs dates, such a certainty of facts, and such a punctuality of citation. I never before read Scotch history with certainty.". I asked him whether he would advise me to read ,』, [Probably Mr. Boswell himself, who frequently practised this mode of obtaining information.-ED.] 201 the Bible with a commentary, and what coinmentaries During my stay in London this spring, I solicited his attention to another law case, in which I was engaged. In the course of a contested election for the borough of Dunfermline, which I attended as one of my friend Colonel (afterward Sir Archibald) Campbell's counsel, one of his political agents who was 선 charged with having been unfaithful to his employer, and having deserted to the opposite party for a pecuniary reward-attacked very rudely in the newspapers the Reverend Mr. James Thomson, one of the 1 ministers of that place, on account of a supposed allusion to him in one of his sermons. Upon this the minister, on a subsequent Sunday, arraigned him by name from the pulpit with some severity; and the agent, after the sermon was over, rose up and asked the minister aloud, "What bribe he had received for telling so many lies from the chair of verity 1?" I was present at this very extraordinary scene. The person arraigned, and his father and brother, who also had a share both of the reproof from the pulpit and in the retaliation, brought an action against Mr. Thomson, in the Court of Session, for defamation and damages, and I was one of the counsel for the reverend defendant. The liberty of the pulpit was our great ground of defence; but we argued also on the provocation of the previous attack, and on the instant retaliation. The Court of Session, however,the as fifteen judges, who are at the same time the jury,decided against the minister, contrary to my humble XIST COU [A Gallicism, which has, it appears, with so many others, become vernacular in Scotland. A pulpit is in French called "chaire de vérité."-ED.] ETAT. 67. opinion; and several of them expressed themselves with indignation against him. him. He was an aged gentleman, formerly a military chaplain, and a man of high spirit and honour. Johnson was satisfied that the judgment was wrong, and dictated to me, in conbfutation of it, an argument, [which will be found in the Appendix.], When I read [the argument] to Mr. Burke, he towas highly pleased, and exclaimed, "Well, he does his work in a workman-like manner 199 Mr. Thomson wished to bring the cause by appeal before the house of lords, but was dissuaded by the advice of the noble person who lately presided so ably -in that most honourable house, and who was then Sattorney-general. As my readers will no doubt be bglad also to read the opinion of this eminent man upon the same subject, I shall here insert it. yd mid bosny p CASE. There is herewith laid before you, boslar 1. Petition for the Reverend Mr. James Thomson, miTo by nister of Dunfermline. "2. Answers thereto. "3. Copy of the judgment of the Court of Session upon ozis 04. Notes of the opinions of the judges, being the rea· bussons upon which their decree is grounded. "These papers you will please to peruse, and give your opinion, -919 "Whether there is a probability of the above decree of the Court of Session being reversed, if Mr. Thomson 100 287 should appeal from the same ?” !!! I don't think the appeal advisable; not only because the JI value of the judgment is in no degree adequate to the expense; but because there are many chances, that upon the general com 1 ''As a proof of Dr. Johnson's extraordinary powers of composition, it appears from the original manuscript of this excellent dissertation, of which he dictated the first eight paragraphs on the 10th of May, and the remainder on the 13th, that there are in the whole only seven corrections, or rather variations, and those not considerable. Such were at once the vigorous and accurate emanations of his mind. BoSWELL. plexion of the case, the impression will be taken to the disad, vantage of the appellant. 17* p6d 79 P "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 complaims 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. 1 "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 indi vidual could qualify a wrong, and a damage arising from it. But this I doubt. The circumstance of publishing the 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 cognisable 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 that defence. "E. THURLOW." I am now to record a very curious incident in Dr. Johnson's life, which fell under my own 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 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. different could perhaps not be selected out of all 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 chymistry, which can separate good qualities from evil in the same person. 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 mathematicks, 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; [for John- Reyn. son's dislike of Mr. Wilkes was so great that it extended even to his connexions. He happened to dine one day at Sir Joshua Reynolds's with a large and distinguished company, amongst which were Mr. Wilkes's brother, Israel, and his lady. In the course of conversation, Mr. Israel Wilkes was about to make some remark, when Johnson suddenly stopped him with, "I hope, sir, what you are going to say may be better worth hearing than what you have already said." This rudeness shocked and spread a gloom over the whole party, particularly as Mr. Israel Wilkes was a gentleman of a very amiable Recol. |