"Mrs. Williams (faid he one day) was angry that Thrale's family did not send regularly to her every time they heard from me while I was in the Hebrides. Little people are apt to be jealous; but they should not be jealous; for they ought to confider, that superior attention will necessarily be paid to fuperior fortune or rank. Two persons may have equal merit, and on that account may have an equal claim to attention; but one of them may have also fortune and rank, and so may have a double

claim."

When Rouffeau's treatise on the inequality of mankind was a fashionable topick, it gave rise to an observation of Mr. Dempster, in a conversation with Johnson, that the advantages of fortune and rank were nothing to a wife man, who ought to value only merit." If man (faid Johnson) were a savage, living in the woods by himself, this might be true; but in civilized society we all depend upon each other, and our happiness is very much owing to the good opinion of mankind. Now, Sir, in civilized society, external advantages make us more respected. A man with a good coat upon his back meets with a better reception than he who has a bad one. Sir, you may analyse this, and say what is there in it? But that will avail you nothing; for it is part of a general system, Pound Pound St. Paul's church into atoms, and confider any fingle atom; it is, to be sure, good for nothing: but put all these atoms together, and you have St. Paul's church. So it is with human felicity, which is made up of many ingredients, each of which may be shewn to be very infignificant. In civilized society, personal merit will not serve you so much as money will. Sir, you may make the experiment. Go into the street, and give one man a lecture on morality, and another a fhilling, and sec which will respect you most. If you with only to fupport nature, Sir William Petty fixes your allowance at three pounds a year; but as times are much altered, let us call it fix pounds. This sum will fill your belly, shelter you from the weather, and even get you a ftrong lafting coat, supposing it to be made of good bull's hide. Now, Sir, all beyond this is artificial, and is defired in order to obtain a greater degree of respect from our fellow creatures. And, Sir, if fix hundred pounds a year procure a man more consequence, and, of course more happiness, than fix pounds a year, the same proportion will hold as to fix thousand, and so on, as far as opulence can be carried. Perhaps he who has a large fortune may not be so happy as he who has a small one; but that must proceed from other causes than from his having the large fortune: for, cateris

L4

cæteris paribus, he who is rich in a civilized society, must be happier than he who is poor; as riches, if properly used (and it is a man's own fault if they are not), must be productive of the highest advantages. Money, to be sure, of itself is of no use; for its only use is to part with it. Rousseau, and all those who deal in paradoxes, are led away by a childish defire of novelty. When I was a boy, I used always to choose the wrong side of a debate, because most ingenious things, that is to say, most new things, could be faid 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 confider 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 discavered stealing to be so very bad a thing, that they make no fcruple 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 forry to be poor. Sir, all the arguments which are brought to represent poverty as no evil, shew it to be evidently a great evil. You never find people labouring to convince you that you may live very happily on a plentiful fortune. So you hear people talking how miserable a king must be; and yet they all wish to be in his place."

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

Mr. Dempster having endeavoured to maintain, that intrinfic 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 foon quarrel about the degrees of it.Werg Were all distinctions abolished, the strongest would not long acquiefce, but would endeavour to obtain a fuperiority by their bodily strength. But, Sir, as fubordination is very neceffary for fociety, and contentions for fuperiority 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. Bofwell said, he confidered distinction of rank to be of so much importance in civilized fociety, that if he were asked on the fame day to dine with the first duke in England, and with the first man in Britain for genius, he should hefitate which to prefer.-" To be fure, Sir (faid Johnfon), 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 ge nius; 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