페이지 이미지


place with wonderful agility. Johnson sat in great impatience till the gentleman had finished his tedious narrative, and then burst out, “ It is a pity, Sir, that you have not seen a lion ; for a flea has taken you such a time, that a lion must have served you a twelvemonth."

He would not allow Scotland to derive any credit from Lord Mansfield ; for he was educated in England. “Much (said he,) may be made of a Scotchman, if he be caught young.”

Talking of a modern historian and a modern moralist, he said, “ There is more thought in the moralist than in the historian. There is but a shallow stream of thought in history.” Boswell. “But surely, Sir, an historian has reflection.” JOHNSON. “Why yes, Sir; and so has a cat when she catches a mouse for her kitten. But she cannot write like the moralist; neither can the historian."

He said, “I am very unwilling to read the manuscripts of authours, and give them my opinion. If the authours who apply to me have money, I bid them boldly print without a name; if they have written in order to get money, I tell them to go to the book. sellers, and make the best bargain they can.” Boswell.“ But, Sir, if a bookseller should bring you a manuscript to look at.”JOHNSON. “Why, Sir, I would desire the bookseller to take it away."

I mentioned a friend of mine who had resided long in Spain,

[ocr errors]

• Mrs. Piozzi, to whom I told this anecdote, has related it, as if the gentleman had given “ the natural history of the mouse." Anecdotes, p. 191.'

In Second Edition, line 14, altered to “She cannot write like neither can



1 Mr. Croker takes Mrs. Piozzi's side in this trifling matter. " The learned gentleman,” he says, “ was certainly Dr. Vansittart, as is proved by two passages in the correspondence between Mrs. Thrale and Dr. Johnson, July and August, 1773. She writes to the Doctor in Scotland, 'I have seen the man that saw the mouse,' &c. Johnson replies, • Poor V- &c., he is a good man, and when his mind is composed,' &c. This proves the identity of the person, and also that Johnson himself sanctioned Mrs. Piozzi's version of the story mouse versus flea.” Mr. Croker is quite astray in this inference, having confounded two distinct stories. Mrs. Piozzi herself wrote in her copy of “ Boswell's Johnson,” opposite this very note, “I saw old Mit. chell, of Brighthelmston,affront him (John. son) terribly once about fleas. Johnson, being tired of the subject, expressed his

impatience of it with coarseness. Why, sir,' said the old man, should not lea. bite-o'-me be treated as phlebotomy? It empties the capillary vessels.'"- Mar. ginalia.) It is gratifying to find Boswell's accuracy thus vindicated, in spite of the laborious investigation of commentators.

· The number of stars shows that Beattie and Robertson were intended.

• This “ friend,” thus obscurely alluded to, was his brother. “ David is a fine fellow," he wrote to Temple at this time, “ but I am afraid will become so much a foreigner, that we shall find it difficult to get him home." David was a partner in a house at Valencia with Dallid, a French. man, and Charles Herries, a Scot. It was originally proposed to set him up as a banker in London, but later a better opening was found in Spain. His brother gives the following sketch of him:“My brother Davy is a prodigious fine

and was unwilling to return to Britain. JOHNSON. “ Sir, he is attached to some woman." Boswell. “I rather believe, Sir, it is the fine climate which keeps him there." JOHNSON.“ Nay, Sir, how can you talk so? What is climate to happiness? Place me in the heart of Asia, should I not be exiled ? What proportion does climate bear to the complex system of human life. You may advise me to go and live at Bologna to eat sausages. The sausages there, are the best in the world ; they lose much by being carried.”

On Saturday, May 9, Mr. Dempster and I had agreed to dine by ourselves at the British coffee-house. Johnson, on whom I happened to call in the morning, said, he would join us, which he did, and we spent a very pleasant day, though I recollect but little of what passed.

He said, “Walpole was a minister given by the King to the people : Pitt was a minister given by the people to the King, -as an adjunct."

“ The misfortune of Goldsmith in conversation is this : he goes on without knowing how he is to get off. His genius is great, but his knowledge is small. As they say of a generous man, it is a pity he is not rich; we may say of Goldsmith, it is a pity he is not knowing. He would not keep his knowledge to himself."

Before leaving London this year, I consulted him upon a question purely of Scotch law. It was held of old, and continued for a long period, to be an established principle in that law, that whoever intermeddled with the effects of a person deceased, without the interposition of legal authority to guard against embezzlement, should be subjected to pay all the debts of the deceased, as having been guilty of what was technically called vitious intromission. The Court of Session had gradually relaxed the strictness of this principle, where the interference proved had been inconsiderable. In a case which came before that Court the preceding winter, I had laboured to persuade the Judges to return to the ancient law. It was my own sincere opinion, that they ought to adhere to it; but I had exhausted all my powers of reasoning in vain. Johnson thought as I did ; and in order to assist me in my application to the Court for a revision and alteration of the judgement, he dictated to me the following argument : “ This, we are told, is a law which has its force only from the

• Wilson against Smith and Armour. fellow. He and I dined together tête-à- tion as a banker, and thinks those weak tête on Christmas-day in an elegant man. men whose minds waver. He is doing ner, and went to chapel, as you and I as well as I could wish. He is to settle did long ago. He is in constant occupa. in London."—Letters, p. 76.

long practice of the Court; and may, therefore, be suspended or modified as the Court shall think proper.

“ Concerning the power of the Court to make or to suspend a law, we have no intention to inquire. It is sufficient for our purpose that every just law is dictated by reason; and that the practice of every legal Court is regulated by equity. It is the quality of reason to be invariable and constant; and of equity, to give to one man what, in the same case, is given to another. The advantage which humanity derives from law is this: that the law gives every man a rule of action, and prescribes a mode of conduct which shall entitle him to the support and protection of society. That the law may be a rule of action, it is necessary that it be known;—it is necessary that it be permanent and stable. The law is the measure of civil right; but if the measure be changeable, the extent of the thing measured never can be settled.

“To permit a law to be modified at discretion, is to leave the community without law. It is to withdraw the direction of that publick wisdom, by which the deficiencies of private understanding are to be supplied. It is to suffer the rash and ignorant to act at discretion, and then to depend for the legality of that action on the sentence of the Judge. He that is thus governed, lives not by law, but by opinion : not by a certain rule to which he can apply his intention before he acts, but by an uncertain and variable opinion, which he can never know but after he has committed the act on which that opinion shall be passed. He lives by a law (if a law it be,) which he can never know before he has offended it. To this case may be justly applied that important principle, misera est servitus ubi jus est aut incognitum aut vagum. If Intromission be not criminal till it exceeds a certain point, and that point be unsettled, and consequently different in different minds, the right of Intromission, and the right of the Creditor arising from it, are all jura vaga, and, by consequence, are jura incognita ; and the result can be no other than a misera servitus, an uncertainty concerning the event of action, a servile dependance on private opinion.

It may be urged, and with great plausibility, that there may be Intromission without fraud ; which, however true, will by no means justify an occasional and arbitrary relaxation of the law. The end of law is protection as well as vengeance. Indeed, vengeance is never used but to strengthen protection. That society only is well governed, where life is freed from danger and from suspicion ; where possession is so sheltered by salutary prohibitions, that violation is prevented more frequently than punished. Such a prohibition was this, while it operated with its original force. The


creditor of the deceased was not only without loss, but without fear, He was not to seek a remedy for an injury suffered; for injury was warded off.

“ As the law has been sometimes administered, it lays us open to wounds, because it is imagined to have the power of healing. To punish fraud when it is detected, is the proper act of vindictive justice; but to prevent frauds, and make punishment unnecessary, is the great employment of legislative wisdom. To permit Intro mission, and to punish fraud, is to make law no better than a pitfall. To tread upon the brink is safe ; but to come a step further is destruction. But, surely, it is better to enclose the gulf, and hinder all access, than by encouraging us to advance a little, to entice us afterwards a little further, and let us perceive our folly only by our destruction.

As law supplies the weak with adventitious strength, it likewise enlightens the ignorant with extrinsick understanding. Law teaches us to know when we commit injury, and when we suffer it. It fixes certain marks upon actions, by which we are admonished to do or to forbear them. Qui sibi bene temperat in licitis, says one of the fathers, nunquam cadet in illicita. He who never intromits at all, will never intromit with fraudulent intentions.

“ The relaxation of the law against vicious intromission has been very favourably represented by a great master of jurisprudence, whose words have been exhibited with unnecessary pomp, and seem to be considered as irresistibly decisive. The great moment of his authority makes it necessary to examine his position. Some ages

• ago, (says he,) before the ferocity of the inhabitants of this part of the island was subdued, the utmost severity of the civil law was necessary, to restrain individuals from plundering each other. Thus, the man who intermeddled irregularly with the moveables of a person deceased, was subjected to all the debts of the deceased without limitation. This makes a branch of the law of Scotland, known by the name of vicious intromission; and so rigidly was this regulation applied in our Courts of Law, that the most trifling moveable abstracted malâ fide, subjected the intermeddler to the foregoing consequences, which proved in many instances a most rigorous punishment. But this severity was necessary, in order to subdue the undisciplined nature of our people. It is extremely remarkable, that in proportion to our improvement in manners, this regulation has been gradually softened, and applied by our sovereign Court with a sparing hand.'

• Lord Kames, in his “ Historical Law Tracts."

“ I find myself under a necessity of observing, that this learned and judicious writer has not accurately distinguished the deficiencies and demands of the different conditions of human life, which, from a degree of savageness and independence, in which all laws are vain, passes or may pass, by innumerable gradations, to a state of reciprocal benignity, in which laws shall be no longer necessary. Men are first wild and unsocial, living each man to himself, taking from the weak, and losing to the strong. In their first coalitions of society, much of this original savageness is retained. Of general happiness, the product of general confidence, there is yet no thought. Men continue to prosecute their own advantages by the nearest way; and the utmost severity of the civil law is necessary to restrain individuals from plundering each other. The restraints then necessary, are restraints from plunder, from acts of publick violence, and undisguised oppression. The ferocity of our ancestors, as of all other nations, produced not fraud but rapine. They had not yet learned to cheat, and attempted only to rob. manners grow more polished, with the knowledge of good, men attain likewise dexterity in evil. Open rapine becomes less frequent, and violence gives way to cunning. Those who before invaded pastures and stormed houses, now begin to enrich themselves by unequal contracts and fraudulent intromissions. It is not against the violence of ferocity, but the circumventions of deceit, that this law was framed; and I am afraid the increase of commerce, and the incessant struggle for riches which commerce excites, give us no prospect of an end speedily to be expected of artifice and fraud. It therefore seems to be no very conclusive reasoning, which connects those two propositions ;- the nation is become less ferocious, and therefore the laws against fraud and coven shall be relaxed.'

“ Whatever reason may have influenced the Judges to a relaxation of the law, it was not that the nation was grown less fierce; and, I am afraid, it cannot be affirmed that it is grown less fraudulent.

“ Since this law has been represented as rigorously and unreasonably penal, it seems not improper to consider what are the condi. tions and qualities that make the justice or propriety of a penal law.

“ To make a penal law reasonable and just, two conditions are necessary, and two proper. It is necessary that the law should be adequate to its end; that, if it be observed, it shall prevent the evil against which it is directed. It is, secondly, necessary that the end of the law be of such importance, as to deserve the security of a penal sanction. The other conditions of a penal law, which though

« 이전계속 »