evident, upon reflection, that the very essence of government is restraint; and certain it is, that as government produces rational happiness, too much restraint is better than too little. But when restraint is unnecessary, and so close as to gall those who are subject to it, the people may and ought to remonstrate; and, if relief is not granted, to resist. Of this manly and spirited principle, no man was more convinced thau Johnson himself.

He would not admit the importance of the question concerning the legality of general warrants. "Such a power," he said, “must be vested in every government, to answer particular cases of necessity; and there can be no just cause of complaint, but when it is abused, for which those who administer government must be answerable. It is a matter of much indifference; a matter about which the people care so very little, that were a man to be sent over Britain to offer them an exemption from it at a halfpenny a piece, very few would purchase it." Boswell adds, "This was a specimen of that laxity of talking, which I had heard him fairly acknowledge : for surely, while the power of granting general war. rants was supposed to be legal, and the apprehension of them hung over our heads, we did not possess that security of freedom, congenial to our happy constitution, and which, by the intrepid exertions of Mr. Wilkes, has been happily established."

Speaking of the national debt, he said, "It is an idle dream to suppose that the country can sink under it. Let the public creditors be ever so clamo rous, the interest of millions must always prevail over that of thousands."

Boswell mentioned the motion which had been

made in the house of commous, to abolish the fast of the 30th of January, 66 Why, sir, I could have wished that it had been a temporary act, perhaps, to have expired with the century. I am against abolishing it, because that would be declaring it wrong to establish it; but I should have no objection to make an act, continuing it for another century, and then letting it expire.'

On another occasion, Boswell told him, that Mrs. Macauley said, she wondered how he could reconcile his political principles with his moral; his notions of inequality and subordination with wishing well to the happiness of all mankind, who might live so agreeably, had they all their portions of land, and none to domineer over another. JOHNSON." Why sir, I reconcile my principles very well, because mankind are happier in a state of inequality and subordination. Were they to be in this pretty state of equality, they would soon degenerate into brutes; they would become Monboddo's nation; their tails would grow. Sir, all would be losers, were all to work for all:-they would have no intellectual improvement. All intellectual improvement arises from leisure; all leisure arises from one working for another."

An eminent public character being mentionedJOHNSON. "I remember being present, when he showed himself to be so corrupted, or at least something so different from what I think right, as to maintain, that a member of parliament should go along with his party, right or wrong. Now, sir, this is so remote from native virtue-from scholastic virtue that a good man must have undergone great change, before he can reconcile himself to such a

doctrine: it is maintaining, that you may lie to the public`; for you lie, when you call that right which you think wrong, or the reverse. A friend of ours, who is too much an echo of that gentleman, observed, that a man who does not stick uniformly to a party, is only waiting to be bought. Why then, said I, he is only waiting to be what that gentleman is already.”

:

Of a person who differed from him in politics, he said, "In private life he is a very honest gentleman; but I will not allow him to be so in public life. People may be honest, though they are doing wrong: that is between their Maker and them but we, who are suffering by their pernicious conduct, are to destroy them. We are sure that **** acts from interest. We know what his genuine principles were. They who allow their passions to confound the distinctions between right and wrong, are criminal. They may be convinced; but they have not come honestly by their conviction."

It having been mentioned that a certain female poTitical writer, whose doctrines he disliked, had of late become very fond of dress, sat hours together at her toilet, and even put on rouge-JOHNSON." She is better employed at her toilet than using her pen. It is better she should be reddening her own cheeks, than blackening other people's characters."

Johnson arraigned the modern politics of this country, as entirely devoid of all principle of whatever kind. "Politics," said he, “ are now nothing 'more than means of rising in the world. With this sole view do men engage in politics, and their whole conduct proceeds upon it. How different in that respect is the state of the nation now from what it was in the time of Charles the First, during the

Usurpation, and after the Restoration, in the time of Charles the Second. Hudibras affords a strong proof, how much hold political principles had then upon the minds of men. There is in Hudibras a great deal of bullion, which will always last: but, to be sure, the brightest strokes of his wit owed their force to the impression of the characters which was upon men's minds at the time; to their knowing them at table and in the street; in short, being familiar with them; and, above all, to his satire being directed against those whom a little while before they had hated and feared. The nation in general has ever been loyal; has been at all times attached to the monarch, though a few daring rebels have been wonderfully powerful for a time. The murder of Charles the First was undoubtedly not committed with the approbation or consent of the people. Had that been the case, parliament would not have yentured to consign the regicides to their deserved punishment and we know what exuberance of joy there was when Charles the Second was restored. If Charles the Second had bent all his mind to ithad made it his sole object-he might have been as absolute as Louis the Fourteenth." A gentleman observed, he would have done no harm if he had, JOHNSON." Why, sir, absolute princes seldom do any harm but they who are governed by them are governed by chance. There is no security for good government." CAMBRIDGE. "There have been many sad victims to absolute governmeut." JOHNSON. "So, sir, have there been to popular fac tions."

:

Boswell consulting him upon a cause, Paterson and others against Alexander and others, which had

been decided by a casting vote in the court of session, determining, that the corporation of Stirling was corrupt, and setting aside the election of some of their officers; because it was proved, that three of the leading men, who influenced the majority, had entered into an unjustifiable compact, of which, however, the majority were ignorant; he dictated to him, after a little consideration, the following sentences upon the subject:

"There is a difference between majority and superiority; majority is applied to number, and superiority to power; and power, like many other things, is to be estimated, non numero sed pondere. Now, though the greater number is not corrupt, the greater weight is corrupt, so that corruption predominates in the borough, taken collectively, though, perhaps, taken numerically, the greater part may be uncorrupt. That borough, which is so constituted as to act corruptly, is in the eye of reason corrupt, whether it be by the uncontrollable power of a few, or by an accidental pravity of the multitude. The objection, in which is urged the injustice of making the innocent suffer with the guilty, is an objection not only against society, but against the possibility of society. All societies, great and small, subsist upon this condition; that as the individuals derive advantages from union, they may likewise suffer inconveniences; that as those who do nothing, and sometimes those who do ill, will have the honours and emoluments of general virtue and general prosperity; so those likewise who do nothing, or perhaps do well, must be involved in the consequences of predominant corruption." The decision was affirmed in the house of lords.