great Whig, that perhaps a Nonjuror would have been less criminal in taking the oaths imposed by the ruling power, than refusing them; because refusing them necessarily laid him under almost an irresistible temptation to be more criminal; for a man must live, and if he precludes himself from the support furnished by the establishment will probably be reduced to very wicked shifts to maintain himself." (1) Boswell. "I should think, Sir, that a man who took the oaths contrary to his principles was a determined wicked man, because he was sure he was committing perjury: whereas a Nonjuror might be insensibly led to do what was wrong, without being so directly conscious of it." JOHN

(1) This was not merely a cursory remark; for, in his Life of Fenton, he observes, "With many other wise and virtuous men, who, at that time of discord and debate (about the begining of this century), consulted conscience, well or ill formed, more than interest, he doubted the legality of the government; and refusing to qualify himself for public employment, by taking the oaths required, left the University without a degree." This conduct Johnson calls "perverseness of integrity." The question concerning the morality of taking oaths, of whatever kind, imposed by the prevailing power at the time, rather than to be excluded from all consequence, or even any considerable usefulness in society, has been agitated with all the acuteness of casuistry. It is related, that he who devised the oath of abjuration profligately boasted, that he had framed a test which should "damn one half of the nation, and starve the other." Upon minds not exalted to inflexible rectitude, or minds in which zeal for a party is predominant to excess, taking that oath against conviction may have been palliated under the plea of necessity, or ventured upon in heat, as upon the whole producing more good than evil. At a county election in Scotland, many years ago, when there was a warm contest between the friends of the Hanoverian succession, and those against it, the oath of abjuration having been demanded, the freeholders upon one side rose to go away. Upon which a very sanguine gentleman, one of their number, ran to the door to stop them calling out with much earnestness, "Stay, stay, my friends, and let us swear the rogues out of it!"

"Did the nonjuring

SON. Why, Sir, a man who goes to bed to his patron's wife is pretty sure that he is committing wickedness." BOSWELL. clergyman do so, Sir?" of them did." (1)

many

JOHNSON. "I am afraid

I was startled at this argument, and could by no means think it convincing. Had not his own father complied with the requisition of government (2), (as to which he once observed to me, when I pressed him upon it," That, Sir, he was to settle with himself,") he would probably have thought more unfavourably of a Jacobite who took the oaths:

Mr. Strahan talked of launching into the grea ocean of London, in order to have a chance for rising into eminence; and observing that many men were kept back from trying their fortunes there, because they were born to a competency, said, "Small certainties are the bane of men of talents;" which Johnson confirmed. Mr. Strahan put John

(1) What evidence is there of this being the prevailing sin of the nonjuring clergy beyond Cibber's comedy, which, slight evidence as a comedy would be in any such case, is next to none at all on this occasion, for Cibber's play was a mere adaptation of Molière's Tartuffe? — C.

(2) Extract from the book containing the proceedings of the corporation of Lichfield: "19th July, 1712, Agreed that Mr. Michael Johnson be, and he is hereby elected a magistrate and brother of their incorporation; a day is given him to Thursday next to take the oath of fidelity and allegiance, and the oath of a magistrate. Signed, &c.". -"25th July, 1712. Mr. Johnson took the oath of allegiance, and that he believed there was no transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, ↑ before, &c.". HARWOOD.

son in mind of a remark which he had made to him: "There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money." "The more one thinks of this," said Strahan, "the juster it will appear."

Mr. Strahan had taken a poor boy from the country as an apprentice, upon Johnson's recommendation. Johnson having inquired after him, said, "Mr. Strahan, let me have five guineas on account, and I'll give this boy one. Nay, if a man recommends a boy, and does nothing for him, it is sad work. Call him down."

I followed him into the court-yard (1), behind Mr. Strahan's house; and there I had a proof of what I had heard him profess, that he talked alike to all. "Some people tell you that they let themselves down to the capacity of their hearers. I never do that. I speak uniformly, in as intelligible a manner as I can."

"Well, my boy, how do you go on?" "Pretty well, Sir; but they are afraid I ar' n't strong enough for some parts of the business." JOHNSON. “ Why I shall be sorry for it; for when you consider with how little mental power and corporeal labour a printer can get a guinea a week, it is a very desirable occupation for you. Do you hear-take

(1) This was "surveillance," as the French call it, with a vengeance! and this fact, which Mr. Boswell owns with such amusing simplicity, may be taken as a specimen of the "espionnage" which he exercised over Johnson. The reader will have observed, that two French phrases are here used, because, though Mr. Boswell's affectionate curiosity led him into such courses, English manners have no such practice, nor the English language a term to describe it.

- C.