you keep them idle. I own, indeed, there may be more virtue in giving it immediately in charity than in spending it in luxury, though there may be pride in that too." Mifs Seward, who was prefent, afked if this was not Mandeville's doctrine of " private vices public benefits.”— JOHNSON. "The fallacy of that book is, that Mandeville defines neither vices nor benefits. He reckons among vices every thing that gives pleasure. He takes the narrowest system of morality, monaftic morality, which holds pleafure itself to be a vice; fuch as eating falt with our fish, because it makes it eat better; and he reckons wealth as a public benefit, which is by no means always true. Pieafure of itself is not a vice. Having a garden, which we all know to be perfectly innocent, is a great pleasure. At the fame time, in this ftate of being, there are many pleasures vices, which however are fo immediately agreeable that we can hardly abftain from them. The happiness of Heaven will be, that pleasure and virtue will be perfectly confiftent. Mandeville puts the cafe of a man who gets drunk at an alehouse; and fays it is a public benefit, because so much money is got by it to the public. But it must be confidered, that all the good gained by this, through the gradation of alehouse-keeper, brewer, maltfter, and farmer, is overbalanced

by the evil caused to the man and his family by his getting drunk. This is the way to try what is vicious, by afcertaining whether more evil than good is produced by it upon the whole, which is the cafe in all vice. It may happen that good is produced by vice but not as vice; for inftance, a robber may take money from its owner, and give it to one who will make a better ufe of it. Here is good produced; but not by the robbery as robbery, but as tranflation of property. I read Mandeville forty, or, I believe, fifty years ago. He did not puzzle me; he opened my views into real life very much. No, it is clear that the happiness of fociety depends on virtue. In Sparta theft was allowed by general confent; theft, therefore, was there not a crime, but then there was no fecurity; and what a life must they have had when there was no fecurity. Without truth there must be a diffolution of fociety. As it is, there is folittle truth that we are almoft afraid to truft our ears; but how should we be if falfehood were multiplied ten times? Society is held together by communication and information; and I remember this remark of Sir Thomas Brown's, Do the devils lie? No; for then Hell could. not fubfift.'

"Many things which are false are transmitted from book to book, and gain credit in the world. One of these is the cry against the evil

of

of luxury. Now the truth is, that luxury produces much good. Take the luxury of buildings in London. Does it not produce real advantages in the conveniency and elegance of accommodation, and this all from the exertion of industry? People will tell you, with a melancholy face, how many builders are in gaol. It is plain they are in gaol, not for building; for rents are not fallen. A man gives half a guinea for a difh of green peas. How much gardening does this occafion? how many labourers must the competition to have fuch things early in the market keep in employment? You will hear it faid, very gravely,

Why was not the half-guinea, thus spent in luxury, given to the poor? To how many might it have afforded a good meal. Alas! has it not gone to the induftrious poor, whom it is better to support than the idle poor? You are much furer that you are doing good when you pay money to those who work, as the recom→ pence of their labour, than when you give money merely in charity. Suppofe the ancient luxury of a difh of peacock's brains were to be revived, how many carcafes would be left to the poor at a cheap rate? And as to the rout that is made about people who are ruined by extravagance, it is no matter to the nation that fome individuals fuffer. When fo much general productive

ductive exertion is the confequence of luxury, the nation does not care though there are debtors in gaol; nay, they would not care though their creditors were there too,"

DUELLING.

MR. BOSWELL, in a converfation with Gen. Oglethorpe, Johnfon, and Goldfmith, ftarted the question whether duelling was confiftent with moral duty. The brave old General fired at this, and faid, with a lofty air," Undoubtedly a man has a right to defend his honour." -GOLDSMITH (turning to Mr. B.) "I afk you first, Sir, what would you do if you were

affronted?" He answered that he fhould think it neceffary to fight." Why then (replied Goldsmith) that folves the question."-JOHNSON. "No, Sir, it does not folve the question. It does not follow that what a man would do is therefore right."-Mr. B. "I wished to have it fettled whether duelling was contrary to the laws of Christianity." Johnfon immediately entered on the fubject, and treated it in a masterly man-. per. His thoughts were thefe: "As men become in a high degree refined, various caufes

of

of offence arife, which are confidered to be of fuch importance, that life must be ftaked to atone for them, though in reality they are not fo. A body that has received a very fine polish may be eafily hurt. Before men arrive at this artificial refinement, if one tells his neighbour he lies, his neighbour tells him he lies; if one gives his neighbour a blow, his neighbour gives him a blow: but in a state of highly-polifhed fociety, an affront is held to be a serious injury. It muft, therefore, be resented, or rather a duel must be fought upon it; as men have agreed to banish from their fociety one who puts up with an affront without fighting a duel. Now, Sir, it is never unlawful to fight in felf defence. He, then, who fights a duel, does not fight from paffion against his antago nist, but out of felf defence, to avert the ftig→ ma of the world, and to prevent himself from being driven out of fociety. I could wish there was not that fuperfluity of refinement; but while fuch notions prevail, no doubt a man may lawfully fight a duel."

This juftification is applicable only to the perfon who receives an affront. All mankind muft condemn the aggreffor.

The General faid, that when he was a very young man, only fifteen, ferving under Prince Eugene of Savoy, he was fitting in a company

at