"Mrs. Williams (faid he one day) was angry that Thrale's family did not fend regularly to her every time they heard from me while I was in the Hebrides. Little people are apt to be jealous; but they fhould not be jealous; for they ought to confider, that fuperior attention will neceffarily be paid to fuperior fortune or rank. Two perfons 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 fo may have a double claim."

When Rouffeau's treatife on the inequality of mankind was a fashionable topick, it gave rife to an observation of Mr. Dempfter, in a converfation with Johnson, that the advantages of fortune and rank were nothing to a wife man, who ought to value only merit,—“ If man (faid Johnfon) were a favage, living in the woods by himself, this might be true; but in civilized fociety we all depend upon each other, and our happiness is very much owing to the good opinion of mankind. Now, Sir, in civilized fociety, external advantages make us more refpected. 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 fay what is there in it? But that will avail you nothing; for it is part of a general fyftem,

Pound

Pound St. Paul's church into atoms, and confider any fingle atom; it is, to be fure, 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 fociety, perfonal 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 fee which will respect you moft. If you with only to support 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 fum will fill your belly, fhelter you from the weather, and even get you a strong lafting coat, fuppofing 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 confequence, and, of courfe more happiness, than fix pounds a year, the fame proportion will hold as to fix thoufand, and fo 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 muft proceed from other caufes than from his having the large fortune: for, cæteris

L 4

cæteris paribus, he who is rich in a civilized fociety, 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 ufe; for its only use is to part with it. Rouffeau, and all thofe 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 fide of a debate, because moft ingenious things, that is to fay, moft new things, could be faid upon it. Sir, there is nothing for which you may not mufter up more plaufible arguments than those which are urged against wealth and other external advantages, Why now, there is ftealing; why should it be thought a crime? When we confider by what unjuft 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? Befides, Sir, when we confider the bad ufe that many people make of their property, and how much better ufe the thief may make of it, it may be defended as a very allowable practice. Yet, Sir, the experience of mankind has difcavered ftealing to be fo 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

poor fellow, I was a great arguer for the advantages of poverty; but I was, at the fame time, very forry to be poor. Sir, all the arguments which are brought to represent poverty as no evil, fhew 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, eafy and unreferved fociety. Johnfon faid, "That is an ill-founded notion. Being a king does not exclude a man from fuch fociety. Great kings have always been focial. The King of Pruffia, the only great king at prefent, is very focial. Charles the Second, the laft King of England, who was a man of parts, was focial; and our Henrys and Edwards were all focial."

Mr. Dempfter having endeavoured to maintain, that intrinfic merit ought to make the only distinction amongst mankind, Johnfon obferved, "Why, Sir, mankind have found that this cannot be. How fhall we determine the proportion of intrinfic merit? Were that to be the only distinction amongst mankind, we fhould foon quarrel about the degrees of it.

Werg

Were all diftinctions abolifhed, the ftrongeft would not long acquiefce, but would endeavour to obtain a fuperiority by their bodily ftrength. But, Sir, as fubordination is very neceffary for fociety, and contentions for fuperiority very dangerous, mankind, that is to say all civilized nations, have fettled 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 fhould have no other enjoyment than mere animal pleasure.”

Mr. Bofwell faid, he confidered diftinction of rank to be of fo 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 firft man in Britain for genius, he fhould hesitate 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 firft man for ge. nius; but to gain moft refpect, you should dine with the firft 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