[Pages 876–86] |
|
[1] After supper I
accompanied him to his apartment, and at my request he dictated
to me an argument in favour of the negro who was then claiming
his liberty, in an action in the Court of Session in Scotland.
He had always been very zealous against slavery in every form,
in which I with all deference thought that he discovered “a zeal
without knowledge.” Upon one occasion, when in company with some
very grave men at Oxford, his toast was, “Here’s to the next
insurrection of the negroes in the West Indies.” His violent
prejudice against our West Indian and American settlers appeared
whenever there was an opportunity. Towards the conclusion of his
“Taxation no Tyranny,” he says, “how is it that we hear the
loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” and in
his conversation with Mr. Wilkes he asked, “Where did Beckford
and Trecothick learn English?” That Trecothick could both speak
and write good English is well known. I myself was favoured with
his correspondence concerning the brave Corsicans. And that
Beckford could speak it with a spirit of honest resolution even
to his Majesty, as his “faithful Lord-Mayor of London,” is
commemorated by the noble monument erected to him in
Guildhall. |
|
[2] The argument
dictated by Dr. Johnson was as follows: |
|
“It must be agreed that in most ages many countries have had
part of their inhabitants in a state of slavery; yet it may be
doubted whether slavery can ever be supposed the natural
condition of man. It is impossible not to conceive that men in
their original state were equal; and very difficult to imagine
how one would be subjected to another but by violent
compulsion. An individual may, indeed, forfeit his liberty by a
crime; but he cannot by that crime forfeit the liberty of his
children. What is true of a criminal seems true likewise of a
captive. A man may accept life from a conquering enemy on
condition of perpetual servitude; but it is very doubtful
whether he can entail that servitude on his descendants; for no
man can stipulate without commission for another. The condition
which he himself accepts, his son or grandson perhaps would have
rejected. If we should admit, what perhaps may with more reason
be denied, that there are certain relations between man and man
which may make slavery necessary and just, yet it can never be
proved that he who is now suing for his freedom ever stood in
any of those relations. He is certainly subject by no law, but
that of violence, to his present master; who pretends no claim
to his obedience, but that he bought him from a merchant of
slaves, whose right to sell him never was examined. It is said
that according to the constitutions of Jamaica he was legally
enslaved; these constitutions are merely positive; and
apparently injurious to the rights of mankind, because whoever
is exposed to sale is condemned to slavery without appeal; by
whatever fraud or violence he might have been originally brought
into the merchant’s power. In our own time Princes have been
sold, by wretches to whose care they were entrusted, that they
might have an European education; but when once they were
brought to a market in the plantations, little would avail
either their dignity or their wrongs. The laws of Jamaica afford
a negro no redress. His colour is considered as a sufficient
testimony against him. It is to be lamented that moral right
should ever give way to political convenience. But if
temptations of interest are sometimes too strong for human
virtue, let us at least retain a virtue where there is no
temptation to quit it. In the present case there is apparent
right on one side, and no convenience on the other. Inhabitants
of this island can neither gain riches nor power by taking away
the liberty of any part of the human species. The sum of the
argument is this: — No man is by nature the property of
another: The defendant is, therefore, by nature free: The rights
of nature must be some way forfeited before they can be justly
taken away: That the defendant has by any act forfeited the
rights of nature we require to be proved; and if no proof of
such forfeiture can be given, we doubt not but the justice of
the court will declare him free.”
|
|
[3] I record Dr.
Johnson’s argument fairly upon this particular case; where,
perhaps, he was in the right. But I beg leave to enter my most
solemn protest against his general doctrine with respect to the
Slave Trade. For I will resolutely say — that his
unfavourable notion of it was owing to prejudice, and imperfect
or false information. The wild and dangerous attempt which has
for some time been persisted in to obtain an act of our
Legislature, to abolish so very important and necessary a branch
of commercial interest, must have been crushed at once, had not
the insignificance of the zealots who vainly took the lead in
it, made the vast body of Planters, Merchants, and others, whose
immense properties are involved in that trade, reasonably enough
suppose that there could be no danger. The encouragement which
the attempt has received excites my wonder and indignation; and
though some men of superiour abilities have supported it;
whether from a love of temporary popularity, when prosperous; or
a love of general mischief when desperate, my opinion is
unshaken. To abolish a status, which in all ages God has
sanctioned, and man has continued, would not only be robbery to
an innumerable class of our fellow-subjects; but it would be
extreme cruelty to the African Savages, a portion of whom it
saves from massacre, or intolerable bondage in their own
country, and introduces into a much happier state of life;
especially now when their passage to the West Indies and their
treatment there is humanely regulated. To abolish that trade
would be to. |
|
“ — shut the gates of mercy on mankind.”
|
|
[4] Whatever may have
passed elsewhere concerning it, the HOUSE OF
LORDS is wise and independent: |
|
Intaminatis fulget honoribus;
Nec sumit aut ponit secures
Arbitrio popularis auræ.
|
|
[5] I have read,
conversed, and thought much upon the subject, and would recommend
to all who are capable of conviction, an excellent Tract by my
learned and ingenious friend John Ranby, Esq. entitled “Doubts on
the Abolition of the Slave Trade.” To Mr. Ranby’s “Doubts,” I
will apply Lord Chancellor Hardwicke’s expression in praise of a
Scotch Law Book, called “Dirleton’s Doubts”; “HIS
Doubts, (said his Lordship,) are better than most people’s
Certainties.” |
|
[6] When I said now
to Johnson, that I was afraid I kept him too late up, “No, Sir,
(said he,) I don’t care though I sit all night with you.” This
was an animated speech from a man in his sixty-ninth year. |
|
[7] Had I been as
attentive not to displease him as I ought to have been, I know
not but this vigil might have been fulfilled; but I unluckily
entered upon the controversy concerning the right of
Great-Britain to tax America, and attempted to argue in favour
of our fellow-subjects on the other side of the Atlantick. I
insisted that America might be very well governed, and made to
yield sufficient revenue by the means of influence, as
exemplified in Ireland, while the people might be pleased with
the imagination of their participating of the British
constitution, by having a body of representatives, without whose
consent money could not be exacted from them. Johnson could not
bear my thus opposing his avowed opinion, which he had exerted
himself with an extreme degree of heat to enforce; and the
violent agitation into which he was thrown, while answering, or
rather reprimanding me, alarmed me so, that I heartily repented
of my having unthinkingly introduced the subject. I myself,
however, grew warm, and the change was great, from the calm
state of philosophical discussion in which we had a little
before been pleasingly employed. |
|
[8] I talked of the
corruption of the British Parliament, in which I alledged that
any question, however unreasonable or unjust, might be carried
by a venal majority; and I spoke with high admiration of the
Roman Senate, as if composed of men sincerely desirous to
resolve what they should think best for their country. My friend
would allow no such character to the Roman Senate; and he
maintained that the British Parliament was not corrupt, and that
there was no occasion to corrupt its members; asserting, that
there was hardly ever any question of great importance before
Parliament, any question in which a man might not very well vote
either upon one side or the other. He said there had been none
in his time except that respecting America. |
|
[9] We were fatigued
by the contest, which was produced by my want of caution; and he
was not then in the humour to slide into easy and cheerful
talk. It therefore so happened, that we were after an hour or
two very willing to separate and go to bed. |
|
[10] On Wednesday,
September 24, I went into Dr. Johnson’s room before he got up,
and finding that the storm of the preceding night was quite
laid, I sat down upon his bed-side, and he talked with as much
readiness and good humour as ever. He recommended to me to plant
a considerable part of a large moorish farm which I had
purchased, and he made several calculations of the expence and
profit; for he delighted in exercising his mind on the science
of numbers. He pressed upon me the importance of planting at the
first in a very sufficient manner, quoting the saying “In bello
non licet bis errare”: and adding, “this is equally true in
planting.” |
|
[11] I spoke with
gratitude of Dr. Taylor’s hospitality; and as evidence that it
was not on account of his good table alone that Johnson visited
him often, I mentioned a little anecdote which had escaped my
friend’s recollection, and at hearing which repeated, he
smiled. One evening, when I was sitting with him, Frank
delivered this message: “Sir, Dr. Taylor sends his compliments
to you, and begs you will dine with him to-morrow. He has got a
hare.” — “My compliments (said Johnson) and I’ll dine with
him — hare or rabbit.” |
|
[12] After breakfast
I departed, and pursued my journey northwards. I took my
post-chaise from the Green Man, a very good inn at Ashbourne,
the mistress of which, a mighty civil gentlewoman, courtseying
very low, presented me with an engraving of the sign of her
house; to which she had subjoined, in her own hand-writing, an
address in such singular simplicity of style, that I have
preserved it pasted upon one of the boards of my original
Journal at this time, and shall here insert it for the amusement
of my readers: |
|
“M. Killingley’s duty waits upon Mr. Boswell, is
exceedingly obliged to him for this favour; whenever he comes
this way, hopes for a continuance of the same. Would Mr. Boswell
name the house to his extensive acquaintance, it would be a
singular favour conferr’d on one who has it not in her power to
make any other return but her most grateful thanks, and sincerest
prayers for his happiness in time, and in a blessed eternity.
|
|
“Tuesday morn.”
|
|
[13] From this
meeting at Ashbourne I derived a considerable accession to my
Johnsonian store. I communicated my original Journal to Sir
William Forbes, in whom I have always placed deserved
confidence; and what he wrote to me concerning it is so much to
my credit as the biographer of Johnson, that my readers will, I
hope, grant me their indulgence for here inserting it: “It is
not once or twice going over it (says Sir William,) that will
satisfy me; for I find in it a high degree of instruction as
well as entertainment; and I derive more benefit from Dr.
Johnson’s admirable discussions than I should be able to draw
from his personal conversation; for I suppose there is not a man
in the world to whom he discloses his sentiments so freely as to
yourself.” |
|
[14] I cannot omit a
curious circumstance which occurred at Edensor-inn, close by
Chatsworth, to survey the magnificence of which I had gone a
considerable way out of my road to Scotland. The inn was then
kept by a very jolly landlord, whose name, I think, was Malton.
He happened to mention that “the celebrated Dr. Johnson had been
in his house.” I enquired who this Dr. Johnson was, that I might
hear my host’s notion of him. “Sir, (said he,) Johnson, the
great writer; Oddity, as they call him. He’s the greatest writer
in England; he writes for the ministry; he has a correspondence
abroad, and lets them know what’s going on.” |
|
[15] My friend, who
had a thorough dependance upon the authenticity of my relation
without any embellishment, as falsehood or fiction is too gently
called, laughed a good deal at this representation of himself. |
|
“Mr. Boswell to Dr. Johnson.
|
|
“Edinburgh, Sept. 29, 1777
|
|
“My Dear Sir,
|
|
“By the first post I inform you of my safe arrival
at my own house, and that I had the comfort of finding my wife
and children all in good health.
|
|
“When I look back upon our late interview, it appears to me to
have answered expectation better than almost any scheme of
happiness that I ever put in execution. My Journal is stored
with wisdom and wit; and my memory is filled with the
recollection of lively and affectionate feelings, which now, I
think, yield me more satisfaction than at the time when they
were first excited. I have experienced this upon other
occasions. I shall be obliged to you if you will explain it to
me; for it seems wonderful that pleasure should be more vivid at
a distance than when near. I wish you may find yourself in a
humour to do me this favour; but I flatter myself with no strong
hope of it; for I have observed, that unless upon very serious
occasions, your letters to me are not answers to those which I
write.”
|
|
[16] [I then
expressed much uneasiness that I had mentioned to him the name
of the gentleman who had told me the story so much to his
disadvantage, the truth of which he had completely refuted; for
that my having done so might be interpreted as a breach of
confidence, and offend one whose society I valued: —
therefore earnestly requesting that no notice might be taken of
it to any body, till I should be in London, and have an
opportunity to talk it over with the gentleman.] |
|
“To James Boswell, Esq.
|
|
“Dear Sir
|
|
“You will wonder, or you have wondered, why no
letter has come from me. What you wrote at your return, had in it
such a strain of cowardly caution as gave me no pleasure. I could
not well do what you wished; I had no need to vex you with a
refusal. I have seen Mr. ——, and as to him have set
all right, without any inconvenience, so far as I know, to you.
Mrs. Thrale had forgot the story. You may now be at ease.
|
|
“And at ease I certainly wish you, for the kindness that you
showed in coming so long a journey to see me. It was pity to
keep you so long in pain, but, upon reviewing the matter, I do
not see what I could have done better than I did.
|
|
“I hope you found at your return my dear enemy and all her
little people quite well, and had no reason to repent of your
journey. I think on it with great gratitude.
|
|
“I was not well when you left me at the Doctor’s, and I grew
worse; yet I staid on, and at Lichfield was very ill.
Travelling, however, did not make me worse; and when I came to
London, I complied with a summons to go to Brighthelmstone,
where I saw Beauclerk, and staid three days.
|
|
“Our CLUB has recommenced last Friday, but I was
not there. Langton has another wench. Mrs. Thrale is in hopes of
a young brewer. They got by their trade last year a very large
sum, and their expences are proportionate.
|
|
“Mrs. Williams’s health is very bad. And I have had for some
time a very difficult and laborious respiration; but I am better
by purges, abstinence, and other methods. I am yet, however,
much behind-hand in my health and rest.
|
|
“Dr. Blair’s sermons are now universally commended; but let him
think that I had the honour of first finding and first praising
his excellencies. I did not stay to add my voice to that of the
publick.
|
|
“My dear Friend, let me thank you once more for your visit; you
did me great honour, and I hope met with nothing that displeased
you. I staid long at Ashbourne, not much pleased, yet aukward at
departing. I then went to Lichfield, where I found my friend at
Stow-hill very dangerously diseased. Such is life. Let us try to
pass it well, whatever it be, for there is surely something
beyond it.
|
|
“Well, now, I hope all is well, write as soon as you can to,
dear Sir,
|
|
“Your affectionate servant
“Sam. Johnson.”
|
|
“London, Nov. 25, 1777.”
|
|
“To Dr. Samuel Johnson.
|
|
“MY Dear Sir
|
|
“This day’s post has at length relieved me from
much uneasiness, by bringing me a letter from you. I was, indeed,
doubly uneasy; — on my own account and yours. I was very
anxious to be secured against any bad consequences from my
imprudence in mentioning the gentleman’s name who had told me a
story to your disadvantage; and as I could hardly suppose it
possible, that you would delay so long to make me easy, unless
you were ill, I was not a little apprehensive about you. You must
not be offended when I venture to tell you that you appear to me
to have been too rigid upon this occasion. The ‘cowardly caution
which gave you no pleasure,’ was suggested to me by a friend
here, to whom I mentioned the strange story, and the detection of
its falsity, as an instance how one may be deceived by what is
apparently very good authority. But, as I am still persuaded,
that as I might have obtained the truth, without mentioning the
gentleman’s name, it was wrong in me to do it, I cannot see that
you are just in blaming my caution. But if you were ever so just
in your disapprobation, might you not have dealt more tenderly
with me.
|
|
“I went to Auchinleck about the middle of October, and passed
some time with my father very comfortably.
|
|
* * * * *
“I am engaged in a criminal prosecution against a country
schoolmaster, for indecent behaviour to his female scholars.
There is no statute against such abominable conduct; but it is
punishable at common law. I shall be obliged to you for your
assistance in this extraordinary trial. I ever am, my dear
Sir.
|
|
“Your faithful humble servant.
|
|
“JAMES Boswell.”
|
|
[17] About this time
I wrote to Johnson, giving him an account of the decision of the
Negro cause, by the Court of Session, which by those who hold
even the mildest and best regulated slavery in abomination, (of
which number I do not hesitate to declare that I am none,)
should be remembered with high respect, and to the credit of
Scotland; for it went upon a much broader ground than the case
of Somerset, which was decided in England; being truly the
general question, whether a perpetual obligation of service to
one master in any mode should be sanctified by the law of a free
country. A negro, then called Joseph Knight, a native of Africa,
having been brought to Jamaica in the usual course of the slave
trade, and purchased by a Scotch gentleman in that island, had
attended his master to Scotland, where it was officiously
suggested to him that he would be found entitled to his liberty
without any limitation. He accordingly brought his action, in
the course of which the advocates on both sides did themselves
great honour. Mr. Maclaurin has had the praise of Johnson, for
his argument in favour of the negro, and Mr. Macconochie
distinguished himself on the same side, by his ingenuity and
extraordinary research. Mr. Cullen, on the part of the master,
discovered good information and sound reasoning; in which he was
well supported by Mr. James Ferguson, remarkable for a manly
understanding, and a knowledge both of books and of the world.
But I cannot too highly praise the speech which Mr. Henry Dundas
generously contributed to the cause of the sooty stranger. Mr.
Dundas’s Scottish accent, which has been so often in vain
obtruded as an objection to his powerful abilities in
parliament, was no disadvantage to him in his own country. And I
do declare, that upon this memorable question he impressed me,
and I believe all his audience, with such feelings as were
produced by some of the most eminent orations of antiquity. This
testimony I liberally give to the excellence of an old friend,
with whom it has been my lot to differ very widely upon many
political topicks; yet I persuade myself without malice. A great
majority of the Lords of Session decided for the negro. But four
of their number, the Lord President, Lord Elliock, Lord
Monboddo, and Lord Covington, resolutely maintained the
lawfulness of a status, which has been acknowledged in all ages
and countries, and that when freedom flourished, as in old
Greece and Rome.
|
|