Life of Samuel Johnson, Vol. I — Part 32

when Dr. Johnson muttered 'lead us not into temptation,' used with waggish and gallant humour to whisper Mrs. Davies, 'You, my dear, are the cause of this.'

He had another particularity, of which none of his friends ever ventured to ask an explanation[1420].

It appeared to me some superstitious habit, which he had contracted early, and from which he had never called upon his reason to disentangle him.

This was his anxious care to go out or in at a door or passage by a certain number of steps from a certain point, or at least so as that either his right or his left foot, (I am not certain which,) should constantly make the first actual movement when he came close to the door or passage.

Thus I conjecture: for I have, upon innumerable occasions, observed him suddenly stop, and then seem to count his steps with a deep earnestness; and when he had neglected or gone wrong in this sort of magical movement, I have seen him go back again, put himself in a proper posture to begin the ceremony, and, having gone through it, break from his abstraction, walk briskly on, and join his companion[1421].

A strange instance of something of this nature, even when on horseback, happened when he was in the isle of Sky[1422].

Sir Joshua Reynolds has observed him to go a good way about, rather than cross a particular alley in Leicester-fields; but this Sir Joshua imputed to his having had some disagreeable recollection associated with it.

[Page 486: Illness of Joshua Reynolds.

A.

D.

1765. ] That the most minute singularities which belonged to him, and made very observable parts of his appearance and manner, may not be omitted, it is requisite to mention, that while talking or even musing as he sat in his chair, he commonly held his head to one side towards his right shoulder, and shook it in a tremulous manner, moving his body backwards and forwards, and rubbing his left knee in the same direction, with the palm of his hand.

In the intervals of articulating he made various sounds with his mouth, sometimes as if ruminating, or what is called chewing the cud, sometimes giving a half whistle, some-times making his tongue play backwards from the roof of his mouth, as if clucking like a hen, and sometimes protruding it against his upper gums in front, as if pronouncing quickly under his breath, _too, too, too_: all this accompanied sometimes with a thoughtful look, but more frequently with a smile.

Generally when he had concluded a period, in the course of a dispute, by which time he was a good deal exhausted by violence and vociferation, he used to blow out his breath like a Whale.

This I supposed was a relief to his lungs; and seemed in him to be a contemptuous mode of expression, as if he had made the arguments of his opponent fly like chaff before the wind.

I am fully aware how very obvious an occasion I here give for the sneering jocularity of such as have no relish of an exact likeness;

which to render complete, he who draws it must not disdain the slightest strokes.

But if witlings should be inclined to attack this account, let them have the candour to quote what I have offered in my defence.

He was for some time in the summer at Easton Maudit, Northamptonshire, on a visit to the Reverend Dr. Percy, now Bishop of Dromore.

Whatever dissatisfaction he felt at what he considered as a slow progress in intellectual improvement, we find that his heart was tender, and his affections warm, as appears from the following very kind letter: 'TO JOSHUA REYNOLDS, ESQ.

, IN LEICESTER-FIELDS, LONDON.

'DEAR SIR, 'I did not hear of your sickness till I heard likewise of your recovery, and therefore escaped that part of your pain, which every man must feel, to whom you are known as you are known to me.

'Having had no particular account of your disorder, I know not in what state it has left you.

If the amusement of my company can exhilarate the languor of a slow recovery, I will not delay a day to come to you; for I know not how I can so effectually promote my own pleasure as by pleasing you, or my own interest as by preserving you, in whom, if I should lose you, I should lose almost the only man whom I call a friend.

'Pray let me hear of you from yourself, or from dear Miss Reynolds[1423].

Make my compliments to Mr. Mudge.

I am, dear Sir, 'Your most affectionate 'And most humble servant, 'SAM.

JOHNSON.'

'At the Rev. Mr. Percy's, at Easton Maudit, Northamptonshire, (by Castle Ashby,) Aug.

19, 1764.' [Page 487: Johnson at Cambridge.

Ætat 56. ] 1765: ÆTAT.

56. --Early in the year 1765 he paid a short visit to the University of Cambridge, with his friend Mr. Beauclerk.

There is a lively picturesque account of his behaviour on this visit, in _The Gentleman's Magazine_ for March 1785, being an extract of a letter from the late Dr. John Sharp.

The two following sentences are very characteristical:-- 'He drank his large potations of tea with me, interrupted by many an indignant contradiction, and many a noble sentiment,'--'Several persons got into his company the last evening at Trinity, where, about twelve, he began to be very great; stripped poor Mrs. Macaulay to the very skin, then gave her for his toast, and drank her in two bumpers[1424].'

The strictness of his self-examination and scrupulous Christian humility appear in his pious meditation on Easter-day this year.

'I purpose again to partake of the blessed sacrament; yet when I consider how vainly I have hitherto resolved at this annual commemoration of my Saviour's death, to regulate my life by his laws, I am almost afraid to renew my resolutions.'

The concluding words are very remarkable, and shew that he laboured under a severe depression of spirits.

'Since the last Easter I have reformed no evil habit, my time has been unprofitably spent, and seems as a dream that has left nothing behind.

_My memory grows confused, and I know not how the days pass over me_.

Good Lord deliver me[1425]!'

[Page 488: Trinity College, Dublin.

A.

D.

1765. ] No man was more gratefully sensible of any kindness done to him than Johnson.

There is a little circumstance in his diary this year, which shews him in a very amiable light.

'July 2. --I paid Mr. Simpson ten guineas, which he had formerly lent me in my necessity and for which Tetty expressed her gratitude.'

'July 8. --I lent Mr. Simpson ten guineas more[1426].'

Here he had a pleasing opportunity of doing the same kindness to an old friend, which he had formerly received from him.

Indeed his liberality as to money was very remarkable.

The next article in his diary is, 'July 16. --I received seventy-five pounds[1427].

Lent Mr. Davis twenty-five.'

Trinity College, Dublin, at this time surprised Johnson with a spontaneous compliment of the highest academical honours, by creating him Doctor of Laws[1428].

The diploma, which is in my possession, is as follows: [Page 489: Johnson created Doctor of Laws.

Ætat 56. ] '_OMNIBUS ad quos præsentes literae pervenerint, salutem.

Nos Præpositus et Socii seniores Collegii sacrosanctæ et individuæ Trinitatis Reginæ Elizabethæ juxta Dublin, testamur_, Samueli Johnson, _Armigero[1429], ob egregiam scriptorum elegantiam et utilitatem, gratiam concessam fuisse pro gradu Doctoratus in utroque Jure, octavo die Julii, Anno Domini millesimo septingentesimo sexagesimo-quinto.

In cujus rei testimonium singulorum manus et sigillum quo in hisce utimur apposuimus; vicesimo tertio die Julii, Anno Domini millesimo septingentesimo sexagesimo-quinto.

'GUL.

CLEMENT.

FRAN.

ANDREWS.

R.

MURRAY.

'THO.

WILSON.

Præps.

ROBtus LAW.

'THO.

LELAND.

MICH.

KEARNEY.'

This unsolicited mark of distinction, conferred on so great a literary character, did much honour to the judgement and liberal spirit of that learned body.

Johnson acknowledged the favour in a letter to Dr. Leland, one of their number; but I have not been able to obtain a copy of it.

[1430] He appears this year to have been seized with a temporary fit of ambition, for he had thoughts both of studying law and of engaging in politics.

His 'Prayer before the Study of Law' is truly admirable:-- 'Sept.

26, 1765. 'Almighty GOD, the giver of wisdom, without whose help resolutions are vain, without whose blessing study is ineffectual; enable me, if it be thy will, to attain such knowledge as may qualify me to direct the doubtful, and instruct the ignorant; to prevent wrongs and terminate contentions; and grant that I may use that knowledge which I shall attain, to thy glory and my own salvation, for JESUS CHRIST'S sake.

Amen[1431].'

[Page 490: Johnson's introduction to the Thrales.

A.

D.

1765. ] His prayer in the view of becoming a politician is entitled, 'Engaging in POLITICKS with H----n,' no doubt his friend, the Right Honourable William Gerard Hamilton[1432], for whom, during a long acquaintance, he had a great esteem, and to whose conversation he once paid this high compliment: 'I am very unwilling to be left alone, Sir, and therefore I go with my company down the first pair of stairs, in some hopes that they may, perhaps, return again.

I go with you, Sir, as far as the street-door.'

In what particular department he intended to engage does not appear, nor can Mr. Hamilton explain[1433].

His prayer is in general terms:-- 'Enlighten my understanding with knowledge of right, and govern my will by thy laws, that no deceit may mislead me, nor temptation corrupt me;

that I may always endeavour to do good, and hinder evil[1434].'

There is nothing upon the subject in his diary.

[Page 491: Old Thrale.

Ætat 56. ] This year[1435] was distinguished by his being introduced into the family of Mr. Thrale, one of the most eminent brewers in England, and Member of Parliament for the borough of Southwark.

Foreigners are not a little amazed when they hear of brewers, distillers, and men in similar departments of trade, held forth as persons of considerable consequence.

In this great commercial country it is natural that a situation which produces much wealth should be considered as very respectable; and, no doubt, honest industry is entitled to esteem.

But, perhaps, the too rapid advance of men of low extraction tends to lessen the value of that distinction by birth and gentility, which has ever been found beneficial to the grand scheme of subordination.

Johnson used to give this account of the rise of Mr. Thrale's father: 'He worked at six shillings a week for twenty years in the great brewery, which afterwards was his own.

The proprietor of it had an only daughter, who was married to a nobleman.

It was not fit that a peer should continue the business.

On the old man's death, therefore, the brewery was to be sold.

To find a purchaser for so large a property was a difficult matter; and, after some time, it was suggested, that it would be adviseable to treat with Thrale, a sensible, active, honest man, who had been employed in the house, and to transfer the whole to him for thirty thousand pounds, security being taken upon the property.

This was accordingly settled.

In eleven years Thrale paid the purchase-money[1436].

He acquired a large fortune, and lived to be Member of Parliament for Southwark.

But what was most remarkable was the liberality with which he used his riches.

He gave his son and daughters the best education.

The esteem which his good conduct procured him from the nobleman who had married his master's daughter, made him be treated with much attention; and his son, both at school and at the University of Oxford, associated with young men of the first rank.

His allowance from his father, after he left college, was splendid; no less than a thousand a year.

This, in a man who had risen as old Thrale did, was a very extraordinary instance of generosity.

He used to say, 'If this young dog does not find so much after I am gone as he expects, let him remember that he has had a great deal in my own time.'

The son, though in affluent circumstances, had good sense enough to carry on his father's trade, which was of such extent, that I remember he once told me, he would not quit it for an annuity of ten thousand a year; 'Not (said he,) that I get ten thousand a year by it, but it is an estate to a family.'

Having left daughters only, the property was sold for the immense sum of one hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds[1437]; a magnificent proof of what may be done by fair trade in no long period of time.

[Page 492: A new system of gentility.

A.

D.

1765. ] There may be some who think that a new system of gentility[1438] might be established, upon principles totally different from what have hitherto prevailed.

Our present heraldry, it may be said, is suited to the barbarous times in which it had its origin.

It is chiefly founded upon ferocious merit, upon military excellence.

Why, in civilised times, we may be asked, should there not be rank and honours, upon principles, which, independent of long custom, are certainly not less worthy, and which, when once allowed to be connected with elevation and precedency, would obtain the same dignity in our imagination?

Why should not the knowledge, the skill, the expertness, the assiduity, and the spirited hazards of trade and commerce, when crowned with success, be entitled to give those flattering distinctions by which mankind are so universally captivated?

Such are the specious, but false arguments for a proposition which always will find numerous advocates, in a nation where men are every day starting up from obscurity to wealth.

To refute them is needless.

The general sense of mankind cries out, with irresistible force, 'Un gentilhomme est toujours gentilhomme'[1439].

[Page 493: A new home for Johnson.

Ætat 56. ] Mr. Thrale had married Miss Hesther Lynch Salusbury, of good Welsh extraction[1440], a lady of lively talents, improved by education.

That Johnson's introduction into Mr. Thrale's family, which contributed so much to the happiness of his life, was owing to her desire for his conversation, is very probable and a general supposition: but it is not the truth.

Mr. Murphy, who was intimate with Mr. Thrale[1441], having spoken very highly of Dr. Johnson, he was requested to make them acquainted[1442].

This being mentioned to Johnson, he accepted of an invitation to dinner at Thrale's, and was so much pleased with his reception, both by Mr. and Mrs. Thrale, and they so much pleased with him, that his invitations to their house were more and more frequent, till at last he became one of the family, and an apartment was appropriated to him, both in their house in Southwark, and in their villa at Streatham[1443].

[Page 494: Mr. Thrale.

A.

D.

1765. ] Johnson had a very sincere esteem for Mr. Thrale, as a man of excellent principles, a good scholar, well skilled in trade, of a sound understanding, and of manners such as presented the character of a plain independent English 'Squire[1444].

As this family will frequently be mentioned in the course of the following pages, and as a false notion has prevailed that Mr. Thrale was inferiour, and in some degree insignificant, compared with Mrs. Thrale, it may be proper to give a true state of the case from the authority of Johnson himself in his own words.

[Page 495: Mrs. Thrale.

Ætat 56. ] 'I know no man, (said he,) who is more master of his wife and family than Thrale.

If he but holds up a finger, he is obeyed.

It is a great mistake to suppose that she is above him in literary attainments[1445].

She is more flippant; but he has ten times her learning: he is a regular scholar; but her learning is that of a school-boy in one of the lower forms.'

My readers may naturally wish for some representation of the figures of this couple.

Mr. Thrale was tall, well proportioned, and stately.

As for Madam, or my Mistress[1446], by which epithets Johnson used to mention Mrs. Thrale, she was short, plump, and brisk[1447].

She has herself given us a lively view of the idea which Johnson had of her person, on her appearing before him in a dark-coloured gown; 'You little creatures should never wear those sort of clothes, however; they are unsuitable in every way.

What!

have not all insects gay colours[1448]?'

Mr. Thrale gave his wife a liberal indulgence, both in the choice of their company, and in the mode of entertaining them.

He understood and valued Johnson, without remission, from their first acquaintance to the day of his death.

Mrs. Thrale was enchanted with Johnson's conversation, for its own sake, and had also a very allowable vanity in appearing to be honoured with the attention of so celebrated a man.

[Page 496: Johnson's SHAKSPEARE published.

A.

D.

1765. ] Nothing could be more fortunate for Johnson than this connection[1449].

He had at Mr. Thrale's all the comforts and even luxuries of life; his melancholy was diverted, and his irregular habits lessened[1450] by association with an agreeable and well-ordered family.

He was treated with the utmost respect, and even affection.

The vivacity of Mrs. Thrale's literary talk roused him to cheerfulness and exertion, even when they were alone.

But this was not often the case; for he found here a constant succession of what gave him the highest enjoyment: the society of the learned, the witty, and the eminent in every way, who were assembled in numerous companies[1451], called forth his wonderful powers, and gratified him with admiration, to which no man could be insensible.

[Page 497: Dr. Kenrick.

Ætat 56. ] In the October of this year[1452] he at length gave to the world his edition of _Shakspeare_[1453], which, if it had no other merit but that of producing his Preface[1454], in which the excellencies and defects of that immortal bard are displayed with a masterly hand, the nation would have had no reason to complain.

A blind indiscriminate admiration of Shakspeare had exposed the British nation to the ridicule of foreigners[1455].

Johnson, by candidly admitting the faults of his poet, had the more credit in bestowing on him deserved and indisputable praise; and doubtless none of all his panegyrists have done him half so much honour.

Their praise was, like that of a counsel, upon his own side of the cause: Johnson's was like the grave, well-considered, and impartial opinion of the judge, which falls from his lips with weight, and is received with reverence.

What he did as a commentator has no small share of merit, though his researches were not so ample, and his investigations so acute as they might have been, which we now certainly know from the labours of other able and ingenious criticks who have followed him[1456].

He has enriched his edition with a concise account of each play, and of its characteristick excellence.

Many of his notes have illustrated obscurities in the text, and placed passages eminent for beauty in a more conspicuous light; and he has in general exhibited such a mode of annotation, as may be beneficial to all subsequent editors[1457].

[Page 498: Johnson's attack on Voltaire.

A.

D.

1785. ] His _Shakespeare_ was virulently attacked by Mr. William Kenrick, who obtained the degree of LL.

D.

from a Scotch University, and wrote for the booksellers in a great variety of branches.

Though he certainly was not without considerable merit, he wrote with so little regard to decency and principles, and decorum[1458], and in so hasty a manner, that his reputation was neither extensive nor lasting.

I remember one evening, when some of his works were mentioned, Dr. Goldsmith said, he had never heard of them; upon which Dr. Johnson observed, 'Sir, he is one of the many who have made themselves _publick_, without making themselves _known_[1459].'

A young student of Oxford, of the name of Barclay, wrote an answer to Kenrick's review of Johnson's _Shakspeare_.

Johnson was at first angry that Kenrick's attack should have the credit of an answer.

But afterwards, considering the young man's good intention, he kindly noticed him, and probably would have done more, had not the young man died[1460].

[Page 499: Voltaire's reply.

Ætat 56. ] In his Preface to _Shakspeare_, Johnson treated Voltaire very contemptuously, observing, upon some of his remarks, 'These are the petty criticisms of petty wits[1461].'

Voltaire, in revenge, made an attack upon Johnson, in one of his numerous literary sallies, which I remember to have read; but there being no general index to his voluminous works, have searched in vain, and therefore cannot quote it[1462].

Voltaire was an antagonist with whom I thought Johnson should not disdain to contend.

I pressed him to answer.

He said, he perhaps might;

but he never did.

Mr. Burney having occasion to write to Johnson for some receipts for subscriptions to his Shakspeare, which Johnson had omitted to deliver when the money was paid[1463], he availed himself of that opportunity of thanking Johnson for the great pleasure which he had received from the perusal of his Preface to _Shakspeare_; which, although it excited much clamour against him at first, is now justly ranked among the most excellent of his writings.

To this letter Johnson returned the following answer:-- [Page 500: Resolutions at church.

] 'To CHARLES BURNEY ESQ.

IN POLAND-STREET.

'SIR, 'I am sorry that your kindness to me has brought upon you so much trouble, though you have taken care to abate that sorrow, by the pleasure which I receive from your approbation.

I defend my criticism in the same manner with you.

We must confess the faults of our favourite, to gain credit to our praise of his excellencies.

He that claims, either in himself or for another, the honours of perfection, will surely injure the reputation which he designs to assist.

'Be pleased to make my compliments to your family.

'I am, Sir, 'Your most obliged 'And most humble servant, 'Sam.

Johnson.'

'Oct.

16, 1765. [1464]' From one of his journals I transcribed what follows: 'At church, Oct.

--65. 'To avoid all singularity; _Bonaventura_[1465].

'To come in before service, and compose my mind by meditation, or by reading some portions of scriptures.

_Tetty_.

'If I can hear the sermon, to attend it, unless attention be more troublesome than useful.

'To consider the act of prayer as a reposal of myself upon God, and a resignation of 'all into his holy hand.'

APPENDIX A

JOHNSON'S DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT.

(_Pages_ 118 _and_ 150. ) The publication of the 'Debates' in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ began in July 1732. The names of the speakers were not printed in full; Sir Robert Walpole was disguised--if a disguise it can be called--as Sir R----t W----le, and Mr. Pelham as Mr. P--lh--m. Otherwise the report was open and avowed.

During the first few years, however, it often happened that no attempt was made to preserve the individuality of the members.

Thus in a debate on the number of seamen (_Gent.

Mag_.

v.

507), the speeches of the 'eight chief speakers' were so combined as to form but three.

First come 'the arguments made use of for 30,000 men;' next, 'an answer to the following effect;' and lastly, 'a reply that was in substance as follows.'

Each of these three speeches is in the first person, though each is formed of the arguments of two members at least, perhaps of many.

In the report of a two days' debate in 1737, in which there were fourteen chief speakers, the substance of thirteen of the speeches was given in three (_ib_.

vii.

746, 775).

In July 1736 (_ib_.

vi.

363) we find the beginning of a great change.

'To satisfy the impatience of his readers,' the publisher promises 'to give them occasionally some entire speeches.'

He prints one which likely enough had been sent to him by the member who had spoken it, and adds that he shall be 'grateful for any authentic intelligence in matters of such importance and _tenderness_ as the speeches in Parliament' (_ib_.

p. 365).

Cave, in his examination before the House of Lords on April 30, 1747, on a charge of having printed in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ an account of the trial of Lord Lovat, owned that 'he had had speeches sent him by the members themselves, and had had assistance from some members who have taken notes of other members' speeches' (_Parl.

Hist_.

xiv.

60).

It was chiefly in the numbers of the _Magazine_ for the latter half of each year that the publication took place.

The parliamentary recess was the busy time for reporters and printers.

It was commonly believed that the resolution on the Journals of the House of Commons against publishing any of its proceedings was only in force while parliament was sitting.

But on April 13, 1738, it was unanimously resolved 'that it is an high indignity to, and a notorious breach of the privilege of this House to give any account of the debates, as well during the recess as the sitting of parliament' (_Parl.

Hist_.

x.

812).

It was admitted that this privilege expired at the end of every parliament.

When the dissolution had come every one might publish what he pleased.

With the House of Lords it was far otherwise, for 'it is a Court of Record, and as such its rights and privileges never die.

It may punish a printer for printing any part of its proceedings for thirty or forty years back' (_ib_.

p. 807).

Mr. Winnington, when speaking to this resolution of April 13, said that if they did not put a speedy stop to this practice of reporting 'they will have every word that is spoken here by _gentlemen_ misrepresented by _fellows_ who thrust themselves into our gallery' (_ib_.

p. 806).

Walpole complained 'that he had been made to speak the very reverse of what he meant.

He had read debates wherein all the wit, the learning, and the argument had been thrown into one side, and on the other nothing but what was low, mean, and ridiculous' (_ib_.

p. 809).

Later on, Johnson in his reports 'saved appearances tolerably well; but took care that the WHIG DOGS should not have the best of it' (Murphy's _Johnson_, p. 45).

It was but a few days after he became a contributor to the _Magazine_ that this resolution was passed.

Parliament rose on May 20, and in the June number the reports of the debates of the Senate of Lilliput began.

To his fertile mind was very likely due this humorous expedient by which the resolution of the House was mocked.

That he wrote the introduction in which is narrated the voyage of Captain Gulliver's grandson to Lilliputia can scarcely be doubted.

It bears all the marks of his early style.

The Lords become Hurgoes, and the Commons Clinabs, Walpole becomes Walelop, Pulteney Pulnub, and Pitt Ptit; otherwise the report is much as it had been.

At the end of the volume for 1739 was given a key to all the names.

The _London Magazine_ had boldly taken the lead.

In the May number, which was published at the close of the month, and therefore after parliament had risen, began the report of the proceedings and debates of a political and learned club of young noblemen and gentlemen, who hoped one day to enter parliament, and who therefore, the better to qualify themselves for their high position, only debated questions that were there discussed.

To the speakers were given the names of the ancient Greeks and Romans.

Thus we find the Hon. Marcus Cato and the Right Hon. M.

Tullius Cicero.

By the key that was published in 1742 Cicero was seen to be Walpole, and Cato, Pulteney.

What risks the publishers and writers ran was very soon shown.

In December 1740 the ministers proposed to lay an embargo on various articles of food.

As the members entered the House a printed paper was handed to each, entitled _Considerations upon the Embargo_.

Adam Smith had just gone up as a young student to the University of Oxford.

There are 'considerations' suggested in this paper which the great authority of the author of the _Wealth of Nations_ has not yet made pass current as truths.

The paper contained, moreover, charges of jobbery against 'great men,' though no one was named.

It was at once voted a malicious and scandalous libel, and the author, William Cooley, a scrivener, was committed to Newgate.

With him was sent the printer of the _Daily Post_, in which part of the _Considerations_ had been published.

After seven weeks' imprisonment in the depth of winter in that miserable den, 'without sufficient sustenance to support life,' Cooley was discharged on paying his fees.

He was in knowledge more than a hundred years before his time, and had been made to suffer accordingly.

The printer would have been discharged also, but the fees were more than he could pay.

Two months later he petitioned for mercy.

The fees by that time were £121. His petition was not received, and he was kept in prison till the close of the session (_Parl.

Hist_.

xi.

867-894).

Such were the risks run by Cave and Johnson and their fellow-workers.

That no prosecution followed was due perhaps to that dread of ridicule which has often tempered the severity of the law.

'The Hurgolen Branard, who in the former session was Pretor of Mildendo,' might well have been unwilling to prove that he was Sir John Barnard, late Lord Mayor of London.

Johnson, it should seem, revised some of the earliest _Debates_.

In a letter to Cave which cannot have been written later than September 1738, he mentions the alterations that he had made (_ante_, p. 136).

The more they were written by him, the less authentic did they become, for he was not one of those 'fellows who thrust themselves into the gallery of the House.'

His employer, Cave, if we can trust his own evidence, had been in the habit of going there and taking notes with a pencil (_Parl.

Hist_.

xiv.

60).

But Johnson, Hawkins says (_Life_, p. 122), 'never was within the walls of either House.'

According to Murphy (_Life_, p. 44), he had been inside the House of Commons once.

Be this as it may, in the end the _Debates_ were composed by him alone (_ante_, p. 118).

From that time they must no longer be looked upon as authentic records, in spite of the assertions of the Editor of the _Parl.

Hist_.

(xi.

Preface).

Johnson told Boswell (_ante_, p. 118) 'that sometimes he had nothing more communicated to him than the names of the several speakers, and the part which they had taken in the debate;' sometimes 'he had scanty notes furnished by persons employed to attend in both Houses of Parliament.'

Often, his Debates were written 'from no materials at all--the mere coinage of his own imagination' (_post_, under Dec.

9, 1784).

'He never wrote any part of his works with equal velocity.

Three columns of the _Magazine_ in an hour was no uncommon effort, which was faster than most persons could have transcribed that quantity' (_ib_.

).

According to Hawkins (_Life_, p. 99), 'His practice was to shut himself up in a room assigned to him at St. John's Gate, to which he would not suffer any one to approach, except the compositor or Cave's boy for matter, which, as fast as he composed it, he tumbled out at the door.'

From Murphy we get the following curious story:-- 'That Johnson was the author of the debates during that period [Nov, 1740 to Feb.

1743] was not generally known; but the secret transpired several years afterwards, and was avowed by himself on the following occasion:--Mr. Wedderburne (now Lord Loughborough), Dr. Johnson, Dr. Francis (the translator of _Horace_), the present writer, and others dined with the late Mr. Foote.

An important debate towards the end of Sir Robert Walpole's administration being mentioned, Dr. Francis observed, "that Mr. Pitt's speech on that occasion was the best he had ever read."

He added, "that he had employed eight years of his life in the study of Demosthenes, and finished a translation of that celebrated orator, with all the decorations of style and language within the reach of his capacity; but he had met with nothing equal to the speech above mentioned."

Many of the company remembered the debate; and some passages were cited with the approbation and applause of all present.

During the ardour of conversation, Johnson remained silent.

As soon as the warmth of praise subsided, he opened with these words:--"That speech I wrote in a garret in Exeter Street."

The company was struck with astonishment.

After staring at each other in silent amaze, Dr. Francis asked how that speech could be written by him?

"Sir," said Johnson, "I wrote it in Exeter Street.

I never had been in the gallery of the House of Commons but once.

Cave had interest with the door-keepers.

He, and the persons employed under him, gained admittance: they brought away the subject of discussion, the names of the speakers, the side they took, and the order in which they rose, together with notes of the arguments advanced in the course of the debate.

The whole was afterwards communicated to me, and I composed the speeches in the form which they now have in the Parliamentary Debates."