Samuel Johnson on Law and the Lawyers. or a part which he does not like; a lawyer never refuses." Johnson: "Why, sir, what does this prove? Only that a lawyer is worse. Boswell is now like 'Jack' in the 'Tale of a Tub,' who, when he is puzzled by an argu ment, hangs himself. He thinks I shall cut him down, but I'll let him hang." (Laughs vociferously.) Sir Joshua Reynolds, loq. : "Mr. Boswell thinks that the profession of a lawyer being unquestionally honourable, if he can show the profession of a player to be more honourable, he proves his argument." Boswell's description of a lawyer as one who only exhibits himself for his fee reminds one of Junius' description of a great lawyer — "his profession sets his principles at auction, and it is reasonable that the highest bidder should command them." Boswell details the following observation of Johnson on the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords, a question brillante so • late as 1856: "I mentioned a reflection having been thrown out against four peers for having presumed to rise in opposition to the opinion of the twelve judges, in a cause in the House of Lords, as if they were indecent. Johnson : ' Sir, there is no ground for censure. The peers are judges themselves, and, supposing them really to be of a different opinon, they might from duty be in opposition to the judges, who were there only to be con sulted.'" At this date we read in May's Constitu tional History that the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords was exercised by a single judge, Lord Mansfield, while three or four unlearned lords sat mute in the background. But they do not seem to have done so on this occa sion. On the occasion of Boswell's mentioning one who was running through an estate in Scotland, Johnson delivered some ob servations on the law of entail. " Entails are good, because it is good to procure in a country a series of men to whom the people are accustomed to look up to as their leaders. But I am for leaving a quantity of
405
land in commerce to excite industry, and keep money in the country; for, if no land were to be bought in the country, there would be no encquragement to acquire wealth, because a family could not be founded there; or, if it were required, it must be car ried away to another country where land may be bought. And, although the land in every country will remain the same, and be fertile when there is no money as when there is, yet all that portion of the happiness of civil life which is produced by money circu lating in a country would be lost." Bos well: "Then, sir, would it be for the advan tage of a country that all its lands were sold at once?" Johnson: "So far, sir, as money produces good, it would be an advantage; for, then, that country would have as much money circulating in it as it is worth. But, to be sure, this would be counterbalanced by disadvantages attending a total change of proprietors." Johnson concluded the conversation by saying: "Why, sir, mankind will be better able to regulate the system of entails, when the evil of too much land being locked up by them is felt, than we can do at present when it is not felt." Boswell makes the interesting observation that in Scotland entails were indefeasible, since they could not be barred by fines and recoveries, since in the kingdom of Scotland the legal fiction of fine and recoveries was unknown. Like Horace, Johnson had views as to success at the bar. But, unlike modern lucernas juris writing to magazines, or pre siding at some convivial function, Johnson had no recipe for success. Johnson told Bos well : " You must not indulge too sanguine hopes should you be called to our bar. I was told by a very sensible lawyer that there are a great many chances against any man's success in the profession of the law; the can didates are so numerous, and those who get large practice are so few. He said it was by no means true that a man of good parts and application is sure of having business, though
