We talked of the ancient trial by duel.  He did not think it so absurd as is generally supposed; ’For (said he) it was only allowed when the question was in equilibrio, as when one affirmed and another denied; and they had a notion that Providence would interfere in favour of him who was in the right.  But as it was found that in a duel, he who was in the right had not a better chance than he who was in the wrong, therefore society instituted the present mode of trial, and gave the advantage to him who is in the right.’

We sat till near two in the morning, having chatted a good while after my wife left us.  She had insisted, that to shew all respect to the Sage she would give up her own bed-chamber to him and take a worse[52].  This I cannot but gratefully mention, as one of a thousand obligations which I owe her, since the great obligation of her being pleased to accept of me as her husband[53].

SUNDAY, AUGUST 15[54]

Mr. Scott came to breakfast, at which I introduced to Dr. Johnson and him, my friend Sir William Forbes, now of Pitsligo[55]; a man of whom too much good cannot be said; who, with distinguished abilities and application in his profession of a Banker, is at once a good companion, and a good christian; which I think is saying enough.  Yet it is but justice to record, that once, when he was in a dangerous illness, he was watched with the anxious apprehension of a general calamity; day and night his house was beset with affectionate enquiries; and, upon his recovery, Te deum was the universal chorus from the hearts of his countrymen.  Mr. Johnson was pleased with my daughter Veronica[56], then a child of about four months old.  She had the appearance of listening to him.  His motions seemed to her to be intended for her amusement; and when he stopped, she fluttered, and made a little infantine noise, and a kind of signal for him to begin again.  She would be held close to him; which was a proof, from simple nature, that his figure was not horrid.  Her fondness for him endeared her still more to me, and I declared she should have five hundred pounds of additional fortune[57].

We talked of the practice of the law.  Sir William Forbes said, he thought an honest lawyer should never undertake a cause which he was satisfied was not a just one.  ’Sir, (said Mr. Johnson,) a lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes, unless his client asks his opinion, and then he is bound to give it honestly.  The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge.  Consider, Sir; what is the purpose of courts of justice?  It is, that every man may have his cause fairly tried, by men appointed to try causes.  A lawyer is not to tell what he knows to be a lie:  he is not to produce what he knows to be a false deed; but he is not to usurp the province of the jury and of the judge, and determine what shall