Dr. Johnson comforted him, by telling him they were both in the right; that Delany had seen most of the good side of Swift,—­Lord Orrery most of the bad.  M’Leod asked, if it was not wrong in Orrery to expose the defects of a man with whom he lived in intimacy.  JOHNSON.  ’Why no, Sir, after the man is dead; for then it is done historically[654].’  He added, ’If Lord Orrery had been rich, he would have been a very liberal patron.  His conversation was like his writings, neat and elegant, but without strength.  He grasped at more than his abilities could reach; tried to pass for a better talker, a better writer, and a better thinker than he was[655].  There was a quarrel between him and his father, in which his father was to blame; because it arose from the son’s not allowing his wife to keep company with his father’s mistress.  The old lord shewed his resentment in his will[656],—­leaving his library from his son, and assigning, as his reason, that he could not make use of it.’

I mentioned the affectation of Orrery, in ending all his letters on the Life of Swift in studied varieties of phrase[657], and never in the common mode of ’I am’, &c., an observation which I remember to have been made several years ago by old Mr. Sheridan.  This species of affectation in writing, as a foreign lady of distinguished talents once remarked to me, is almost peculiar to the English.  I took up a volume of Dryden, containing the CONQUEST of GRANADA, and several other plays, of which all the dedications had such studied conclusions.  Dr. Johnson said, such conclusions were more elegant, and in addressing persons of high rank, (as when Dryden dedicated to the Duke of York[658],) they were likewise more respectful.  I agreed that there it was much better:  it was making his escape from the Royal presence with a genteel sudden timidity, in place of having the resolution to stand still, and make a formal bow.

Lord Orrery’s unkind treatment of his son in his will, led us to talk of the dispositions a man should have when dying.  I said, I did not see why a man should act differently with respect to those of whom he thought ill when in health, merely because he was dying.  JOHNSON.  ’I should not scruple to speak against a party, when dying; but should not do it against an individual.  It is told of Sixtus Quintus, that on his death-bed, in the intervals of his last pangs, he signed death-warrants[659].’  Mr. M’Queen said, he should not do so; he would have more tenderness of heart.  JOHNSON.  ’I believe I should not either; but Mr. M’Queen and I are cowards[660].  It would not be from tenderness of heart; for the heart is as tender when a man is in health as when he is sick, though his resolution may be stronger[661].  Sixtus Quintus was a sovereign as well as a priest; and, if the criminals deserved death, he was doing his duty to the last.  You would not think a judge died ill, who should be carried off by an apoplectick fit while pronouncing sentence of death.  Consider a class of men whose business it is to distribute death:—­soldiers, who die scattering bullets.  Nobody thinks they die ill on that account.’