Lord Hailes told him, he was mistaken in the instances he had given of unfortunate fair ones; for neither Vane nor Sedley had a title to that description.  His Lordship has since been so obliging as to send me a note of this, for the communication of which I am sure my readers will thank me.

’The lines in the tenth Satire of Juvenal, according to my alteration, should have run thus:—­

’Yet Shore[138] could tell-----;
And Valiere[139] curs’d------.’

’The first was a penitent by compulsion, the second by sentiment; though the truth is, Mademoiselle de la Valiere threw herself (but still from sentiment) in the King’s way.

’Our friend chose Vane[140], who was far from being well-looked; and Sedley, who was so ugly, that Charles II. said, his brother had her by way of penance[141].’

Mr. Maclaurin’s learning and talents enabled him to do his part very well in Dr. Johnson’s company.  He produced two epitaphs upon his father, the celebrated mathematician[142].  One was in English, of which Dr. Johnson did not change one word.  In the other, which was in Latin, he made several alterations.  In place of the very words of Virgil, ‘Ubi luctus et pavor et plurima mortis imago[143],’ he wrote ’Ubi luctus regnant et pavor.’  He introduced the word prorsus into the line ‘Mortalibus prorsus non absit solatium,’ and after ’Hujus enim scripta evolve,’ he added ’Mentemque tantarum rerum capacem corpori caduco superstitem crede;’ which is quite applicable to Dr. Johnson himself[144].

Mr. Murray, advocate, who married a niece of Lord Mansfield’s, and is now one of the judges of Scotland, by the title of Lord Henderland, sat with us a part of the evening; but did not venture to say any thing, that I remember, though he is certainly possessed of talents which would have enabled him to have shewn himself to advantage, if too great anxiety had not prevented him.

At supper we had Dr. Alexander Webster, who, though not, learned, had such a knowledge of mankind, such a fund of information and entertainment, so clear a head and such accommodating manners, that Dr. Johnson found him a very agreeable companion.

When Dr. Johnson and I were left by ourselves, I read to him my notes of the Opinions of our Judges upon the questions of Literary Property[145].  He did not like them; and said, ’they make me think of your Judges not with that respect which I should wish to do.’  To the argument of one of them, that there can be no property in blasphemy or nonsense, he answered, ’then your rotten sheep are mine!  By that rule, when a man’s house falls into decay, he must lose it.’  I mentioned an argument of mine, that literary performances are not taxed.  As Churchill says,

     ’No statesman yet has thought it worth his pains
      To tax our labours, or excise our brains[146];’