In 1778, Boswell came to London and found Johnson absorbed, to an extent which apparently excited his jealousy, by his intimacy with the Thrales.  They had, however, several agreeable meetings.  One was at the club, and Boswell’s report of the conversation is the fullest that we have of any of its meetings.  A certain reserve is indicated by his using initials for the interlocutors, of whom, however, one can be easily identified as Burke.  The talk began by a discussion of an antique statue, said to be the dog of Alcibiades, and valued at 1000_l_.  Burke said that the representation of no animal could be worth so much.  Johnson, whose taste for art was a vanishing quantity, said that the value was proportional to the difficulty.  A statue, as he argued on another occasion, would be worth nothing if it were cut out of a carrot.  Everything, he now said, was valuable which “enlarged the sphere of human powers.”  The first man who balanced a straw upon his nose, or rode upon three horses at once, deserved the applause of mankind; and so statues of animals should be preserved as a proof of dexterity, though men should not continue such fruitless labours.

The conversation became more instructive under the guidance of Burke.  He maintained what seemed to his hearers a paradox, though it would be interesting to hear his arguments from some profounder economist than Boswell, that a country would be made more populous by emigration.  “There are bulls enough in Ireland,” he remarked incidentally in the course of the argument.  “So, sir, I should think from your argument,” said Johnson, for once condescending to an irresistible pun.  It is recorded, too, that he once made a bull himself, observing that a horse was so slow that when it went up hill, it stood still.  If he now failed to appreciate Burke’s argument, he made one good remark.  Another speaker said that unhealthy countries were the most populous.  “Countries which are the most populous,” replied Johnson, “have the most destructive diseases.  That is the true state of the proposition;” and indeed, the remark applies to the case of emigration.

A discussion then took place as to whether it would be worth while for Burke to take so much trouble with speeches which never decided a vote.  Burke replied that a speech, though it did not gain one vote, would have an influence, and maintained that the House of Commons was not wholly corrupt.  “We are all more or less governed by interest,” was Johnson’s comment.  “But interest will not do everything.  In a case which admits of doubt, we try to think on the side which is for our interest, and generally bring ourselves to act accordingly.  But the subject must admit of diversity of colouring; it must receive a colour on that side.  In the House of Commons there are members enough who will not vote what is grossly absurd and unjust.  No, sir, there must always be right enough, or appearance of right, to keep wrong in countenance.”  After some