s been
overpowered. He will hate his neighbour for opposing him, and his
minister for having prospered by the opposition; and, as he will never
see him but with pain, he will never see him but with hatred. Of a
minister presented by the patron, the parish has seldom any thing worse
to say, than that they do not know him. Of a minister chosen by a
popular contest, all those who do not favour him, have nursed up in
their bosoms principles of hatred and reasons of rejection. Anger is
excited principally by pride. The pride of a common man is very little
exasperated by the supposed usurpation of an acknowledged superiour. He
bears only his little share of a general evil, and suffers in common
with the whole parish; but when the contest is between equals, the
defeat has many aggravations, and he that is defeated by his next
neighbour, is seldom satisfied without some revenge: and it is hard to
say, what bitterness of malignity would prevail in a parish, where these
elections should happen to be frequent, and the enmity of opposition
should be rekindled before it had cooled.

ON PULPIT CENSURE.

[This case shall be introduced by Mr. Boswell himself. "In the course of
a contested election for the borough of Dumfermline, which I attended as
one of my friend Sir Archibald Campbell's counsel, one of his political
agents, who was charged with having been unfaithful to his employer, and
having deserted to the opposite party for a pecuniary reward, attacked,
very rudely, in the newspapers, the reverend James Thompson, one of the
ministers of that place, on account of a supposed allusion to him in one
of his sermons. Upon this, the minister, on a subsequent Sunday,
arraigned him by name, from the pulpit, with some severity; and the
agent, after the sermon was over, rose up and asked the minister aloud,
'What bribe he had received for telling so many lies from the chair of
verity.' I was present at this very extraordinary scene. The person
arraigned, and his father and brother, who also had a share both of the
reproof from the pulpit, and in the retaliation, brought an action
against Mr. Thompson, in the court of session, for defamation and
damages, and I was one of the counsel for the reverend defendant. The
liberty of the pulpit was our great ground of defence; but we argued
also on the provocation of the previous attack, and on the instant
retaliation. The court of session, however, the fifteen judges, who are
at the same tim