It is known that, whatever the law gives, it also gives all that is necessary to full possession; thus a man whose land is environed by land of others has a right of way over the land of these others. By analogy, it is argued that when a man has a right to his secret, he has a right to all that is necessary to keep it, and that is not unlawful. If, then, he can only keep his secret by denial, he has a right to denial. This I admit to be an answer against all men except the denier himself; if conscience and self-respect will allow { 21} it, no one can impeach it. But the question cannot be solved on a case. That question is, A lie, is it _malum in se_, without reference to meaning and circumstances? This is a question with two sides to it. Cases may be invented in which a lie is the only way of preventing a murder, or in which a lie may otherwise save a life. In these cases it is difficult to acquit, and almost impossible to blame; discretion introduced, the line becomes very hard to draw.
I know but one work which has precisely--as at first appears--the character and object of my Budget. It is the _Review of the Works of the Royal Society of London_, by Sir John Hill, M.D. (1751 and 1780, 4to.). This man offended many: the Royal Society, by his work, the medical profession, by inventing and selling extra-pharmacopoeian doses; Garrick, by resenting the rejection of a play. So Garrick wrote:
"For physic and farces his equal there scarce is; His farces are physic; his physic a farce is."
I have fired at the Royal Society and at the medical profession, but I have given a wide berth to the drama and its wits; so there is no epigram out against me, as yet. He was very able and very eccentric. Dr. Thomson (_Hist. Roy. Soc._) says he has no humor, but Dr. Thomson was a man who never would have discovered humor.
Mr. Weld (_Hist. Roy. Soc._) backs Dr. Thomson, but with a remarkable addition. Having followed his predecessor in observing that the _Transactions_ in Martin Folkes's time have an unusual proportion of trifling and puerile papers, he says that Hill's book is a poor attempt at humor, and glaringly exhibits the feelings of a disappointed man. It is probable, he adds, that the points told with some effect on the Society; for shortly after its publication the _Transactions_ possess a much higher scientific value.