upon the scent, lead where it will, he is fure never to be drawn off, till he has hunted down the game. Havard's play of Charles the Firft, fays Sir John, was acted at Goodman's Fields, and gave occafion to the Licenfing Act. In this there are two mistakes. In the first place, Havard's play was acted at Lincoln's Inn Fields theatre, on the 1ft of March 1737. 2dly, There was nothing in the play to provoke the interpofition of Government. Sir John fhould have known, that fo far from being obnoxious, it has been twice revived of late years, once for Mr. Reddish's benefit at Drury-lane, and afterwards for that of Mr. Lewis, at Covent Garden, on the 2d of April 1781. Fielding's Pafquin, which was produced at the little theatre in the Haymarket, might provoke the refentment of the minifter; but it was a play, called the GOLDEN RUMP, that gave the finishing blow to licentiousnefs. By the Debates in Parliament it appears, that on the 5th March 1734-5, Sir John Barnard moved to bring a bill to reftrain the number of playhoufes, there being then in conftant ufe, the Opera Houfe, the French Playhouse in the Haymarket, the Theatres of Govent Garden, and Drury-lane, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and Goodman's Fields. A project was, at the fame time, on foot for erecting a new playhouse in the very heart of the city, fomewhere in St. Martin's Le Grand. To prevent this laft, was the object of Sir John Barnard's motion: a bill was brought in, but for fome reafon it was foon dropped. Afterwards, in the beginning of the year 1737, the GOLDEN RUMP was offered to Mr. Giffard, the conductor, at that time, of Lincoln's Inn Fields, and proprietor of Goodman's Fields. The play of the Golden Rump was found to be a fcurrilous libel on Government: Giffard was refolved to fhew a due regard for decency and the good order of fociety. He gave up the play to Sir Robert Walpole, or fome other perfon high in office. The Minifter, on the 20th May 1737, brought in the bill, which paffed into a law, and has continued ever fince. In the course of the Debate, to fhew how far the licentioufnefs of the times was to be carried, Sir Robert produced the Golden Rump, and read to the House fome of the moft offer five paffages. The bill was carried through with the utmoft difpatch, and (notwithstanding Lord Chesterfield's memorable fpeech againft licenting the ftage) received the royal affent June 21, 1737. Such is the hiftory of the Licenfing Act: Sir John feems unacquainted with it. A regulation was certainly neceffary; but Sir Robert, in his wrath, laid the axe to the root of the tree.

Nor couldst thou, Chefterfield, a tear refufe,

Thou weptft, and with thee wept each gentle Mufe.

Many fufpected that the Golden Rump was purpofely written to pave the way for the Licensing Act :-a mere political manœuvre of Walpole's.

Sir John feems to be a more bitter enemy to the stage than even Jeremy Collier: he fays, when we are told that the Drama teaches morality, it is mere declamation. A playhouse, and the regions about it, are the hotbeds of vice: his reafon is, a Quaker woman was tried before him, that is at Hicks's Hall, for keeping a bawdy-house. How the courteous Knight will apologize to his Majefty, who grants a patent for the theatre in Drury-lane, and a licence for that in the Haymarket, we cannot conjecture. After thefe digreffions, it might be expected, that the Biographer would return to Dr. Johnson: but no such thing. Lord Chesterfield muft feel the lafh of his pen, and hence we have the fweepings of the news-papers to eke out a threadbare, dull in vective. Still, to fwell out the volume, it is not enough that Johnson's admired Prologue, for the opening of Drury-lane theatre, under the aufpices of Mr. Garrick, is printed in his works: it must be inferted in his life, and for fear the English reader fhould not understand an English poem, it must be first tranflated into dull profe by Sir John Hawkins. The account of Savage, like the reft, is a fuperfluous excrefcence: the reader might have been referred to the Life written by Johnfon; but the art of fwelling a volume required that it fhould be otherwife. The late Dr. Birch fupplies a world of materials: we are told how he made a perambulation round London, and we have a careful lift of the places he called at: of this we fhall only fay, that we had rather walk with Birch, than fleep over the pages of Sir John. In the courfe of the work, authors by profeffion are often mentioned: this affords a lucky opportunity to recollect a number of that clafs, and this again opens the way to more rambling. Dr. Birch, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Hill, Mr. Richardfon, Dr. Smollet, Henry Fielding, Sterne, Amherst, and feveral others, have left behind them names, which will not foon be forgotten. The abufe of fo many eminent writers might help to work off a great deal of gall, and to fill up a number of pages. They are almost every one traduced with the bittereft rancour. It is lucky for the reader that Archibald Bower did not prefent himself to our Biographer's memory. Thirty or forty pages might have been filled up with extracts from the famous contro. verly between Dr. Douglas and that fubtle impoftor. To compenfate for this lofs, a lift is given of the members who formed the Ivy-lane club, and a fubfequent one in Gerard- ftreet, Soho: with a root of bitterness at the heart, it was easy to rail at almost every one of them. The Knight, accordingly, goes to work. Dr. Salter is the first facrifice: what friend he has left to defend him, we do not know. The late Dr. Nugent feems to be fpared: as there are perfons ftill living, of ability to vindicate his memory, the Knight, perhaps, thought that an attack upon that fmith! good man would be attended with danger. Poor Dr. Gold

fmith! the late Duke of Northumberland afked him, what fervice he could do him, during his administration in Ireland. The Doctor recommended his brother, an unbeneficed clergyman in that country. For this generous fentiment, he is called an ideot! Who, that knew the late Mr. Dyer, can refrain from lamenting his fate? Sir John loved him with the affection of a brother, and he proves his regard, by telling us, that he became the votary of pleasure, and an epicure; infomuch that he was miferable, because he loft his tafte for olives. He denied the freedom of the human will, and fettled in materialism: it was his maxim, "that to live in peace with mankind, and in a temper to do good offices, was the most effential part of our duty." This is damned by Sir John Hawkins as heretical doctrine. Mr. Dyer was admired and loved through life; but Sir John affigns to him a deteftable character. He was feized with a fore throat, and the diforder was of fuch peculiar malignity, that the phyficians have hardly agreed on its name. Dr. Nugent attended him; he examined with care the parts affected, and after searching as deep as he could, that excellent phyfician, as foon as he entered the adjoining room, told Mr. Dyer's friends, that the diforder would prove mortal. The patient died in a few days. His friend Sir John will not allow him to rest in peace. He fays, it is ftill a queftion, whether he did not die by his own hand. While there are ftill living those, who were witneffes to the laft melancholy fcene of their expiring friend, an infinuation of fo cruel a nature fhould not have been hazarded. If there are others ftill in being, whom Sir John loves with the affection of a brother, they have only to wifh, with an affection for themselves, that he may not furvive to tell their ftory. Our Readers (if they have not feen this curious piece of biography) may, after all this, begin to hope that there is now an end of Sir John's digreffions. In this they will also again be disappointed. As good luck would have it, there were in the Ivy-lane club three phyficians, namely Dr. M'Ghie, Dr. Barker, and Dr. Bathurst: they did not fucceed in their profeffion. Here Sir John rambles again: we are ready to cry out, Quo nunc fe proripit ille? He wanders into a long digreffion concerning phyficians, who fucceeded, or failed in their undertaking. In this lift, we have Mead, Oldfield, Clark, Nefbit, Lobb, Munckley, Hulfe, Hoadley, and the two Schombergs. Concerning thefe, the Knight's common-place book is exhauited, and the well known difpute, between the last of the Schombergs and the College of phyficians, helps to make a great deal of wafte paper. Johnson's Rambler being a collection of effays, the opportunity was fair to talk of eflay-writers. A number of that defcription are mentioned; and two, viz. Gordon and Trenchard, are treated with great severity, On what account? Becaule, fays Sir John, they were fo intoxicated with notions of civil liberty, that they talked of the Majesty of

the

the people! It is fit Sir John fhould be told, that the plant, or rather weed, of fervitude will not grow in this country. Sir Robert Filmer tried his endeavour, but with fo little fuccefs, that one might imagine no man would be again the advocate of flavery. Has Sir John Hawkins never read the hiftory of the republics of antiquity, which were all founded in freedom? Has he never beard of the majefty of the Roman people? Following this writer through all his wanderings is, we confefs, a ftate of flavery, which we are obliged to go through even in this land of freedom. The detection of Lauder, by Dr. Douglas, helps out a dull and tedious narrative, and he writes it, as he fays himself, for the use of pofterity: he means, most probably, in ufum poßeriorum; but, if so, he is a bad tranflator. The labours of Dr. Douglas in the caufe of truth will not be eafily forgotten by the lovers of literature. The talents of that able writer will tranfmit his name to after-times, without the feeble aid of one, who does not promife to be of long duration.

We are sorry to find that Sir John has ftill more stories in referve. The perfon called Admirable Crichton, comes in his way, and of this man we have a large collection of wretched anecdotes. The Reader may fuppofe that he now has done with authors by profeffion; but more pages are ftill to be filled, without any reference to Dr. Johnfon. For this purpose, Ralph the hiftorian, Guthrie, and Paul Whitehead, are fummoned by Sir John, to be tried before him. The name of Paul Whitehead introduces that of Mr. Doddington (afterward Lord Melcombe), and the laft, of courfe, makes 100m for Dr. Thompson. Another lucky incident comes in his way it happened that Johnson wrote in the news-papers about the arches of Blackfriars bridge. This, to a rambling genius, is an inviting occafion to display his kill in architecture: he talks of proportions; in man, of the Jefquioctave of the head, and in woman of the fefquinonal. All this we have in a work that profeffes to be the Life of Dr. Johnfon: but biography is not the talent of Sir John Hawkins: Praconem facito, vel architectum.

The next point of view, in which Sir John prefents himself, is that of a politician: he praifes Sir Robert Walpole's adminiftration, and gives at full length Lord Hardwicke's fpeech against the motion for removing Sir Robert from his Majesty's councils. But he is not content to ftop here: Lord Hardwicke's argument, he says, turns upon a fallacy, which the Lords had not penetration to difcover. This was referved for the fagacity of Sir John Hawkins, who is decidedly of opinion, that there was fufficient ground for the motion to remove the minifter. Having, in this manner, condemned the adminiftration which he admires, he proceeds to tell all England, that Mr. Pitt, whofe eloquence and unequalled ardour raised this country to a pitch of glory

never known before, oppofed Sir Robert Walpole with yelping pertinacity. The expreffion deferves no other notice, than to fay of it, that it was dictated by rank malevolence. Of Sir John's notions of civil liberty, the reader will find a fufficient fpecimen in the lines, which he cites from GUSTAVUS VASA, to fhew that no Government ought to fuffer a play fo full of fedition and republican fentiments. To prove this pofition, he felects the following lines, all as harmlefs as ever fell from the pen of a poet. Is it of fate that he, who wears a crown,

Throws off humanity?"

There have been princes, whofe hiftory juftifies the remark.
Beyond the fweeping of the proudest train,

That shades a monarch's heels, I prize thefe weeds."

And if he is fo inclined, why should he not? our Dalecarlians

Have oft been known to give the law to kings."

Every nation, not enflaved, does the fame in the power and the right of fo doing, confifts the MAJESTY OF THE PEOPLE! "Divide, and conquer, is the fum of politics."

What is this but a translation of the old maxim, Divide et impera?

66

If thou think'ft

That Nature, in the proud behalf of one,
Shall difenfranchife all her lordly race,
And bow her gen'ral offspring to the yoke
Of private domination, &c."

Has Sir John drank fo deep of the dregs of flavery, as to think all made for one?

66

Thou art the minifter,

The Monitor of vice."

Whenever there is fuch a minifter, off or on the ftage, it is fit that he fhould hear of his iniquity.

There remains one fentiment more, which gives the alarm to Sir John:

"The fence of virtue is a Chief's best caution;

And the firm furety of my people's hearts,

Is all the guard that e'er fhall wait Gustavus.”

Such are the reafons, for which the play of Gustavus Vafa is held to be inconfiftent with any fyftem of civil fubordination. Out of Siberia we could not expect to find fo abject and fo willing a flave. He laments the decifion which pronounced General Warrants illegal, because he thinks they would be of use in hindering artificers from quitting the kingdom. At any rate he is willing to be in a state of flavery.

Sir John next difplays himself in the character of a rigid moralift it may not be improper to view him in this capacity. He fays, There are three fchools of morality among the moderns: