Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

appear in HIS OWN PERSON, and thefe little EGOTISMS he thinks a grace to his compofition. He communicates a great deal concerning himself, but forgets to inform us, that he was originally an Attorney's Clerk, and afterwards a Practifer, with little bufinefs. How a Barrifter may rife in his profeffion, he states without referve; but the arts by which an Attorney may advance himself, he chufes to conceal. He talks of writing from the impulfe of genius, but not a word of the time, when he wrote letters and effays for an evening paper, at the price of half a guinea for every piece that happened to be inferted. He was a member of the chop-house club in Ivy-lane; was in company with Warburton, and dined with Akenfide at Putney Bowling-green. He was Chairman of the Quarter Seffions at Hicks's Hall, and though the Juftices of the county were in the commiffion, every thing was done before HIM, and HIM ONLY: he wrote the history of mufic, and understands the proportions of architecture. He explained to Johnson the profound mystery of proving a will at Doctors Commons. He was acquainted with Garrick, and went to him with a law-cafe, to which Garrick preferred a new pantomime. He has a houfe at Twickenham, and Garrick often ftopped at his door. He had a gardener at Twickenham, who paid no attention to Millar's Dictionary. He kept his own coach, and Johnson was in it several times. Mrs. Cornelys was indicted before him, and if the matter had not been made up, she might have been tried before him. He actually faw the epitaph on Dr. Goldfmith in Johnson's own hand-writing, and therefore knows (what all the world knew) that Johnson was the author of it. He travelled in a ftage-coach with the late Mr. Richardfon, as far as Parfon's Green. He advised Johnson to abandon a man in a fpunging-house to his fate, but Johnson was too good-natured, and paid the debt. Bishop Hoadley talked with him about one Fournier, who had, by a dextrous forgery, converted the Bishop's frank into a note for 8oool.; and in this converfation Hoadley told Sir John, what he had long before told the world, in a pamphlet upon the fubject. He hates Negroes, and thinks they ought not to enjoy the benevolence of their masters, nor be permitted to keep their watches, though made refiduary legatees: but this difpute with the Black is carefully fuppreffed.

Such is the account Sir John gives of himfelf. We will venture to say that P. P. the Parish Clerk in Pope's Mifcellany, was not a man of fo much felf-importance.

As a relator of falls, it will be evident from the following inftance, how far Sir John is worthy of credit: The late Mr. Mil

Vid. Rev. vol. xviii. p. 226. The title of the Bishop's narrative was, "A letter to Clement Chevalier, Efq."

lar,

lar, he says, upon receipt of the last sheets of the copy of the Dictionary, fent Johnfon his money, with a note, informing the author, that he thanked God he had done with him. This polite card drew an answer from Johnfon in the following terms: "Samuel Johnson fends his compliments to Mr. Andrew Millar, and is glad to find, as he does by his note, that he has the grace to thank God for any thing." He who reads this, will naturally conclude that the two notes lay before the Biographer. What will the reader fay, when he is told, that no juch notes were ever written? Mr. Millar was not capable of fuch deliberate and brutal rudeness. It is true, he fent the money, and faid at the fame time to the bearer, "Thank God, I have done with Mr. Johnfon." That Johnfon fhould be told this, he did not defire: the perfon, however, who went on the errand, being afked what Millar faid, repeated the words, and Johnfon anfwered as above ftated. No writing paffed between them, nor ought it now to be ftated, that Mr. Millar fent an ungrateful and infolent note to an author, who had finished fo capital a work. After this, we think, the ftory of Lord Chefterfield's grofs and vulgar behaviour to a lady, for which that accomplifhed nobleman narrowly escaped being kicked down ftairs, will be marked, by every judicious reader, as another inftance of the hiftorian's integrity.

In the character of a book-maker, the Knight appears to be a more laborious drudge than any of the tribe. He undertook to write the Life of Dr. Johnfon, and for this purpofe his whole common-place book is difembogued, to fhew at once the Author's comprehenfion, and raise the price of the copy. Hence we have the hiftory of Lobo's Voyage to Abyffinia, the origin of taverns, the rife and progrefs of Cave's Magazine, to edify the readers thereof, who may be curious about a work, the fame whereof has fpread far and wide. The portion of history, on which the tragedy of Irene was founded, may be a proper infertion, but we should have liked it better in the words of Knolles the hiftorian, than in the rumbling ftyle of the modern Biographer. It is to the artifice of book-making that we are indoted for a long digreffion on the adminiftration of Sir Robert Walpole. No less than four fpeeches at full length are inferted from the Parliamentary Debates. This is followed by another farrago the Catalogue of the Harleian printed volumes, with an account of the Harleian Manufcripts, which have been printed in eight quarto volumes, was a lucky expedient to him, who was determined to have no mercy upon paper. What had Johnfon to do with Goodman's Fields, or the theatre there? This, however, is added to the rest of the lumber. The hiftory of Covent Garden playhouse is as little to the purpose, but it ferves to put the Knight in mind of the Licensing Act, and when once he is

[ocr errors]

upon the fcent, 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 Licensing 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 licentiouf nefs. 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 playhouses, there being then in conftant ufe, the Opera Houfe, the French Playhoufe 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 of fered 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 licentiousness of the times was to be carried, Sir Robert produced the Golden Rump *, and read to the House some of the moft offenfive paffages. The bill was carried through with the utmoft difpatch, and (notwithstanding Lord Chefter field's memorable fpeech against 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 Licenfing A&t:- -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-houfe. 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. Johnfon: but no fuch 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 invective. 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 should 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 Johnson; 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 shall 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 seve ral 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 almoft every one traduced with the bittereft rancour. It is lucky for the reader that Archibald Bower did not present himfelf to our Biographer's memory. Thirty or forty pages might have been filled up with extracts from the famous controverly between Dr. Douglas and that fubtle impoftor. To com penfate 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 firft facrifice: what friend he has left to defend him, we do not know. The late Dr. Nugent feems to be spared: as there are perfons ftill living, of ability to vindicate his memory, the Knight, perhaps, thought that an attack upon that good man would be attended with danger. Poor Dr. Goldfmith!

3

[ocr errors]

fmith the late Duke of Northumberland afked him, what fervice he could do him, during his adminiftration 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, becaufe 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 such peculiar malignity, that the phyficians have hardly agreed on its name. Dr. Nugent attended him; he examined with care the parts affected, and after fearching 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 still a queftion, whether he did not die by his own hand. While there are ftill living those, who were witneffes to the laft melancholy scene 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 with, 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 difappointed. 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 exhaufted, 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. Johnfon's Rambler being a collection of eflays, the opportunity was fair to talk of effay-writers. A number of that defcription are mentioned; and two, viz. Gordon and Trenchard, are treated with great feverity. On what account? Becaufe, fays Sir John, they were fo intoxicated with notions of civil liberty, that they talked of the Majesty of

the

« ПредишнаНапред »