Parnell drank too freely; for people will probably ombre easily indulge in drinking from knowing this; so that more ill may be done by the example, than good by telling the whole truth." Here was an instance of his varying from himself in talk for when g Lord Hailes and he sat one morning calmly conversing Jin my house at Edinburgh, I well remember that -Dr. Johnson maintained, that "If a man is to write Ja Panegyrick, he may keep vices out of sight; but sif he professes to write a Life, he must represent it really as it was:" and when I objected to the danger I of telling that Parnell drank to excess, he said, that affito would produce an instructive caution to avoid adrinking, when it was seen, that even the learning and genius of Parnell could be debased by it." And in the Hebrides he maintained, as appears from the "Journal," that a man's intimate friend should mention his faults, if he writes his life...

I

p. 198.

[On another occasion, when accused of mentioning Hawk. Apoph. ridiculous anecdotes in the "Lives of the Poets," he said, he should not have been an exact biographer if she had omitted them. "The business of such a one," o said he, "is to give a complete account of the person ywhose life he is writing, and to discriminate him from all other persons by any peculiarities of character or sentiment he may happen to have.”] si mort yaz,

He had this evening, partly, I suppose, from the hspirit of contradiction to this whig, friend, a violent Sargument with Dr. Taylor, as to the inclinations of sithe people of England at this time towards the Royal a Family of Stuart. He grew so outrageous as to say, "that if England were fairly polled, the present king y would be sent away to-night, and his adherents hanged orto-morrow." Taylor, who was as violent a whig as redtode & ulomp ad :enumiluq of 25-idol 9911£Jellä [Ante, vol. ii. p. 462, 220 Sept. 1773.-BOSWELL.] + bms noabbi. Il Daros71130 d bio? I Dix

Johnson, was a tory, was roused by this to a pitch of bellowing. He denied loudly what Johnson said and maintained that there was an abhorrence against the Stuart family, though he admitted that the people were not much attached to the present king. JOHNSON." Sir, the state of the country is this the people, knowing it to be agreed on all hands that this king has not the hereditary right to the crown, and there being no hope that he who has it can be restored, have grown cold and indifferent upon the subject of loyalty, and have no warm attachment to any king. They would not, therefore, risk any thing to restore the exiled family. They would not give twenty shillings a-piece to bring it about. But if a mere vote could do it, there would be twenty to one; at least there would be a very great majority of voices for it. For, sir, you are to consider, that all those who think a king has a right to his crown as a man has to his estate, which is the just opinion, would be for restoring the king who certainly has the hereditary right, could he be trusted with it; in which there would be no danger now, when laws and every thing else are so much advanced: and every king will govern by the laws. And you must also consider, sir, that there is nothing on the other side to oppose to this: for it is not alleged by any one that the present family has any inherent right: so that the whigs could not have a contest between two rights."

Dr. Taylor admitted, that if the question as to hereditary right were to be tried by a poll of the people of England, to be sure the abstract doctrine would be given in favour of the family of Stuart; but he said,

Dr. Taylor was very ready to make this admission, because the party with which he was connected was not in power. There was then some truth in it, owing to the pertinacity of factious clamour. Had he lived till now, it would have been impossible for him to deny that his majesty possesses the warmest affection of his people.-BOSWELL.

4

the conduct of that family, which occasioned their expulsion, was so fresh in the minds of the people, that they would not vote for a restoration. Dr. Johnson, I think, was contented with the admission as to the hereditary right, leaving the original point in dispute, viz. what the people upon the whole would do, taking in right and affection; for he said, people were afraid of a change, even though they think it right. Dr. Taylor said something of the slight foundation of the hereditary right of the house of Stuart.

Sir," said Johnson, "the house of Stuart succeeded to the full right of both the houses of York and Laneaster, whose common source had the undisputed right. A right to a throne is like a right to any thing else. Possession is sufficient, where no better right can be shown. This was the case with the Royal Family of England, as it is now with the King of France for as to the first beginning of the right we are in the dark."

[But though thus a tory, and almost a jacobite, Ed. Dr. Johnson was not so besotted in his notions, as to Hawk. abet what is called the patriarchial scheme, as delineated by Sir Robert Filmer and other writers on government; nor, with others of a more sober cast, to acquiesce in the opinion that, because submission to governors is, in general terms, inculcated in the Holy Scriptures, the resistance of tyranny and oppression is, in all cases, unlawful: he seemed rather to adopt the sentiments of Hooker on the subject, as explained by Hoadly, and, by consequence, to look on submission to lawful authority as a moral obligation; he, therefore, condemned the conduct of James the Second during his short reign; and, had he been a subject of that weak and infatuated monarch, would, Sir John Hawkins was persuaded, have resisted any invasion of his right, or unwarrantable exertion of

p. 505.

515.

Hawk. power, with the same spirit as did the president and fellows of Magdalen college, or those conscientious divines the seven bishops. This disposition, as it leads to whiggism, one would have thought, might have reconciled him to the memory of James's successor, whose exercise of the regal authority among us merited better returns than were made him; but, it had no such effect: he never spoke of King William but in terms of reproach, and, in his opinion of him, seemed to adopt all the prejudices of jacobite bigotry and rancour. He, however, was not so unjust to the minister who most essentially contributed to the p. 514, establishment of the reigning family. Of Sir Robert Walpole, notwithstanding that he had written against him in the early part of his life, he had a high opinion he said of him, that he was a fine fellow, and that his very enemies deemed him so before his death? he honoured his memory for having kept this country in peace many years, as also for the goodness and placability of his temper; of which Pulteney, earl of Bath, thought so highly, that, in a conversation with Johnson, he said, that Sir Robert was of a temper so calm and equal, and so hard to be provoked, that he was very sure he never felt the bitterest invectives against him for half an hour. To the same purpose Johnson related the following anecdote, which he said he had from Lord North: Sir Robert having got into his hands some treasonable letters of his inveterate enemy, Will. Shippen, one of the heads of the jaco! bite faction, he sent for him, and burned them before his face. Some time afterwards, Shippen had occasion to take the oaths to the government in the house of commons, which, while he was doing, Sir Robert, who stood next him, and knew his principles to be the same as ever, smiled: "Egad, Robin," said Shippen, who had observed him, "that's hardly fair.”

p.506-7.

buT9 party opposition Dr. Johnson ever expressed great Hawk. aversion; and, of the pretences of patriots, always spoke with indignation and contempt. He partook of the short-lived joy that infatuated the public, when sh Robert Walpole ceased to have the direction of the national councils, and trusted to the professions of Mr. Pulteney and his adherents, who called themselves the country-party, that all elections should thenceforward be free and uninfluenced, and that bribery and corruption, which were never practised but by courtiers and their agents, should be no more. A few weeks, nay, a few days, convinced Johnson, and indeed all England, that what had assumed the appearance of P of patriotism, was personal hatred and inve terate malice in some, and in others, an ambition for that power, which, when they had got it, they knew not how to exercise. A change of men, and in some respect of measures, took place: Mr. Pulteney's ambition was gratified by a peerage; the wants of his associates were relieved by places, and seats at the public boards; and, in a short time, the stream of germent resumed its former channel, and ran with a current as even as it had ever done.

Upon this developement of the motives, the views, and the consistency of the above-mentioned band of patriots, Johnson once remarked to me, that it had given more strength to government than all that had been written in its defence, meaning thereby, that it had destroyed all confidence in men of that character.]