Page:Memoirs of a Trait in the Character of George III.djvu/278

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
NO. 7.
APPENDIX.
221

where the English language extends, are under signal obligations to Mr. Croker, for detecting the latent source of what is called one of the Doctor's prejudices[1]—much too mild a term, we opine, for the slanderous aspersion of a whole class of public functionaries, certainly entitled to the same protection as—a Secretary of the Admiralty, to wit. It gives but a humiliating view of human nature, when so learned and intellectual a man as Dr. Johnson reduces himself to a level with the illiterate mass, whose prejudices are excusable because they have not his discriminating judgment to be enabled to shake them off. His own opinion of Cibber is brought to recollection by this inconsistent weakness. He was one day speaking in disparagement of Colley (one half of whose conversation was made up of oaths) and when some person reminded him of the merit of his comedies, Johnson was not disposed to allow much weight to that consideration: because as he said, it was his trade to write them. The remark might be conceded, but with a proviso here, for it was his own trade to write Ramblers and Idlers, or what you will, and to inculcate the best rules for our conduct in every department of social life (particularly to avoid prejudices) but it might be the trade of others, if they would, to put them in practice.

The Jacobite prejudices of the literary colossus were laugh-

  1. Johnson, in his Dictionary, defines "excise, a hateful tax, levied upon commodities, and adjudged, not by the common judges of property, but by wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid;" and in the Idler (No. 65) he calls a Commissioner of Excise "one of the lowest of all human beings." This violence of language seems so little reasonable, that the editor was induced to suspect some cause of personal animosity; this mention of the trade [by his father] in parchment (an exciseable article) afforded a clue, which has led to the confirmation of that suspicion. In the records of the Excise Board, is to be found the following letter, addressed to the supervisor of excise at Lichfield:—"July 25th, 1725.—The Commissioners received yours of the 22nd instant; and since the justices would not give judgment against Mr. Michael Johnson, the tannery notwithstanding the facts were fairly against him, the Board directs, that the next time he offends, you do not lay an information against him, but send an affidavit of the fact, that he may be prosecuted in the Exchequer."