whofe defenders might, with equal juftice at least, call him an acrimonious and furly Royalift.

-But was Dr. Johnson's quarrel with Milton's notions merely that they were republican, that is to fay, notions adverfe to kingly government? Hath he always revered kings as fuch, kings de facto, or kings only fo and fo qualified?

We confefs ourselves to be of that clafs of men who are willing to receive inftruction from all quarters; and thenews-paper of the day being just brought in, we learn, from an extract in it from Dr. Johnson's Life of Smith, that Gilbert Walmsley was a Whig with all the viru-. lence and malevolence of his party, and

that the Doctor was of different notions.

and opinions*.

But we are well informed, that Mr. Walmsley was no republican, but strongly attached in principle to the fucceffion/ of the House of Hanover. If for this attachment he was, in Dr. Johnson's efteem, a virulent and malevolent Whig, we should be glad to know what precife! ly are thofe notions and opinions wherein he differed from his friend Walmfley ? Perhaps at the bottom the grudge is no more than that neither Milton nor Walm,.: fley would allow Dr. Johnson to chuse a King for them.

"It is not known," fays the Doctor,! "that Milton gave any better reason.

St. James's Chronicle, July 31, 1779.

"[for

[for his republican notions] than that a "popular government was the most frugal; "for that the trappings of a monarchy "would set up an ordinary Common"wealth*."

In the Είκων Βασιλικη King Charles says, or is made to fay," that Kings

are the greateft patrons of law, juftice, "order, and religion, on earth."!! To this Milton replies, "What pa"trons they be God in feripture oft "enough hath expreft; and the earth

་

"itfelf hath too long groaned under the "burden of their injuftice, diforder, and

A plain man would think this a better

reason, if true, for a republican govern

*Life, p. 143.

Iconoclaftes, chap. xxviii.,

I 2

ment,

ment, than merely the expence of monarchy. But let the Biographer have his

way.

"It is furely a very narrow policy that

fuppofes money to be the chief good.". But it is as furely afferted by us, that no modeft man can find any fuch pofition in all Milton's works. The political maxim, that money is not the chiefeft good, would stand with a much fairer face in the tract intituled, "Taxation no Ty66 ranny," ," in order to prevail with the people to bleed freely, and fubmit chearfully to the pecuniary demands of the miniftry; for that the expence of a court is "for the moft part only a particular "kind of traffick, by which money is "circulated without any national impo"verifhment."

Tritical

Tritical aphorifms fhould be univerfally and unequivocally true, unlimited by fuch infertions, as, for the most part. The expence of a court is an expreffion relative to a thoufand articles beyond what Milton called the trappings of mo narchy. Admit that a traffic, not detri mental to the nation, might be carried on with those who furnish the articles comprehended in what is called the civil lift, yet are thofe articles all the traffic which comes within the defcription of the

expence of a court?" Have we nat heard, fome centuries ago, of trafficking with court-money and court-honey, for courtly votes, and courtly effays, to countenance and abet courtly encroachments; wherein a reciprocation of profit