Peter Garrick, the elder brother of David, strongly resembling him in countenance and voice, but of more sedate and placid manners[909]. Johnson informed me, that 'though Mr. Beauclerk was in great pain, it was hoped he was not in danger[910], and that he now wished to consult Dr. Heberden to try the effect of a new understanding.' Both at this interview, and in the evening at Mr. Thrale's, where he and Mr. Peter Garrick and I met again, he was vehement on the subject of the Ossian controversy; observing, 'We do not know that there are any ancient Erse manuscripts; and we have no other reason to disbelieve that there are men with three heads, but that we do not know that there are any such men.' He also was outrageous, upon his supposition that my countrymen 'loved Scotland better than truth[911],' saying, 'All of them,--nay not all,--but droves of them, would come up, and attest any thing for the honour of Scotland.' He also persevered in his wild allegation, that he questioned if there was a tree between Edinburgh and the English border older than himself[912]. I assured him he was mistaken, and suggested that the proper punishment would be that he should receive a stripe at every tree above a hundred years old, that was found within that space. He laughed, and said, 'I believe I might submit to it for a banbee!'
The doubts which, in my correspondence with him, I had ventured to state as to the justice and wisdom of the conduct of Great-Britain towards the American colonies, while I at the same time requested that he would enable me to inform myself upon that momentous subject, he had altogether disregarded; and had recently published a pamphlet, entitled, Taxation no Tyranny; an answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress.[913]
He had long before indulged most unfavourable sentiments of our fellow-subjects in America.[914] For, as early as 1769, I was told by Dr. John Campbell, that he had said of them, 'Sir, they are a race of convicts,[915] and ought to be thankful for any thing we allow them short of hanging.'
Of this performance I avoided to talk with him; for I had now formed a clear and settled opinion,[916] that the people of America were well warranted to resist a claim that their fellow-subjects in the mother-country should have the entire command of their fortunes, by taxing them without their own consent; and the extreme violence which it breathed, appeared to me so unsuitable to the mildness of a Christian philosopher, and so directly opposite to the principles of peace which he had so beautifully recommended in his pamphlet respecting Falkland's Islands,[917] that I was sorry to see him appear in so unfavourable a light. Besides, I could not perceive in it that ability of argument, or that felicity of expression, for which he was, upon other occasions, so eminent. Positive assertion, sarcastical severity, and extravagant ridicule, which he himself reprobated as a test of truth, were united in this rhapsody.
That this pamphlet was written at the desire of those who were then in power, I have no doubt; and, indeed, he owned to me, that it had been revised and curtailed by some of them. He told me, that they had struck out one passage, which was to this effect:--
'That the Colonists could with no solidity argue from their not having been taxed while in their infancy, that they should not now he taxed. We do not put a calf into the plow; we wait till he is an ox.'
He said, 'They struck it out either critically as too ludicrous, or politically as too exasperating. I care not which. It was their business. If an architect says, I will build five stories, and the man who employs him says, I will have only three, the employer is to decide.' 'Yes, Sir, (said I,) in ordinary cases. But should it be so when the architect gives his skill and labour gratis?'
Unfavourable as I am constrained to say my opinion of this pamphlet was, yet, since it was congenial with the sentiments of numbers at that time, and as everything relating to the writings of Dr. Johnson is of importance in literary history, I shall therefore insert some passages which were struck out, it does not appear why, either by himself or those who revised it. They appear printed in a few proof leaves of it in my possession, marked with corrections in his own hand-writing. I shall distinguish them by Italicks.
In the paragraph where he says the Americans were incited to resistance by European intelligence from
'Men whom they thought their friends, but who were friends only to themselves[918],'
there followed,--
'and made by their selfishness, the enemies of their country'
And the next paragraph ran thus:--
'On the original contrivers of mischief, rather than on those whom they have deluded, let an insulted nation pour out its vengeance.'
The paragraph which came next was in these words:--
'Unhappy is that country in which men can hope for advancement by favouring its enemies. The tranquillity of stable government is not always easily preserved against the machinations of single innovators; but what can be the hope of quiet, when factions hostile to the legislature can be openly formed and openly avowed?'
After the paragraph which now concludes the pamphlet, there followed this, in which he certainly means the great Earl of Chatham[919], and glances at a certain popular Lord Chancellor[920].'
'If, by the fortune of war, they drive us utterly away, what they will do next can only be conjectured.