That this relation is true cannot be questioned:  but, surely, the honour of letters, the dignity of sacred poetry, the spirit of the English nation, and the glory of human nature, require—­that it should be true no longer.  In an age, in which statues are erected to the honour of this great writer, in which his effigy has been diffused on medals, and his work propagated by translations, and illustrated by commentaries; in an age, which amidst all its vices, and all its follies, has not become infamous for want of charity:  it may be, surely, allowed to hope, that the living remains of Milton will be no longer suffered to languish in distress.  It is yet in the power of a great people, to reward the poet whose name they boast, and from their alliance to whose genius, they claim some kind of superiority to every other nation of the earth; that poet, whose works may possibly be read when every other monument of British greatness shall be obliterated; to reward him—­not with pictures, or with medals, which, if he sees, he sees with contempt, but —­with tokens of gratitude, which he, perhaps, may even now consider as not unworthy the regard of an immortal spirit.  And, surely, to those, who refuse their names to no other scheme of expense, it will not be unwelcome, that a subscription is proposed, for relieving, in the languor of age, the pains of disease, and the contempt of poverty, the granddaughter of the author of Paradise Lost.  Nor can it be questioned, that if I, who have been marked out as the Zoilus of Milton, think this regard due to his posterity, the design will be warmly seconded by those, whose lives have been employed, in discovering his excellencies, and extending his reputation.

Subscriptions for the relief of Mrs. ELIZABETH FOSTER, granddaughter to JOHN MILTON, are taken in by Mr. Dodsley, in Pall-Mall; Messrs. Cox and Collings, under the Royal Exchange; Mr. Cave, at St. John’s Gate, Clerkenwell; and Messrs. Payne and Bouquet, in Paternoster-Row.

FOOTNOTES: 

[1] The history of Lauder’s imposition is now almost forgotten, and is,
    certainly, not worth revival.  It is fully detailed in Dr. Drake’s
    Literary Life of Johnson, and in Boswell’s Life, i.  The conflicting
    inferences drawn from Johnson’s connexion with Lauder, by Hayley,
    Dr. Symonds and Boswell, may easily be settled by those who have
    leisure for, or take interest in, such inquiries.  In the very heat
    of the controversy, Johnson was never accused of intentional
    deception.  Dr. Douglas, in the year 1750, published a letter to the
    earl of Bath, entitled, Milton vindicated from the charge of
    plagiarism brought against him by Mr. Lauder.  In this masterly
    letter, after exposing the gross impositions and forgeries of
    Lauder, he thus adverts to the author of the preface and postscript. 
    “It is to be hoped,