Talking of the family of Stuart, he said, ’It should seem that the family at present on the throne has now established as good a right as the former family, by the long consent of the people; and that to disturb this right might be considered as culpable.  At the same time I own, that it is a very difficult question, when considered with respect to the house of Stuart.  To oblige people to take oaths as to the disputed right, is wrong.  I know not whether I could take them:  but I do not blame those who do.’  So conscientious and so delicate was he upon this subject, which has occasioned so much clamour against him.

On Thursday, April 15, I dined with him and Dr. Goldsmith at General Paoli’s.

I spoke of Allan Ramsay’s Gentle Shepherd, in the Scottish dialect, as the best pastoral that had ever been written; not only abounding with beautiful rural imagery, and just and pleasing sentiments, but being a real picture of manners; and I offered to teach Dr. Johnson to understand it.  ’No, Sir, (said he,) I won’t learn it.  You shall retain your superiority by my not knowing it.’

It having been observed that there was little hospitality in London;—­Johnson.  ’Nay, Sir, any man who has a name, or who has the power of pleasing, will be very generally invited in London.  The man, Sterne, I have been told, has had engagements for three months.’  Goldsmith.  ‘And a very dull fellow.’  Johnson.  ‘Why, no, Sir.’

Martinelli told us, that for several years he lived much with Charles Townshend, and that he ventured to tell him he was a bad joker.  Johnson.  ’Why, Sir, thus much I can say upon the subject.  One day he and a few more agreed to go and dine in the country, and each of them was to bring a friend in his carriage with him.  Charles Townshend asked Fitzherbert to go with him, but told him, “You must find somebody to bring you back:  I can only carry you there.”  Fitzherbert did not much like this arrangement.  He however consented, observing sarcastically, “It will do very well; for then the same jokes will serve you in returning as in going."’

An eminent publick character being mentioned;—­Johnson.  ’I remember being present when he shewed himself to be so corrupted, or at least something so different from what I think right, as to maintain, that a member of parliament should go along with his party right or wrong.  Now, Sir, this is so remote from native virtue, from scholastick virtue, that a good man must have undergone a great change before he can reconcile himself to such a doctrine.  It is maintaining that you may lie to the publick; for you lie when you call that right which you think wrong, or the reverse.  A friend of ours, who is too much an echo of that gentleman, observed, that a man who does not stick uniformly to a party, is only waiting to be bought.  Why then, said I, he is only waiting to be what that gentleman is already.’