make others free, I will not submit to become a slave to myself, or compromise one particle of self-respect. Nay, more, Sir, though I would give, and give voluntarily, every liberal enfranchisement, ! would not withdraw one prop, nor deface one useless ornament on the porch of the Constitution: it has been founded by wisdom, defended by valour, consecrated by years, and cemented by the purest blood of patriotism--at every step beneath its sacred dome, we meet with some holy relic, some sublime memorial: the tombs of the heroes, and sages, and martyrs of our history; the graves of the Rus sells and the Sidneys; the statutes of the Hardwickes and the Hales; the sainted relics of departed piety; the table of the laws to which King and People are alike responsible; the eternal altar, on whose divine commandments all those laws are founded; sublime, hallowed, invaluable treasures! Unimpaired and imperishable be the temple that protects them! In the fullness of my heart, I say of it Esto perpetua-may no political Marius ever rest upon its ruins.

Sir, in reference to the congratulatory part of your Address, I cannot wish the august Personage to whom it refers, a more auspicious wish, than that he may follow implicitly the footsteps of his father, These ways are "ways of pleasantness." These paths are "paths of peace." I hope his reign may be as happy as his Regency bas been victorious, and that, in the plenitude of his power, he will remember the country which forgot not him when that power was very distant. These are not times, however, to be either too exigent or too unreasonable; the Athest meets us in our noon-day walk; the assassin waits not for the night's concealment; all ranks and sects, and parties should unite; all that is sacred in the eye of every Christian, dear to every parent, and valuable to every man, is menaced with annibilation; every cause of difference, whether real or imaginary, should be now suspended, until the national shout of "Feaf God, honour the King," drowns the war-whoop of impiety and treason. If we are to live, my countrymen, let us live in the security of laws; if we are to die, let us die in the consolations of religion.

Sir,

TO CHARLES PHILLIPS, ESQ.

ON HIS SPEECH AT THE COUNTY SLIGO MEETING.

I offer no apology for addressing you, for I do not conceive it necessary, or you deserving of it. The infamy of your conduct does not entitle you to the most trifling mark of respect; for if any thing were needed to complete your career of hypocrisy and apostacy, it is the vile and diabolical composition ushered into the world by you, at the Stigo County Meeting, assembled on the tenth of April last, for the purpose of voting a loyal and dutiful address of attachment and condolence to our VIRTUOUS King!

It may not be amiss in the course of this letter, to make a few observations on the unfounded assertions and palpable lies contained in that speech, not that I consider them worthy of answer, but to shew clearly to the world, what a detestable wretch !-what a persecuting bigot!-What a shameless apostate is Charles Phillips!-but to the speech.

After a few nonsensical flourishes, in your old style, you observe that the departed monarch deserved every tribute that posterity could pay him, and that he was one of the most popular that ever swayed the sceptre of Great Britain. In reply to this, I can have little to say. It shews clearly your cringing and contemptible servi. lity, and is more worthy of the mouth of a Bedlamite than a

barrister, Does posterity pay tribute to stupidity, and extol those who would disgrace the brute creation? Does popularity consist in being pelted with stones, and attacked by the people in the public streets? Are good Kings in the habit of getting their carriages lined with copper, and their coach-glasses made a quarter of an inch thick, to prevent their subjects injuring them? Do they allow themselves to be governed by old penurious blood-sucking wretches, whose only virtue is snuff-taking? Do they enter into wars to exterminate the human race, massacre the inhabitants of their colonies, and rob their suffering subjects at home, the better to deprive them of liberty? No, no! Mr. Charles Phillips; the people of this country are too enlightened to be gulled by such logic. They are too clear-sighted to take (as you pretend to do) a stupid booby without sense or diserimination, for a wise man; and when you make use of such language, they can only look on yourself as a fool, or a deliberate liar. The first, I do not think you---the last, you appear to be.

As if the praise you before lavished on that deceased and contemptible personage was not sufficient, you go on to say, "that he was a true born Englishman-brave, generous, benevolent, and manly, in the exercise of his sway, and the exercise of his virtues, so perfectly consistent, that it was difficult to say, whether as a man, or a sove reign, he was most to be regretted." A true born Englishman indeed! What are the characteristics of an Englishman? Are they gormandizing legs of mutton and hard dumplings, or visiting play-houses three time a-week, to see mummeries, and clowns eating large carrots? I believe you are the first discoverer of the other excellent qualities you enumerate, for till now, I never heard of any of them, nor do I believe that any one else did. Although it may be rather difficult for you to say whether as a man, or a sovereign, he is most to be regretted, for my part, I do not see that he is to be regretted at all. Whenever such characters, in private life, close their eyes, they neither receive pity or commisseration, nor can hireling orators be found to trumpet forth their praises. No person is sorry: but in public life, I am sorry to say, the case is different, for then, a gang of time-serving, place-hunting, impertinent puppies, rise up to tell all the

lies that they can think of, or invent, of their virtues and bravery, and praise them to the skies, as prodigies of good sense and wisdom. You then continue, that the historian will have little to censure, and much to commend, and that the same personage was the father of his people. You talk of the vast public benefits which his reign conferred upon the country. Pray, Sir, what were they? Was he not the means of plunging the country into unnecessary wars, and loading it with an enormous debt? Did he not always countenance profligate ministers, and pensioned ruffians? Deny it if you can!

Your illustrations of the hydra of democracy-the wretched prostitute, and the burning cross, I shall pass over with the contempt they deserve. You then say, that there were not wanting in England, abundance of anarchists to denounce the King, and of infidels to abjure the deists-atheists looking to be worshipped, and republicans looking to be crowned. Ridiculous! If you had broken loose from Bedlam, raving mad, you could not make use of words more apprepriate. You talk of pure morals, impartial justice, and the perfect freedom that the people of this country participate in. Morality, we have a great deal of, among the rich, viz., gambling, drinking, whoring, and swearing. The clergy, whom you are always in the habit of praising, think of little else than their tithes and the bottle, even one of these moral characters, died in a brothel in Oxford Street, within the last week. As to the upright tribunals, and impartial justice, do you forget the people who were basely massacred by the inhuman bloodhounds at Manchester, and whose relatives were afterwards refused justice? Do you forget the conduct of the Bench of Judges to Mr. Hunt, and the shameful incarceration of Mr. Carlile, in Dorchester Goal, for the publication of his opinions? You forget all this, and you only remember what suits your purpose.

The foolish sentence which you shortly after made use of would be well worthy of a drunken cannibal, and is a blot that can never be effaced from your name or character. It proves that you are as unfeeling as you are impertinent, and as wicked as your speeches are disgusting. "I fly for protection to my king, and for cousolation to my God, from the lawless, creedless, murderous, blasphemous banditti, who prophane them both to the putrid carcase of an outlawed infidel." I can scarcely credit that you are so despicable, so abandoned a wretch as to make use of such infernal expressions; but as they have appeared in print, it must be presumed that you did. George Canning's celebrated speech on the Indemnity Bill, unfeeling and disgraceful as it was, is far inferior to yours, both in lying and barbarity. Well may thy countrymen blush at thy infamy, aud think you fit company for the treasury merry-andrew and the mur derer of Marshal Nev.

Have you forgot the work that issued from the press under your name, a few years ago-"the Loves of Celestine and St. Aubert?

Have you forgot the praise you lavished in that work on the virtues, talent and character of Mr. Thomas Paine? You cannot! Foulmouthed hypocrite as you are, you cannot! But since your entering into the Methodist connexion, and marrying a woman for the sake of filthy lucre, you have enlisted yourself in the cause of bigotry, superstition and infamy, and stood foremost in their ranks, abusing every thing great and good, vilifying them whom you before extolled, and styling those who differ from you asssassins, wretches, infidels, murderers, blasphemers and banditti. It is currently reported that you intend to turn clergyman. Pray, do! You will be a fit companion for Parsons Hay, Ethelstone, and the remainder of the Manchester magistrates. If you do not intend to go to the church, I should recommend your Methodist acquaintance to purchase a rotten borough, in order that you may join the soul saving crew in the House of Commons, and have the pleasure of the company of those pious hypocritical canters, Wilberforce and Butterworth.

After your abuse of Deism, you acknowledge that you would give unlimited toleration to all Christians. What will you do with those that are not Christians? Are all the inhabitants of the worldChinese, Hindoos, Mahometans and Indians-to be execrated and massacred by such cool-blooded savages as yourself? After vilifying all those who do not agree with you on religious and political topics, you acknowledge that many good and abler men than you differ with you. I am aware of it. Every philosopher, or man of learning, is a Deist. Are your contemptible, lying, canting and intolerant speeches to be compared with the works of those eminent men who have advocated Deism? Is Charles Phillips-the briefless Irish barrister-the hireling of the Vice Society, more sensible than Voltaire, Condorcet, Diderot, Mirabaud, Volney, Bolingbroke, Paine, Palmer, Hume, Gibbon, Boulanger, and a thousand others? No, no! Even the writings of his favourites, Newton and Locke, advocate Deism!

You prate of the commandments. Do you keep Christ's commandment--do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you? When a person strikes your right cheek, do you turn the left ? Oh, no! cry you, 'tis well to talk about: but talking and doing are widely different.

I now take my leave, assuring you, that of all the detestable compositions of falsehood and abuse I ever read, your speech stands pre-eminent. It would disgrace any man, who was not (like yourself) callous to the feelings of humanity, and the upholder of tyranny, bloodshed, massacre and torture.

With the utmost contempt for your servility, and detestation of your intolerance and bigotry, I subscribe myself

A FRIEND TO TRUTH.

The apostacy of Mr. Phillips being now established beyond doubt, we shall take our leave of him, and allow him to enjoy his new company and new principles, without any further molestation on our parts, at least, by taking a review of his character and former principles. It appears from a publication of Mr. Phillips' alluded to in the foregoing letter, entitled "The Loves of Celestine and St. Aubert," written and published in the year 1811, whilst a student of the Middle Temple, that he was then a great admirer of the revolutions both of America and France, and all the persons who figured in them, as prominent advocates and supporters of liberty and popular rights. His feelings were then expressed in that cause with just the same warmth and rhetorical flourish as they now are, in enumerating the virtues of our late and present King and the purity of our holy religion as by law established. An author's writings and published speeches will be always found to be the best criterion for judging of his true character if they have been uniform and consistent he then merits that character in all the relations of life; are they vacillating, he deserves contempt whilst living, and reproach when dead. We shall proceed to extract some of the old sentiments of Mr. Phillips, which we declare we cannot now read without imbibing the fire they were intended to convey, and feeling sorrow that the author of such sentiments should have sunk into apostacy and have turned out a mere fortune hunter, when and where a brothel be the place assigned for the chase. We will first give the reader an outline of the tale of Celestine and St. Aubert, and then we can the better make copious extracts from it.

The scene is laid in France; the time, the war between England and her American Colonies down to the end of the French revolution. The fathers of Celestine and St. Aubert are intimate friends and fellow soldiers: being engaged in the same battle with an enemy, the father of Celestine is in danger, and the father of St. Aubert rushes to the spot to save him, which he succeeds in doing, but receives a mortal wound. The dying friend calls on the father of Celestine to protect his then infant St. Aubert, which the latter pledges himself to do, and acts agreeably to his pledge. St. Aubert is educated for the military profession, and at the time that many French officers went into the wilds of America to support the inhabitants against the hired assassins of our late virtuous king, he is fired with the idea of rising liberty, and resolves to accompany them. On a visit to take his leave of his patron, he sees and