ternative of doing it or of quitting their places. No men would have been such fools to have incurred such odium on any other conditions. It was avowed at the beginning of the present reign, that the King had informed them they must quit their places if they could not obtain him a divorce. This assertion was made, as official, in all the newspapers of the day in February last, and the circumstance occurred before the interment of the late King. I am not going to justify the conduct of the Ministers, for I am of opinion that King and Ministers are well met, and that they have resolved to stand or fall together, but I have no notion of playing the hypocrite, or the fool, or the rogue, by saying that the King is abused or deceived by his Ministers. I believe no such thing, and I never will support or propagate such a delusion or be silent whilst such a delusion is attempted to be propagated. I cannot believe that any man holds such an opinion conscientiously, although he may talk about holding it constitutionally. The word constitution is a complete bugbear, connected with the word loyalty it might be considered the source of political delusion, and merits the definition which Paine has given of the word expediency, the gutter-hole of politics, and the sink of reputation. It enables a man to speak or write bombasti cally without a word of meaning, or without conveying a single idea to a second person. It is the scape-goat of the pseudo-patriot, which he can shuffle as the gamester his cards, and turn up what he likes for trumps. It means every thing and nothing, and the honest man will ever evade the use of all such equivocal words.

The King of every country is the Chief Magistrate of the State, and has responsible duties to perform, as far as any inferior Magistrate. We might as well say, that the Clerk to a Justice of peace ought to be responsible for the deeds of his employer, as that the Minister should be responsible for the acts of the King. Far more rational would it be to say, that the King should be responsible for the acts of his Ministers, as in law the master is responsible for the acts of his hired servant. The King, like a master, has the power of choosing his own servants, and the Minister calls himself the King's servant; he is liable to be turned off without · notice, which circumstance renders a King more independent of his Minister than the master of his servant, who is obliged to give him notice for a certain length of time before he can discharge him, or pay him wages for that time. It is the King's duty to choose honest men as Ministers, and if he prefers corrupt, wicked, and dishonest men, he ought to be

responsible for such dispositions and misrule. If the Ministers were elected by the people, and imposed upon the King as advisers and counsellors, then indeed it might rationally be expected that they should be responsible for all the acts of the Government; and if Kingship is to continue in vogue, this is the only method of keeping it in a state of peace and utility with the nation: but now, whilst the King has an absolute power over his Ministers, and from their intrigues and corruptions over the whole realm, he, and he alone, ought to be responsible for all misconduct that is official, let it come from where it will. Why is a King paid such an immense annual sum, but to look after his Government and those who act in his name.

The idea that the King of England can do no wrong originated in those times when there was a continual dispute about the succession, and frequent struggles for it, and it received considerable support after the wholesome example of punishing Charles the First and the restoration of his son. But now, when the question is no longer about the succession, but the propriety of suppressing the office as ridiculous, expensive, and useless, it is too much rather to say that Kings are not to be responsible for the acts of their hired and chosen servants! If Kings could do no wrong, then James the Second could do no wrong, and all those who opposed him were traitors, according to this maxim. The faction called a Convention had a long squabble on the words desertion or abdication, as to which was the most applicable to James; but strictly speaking, James did neither abdicate nor desert, he retreated before a superior force, which his native courage would have induced him to combat, if he had possessed the means, and which he took the earliest opportunity of combating, though not successfully. James neither abdicated or deserted the throne, he asserted his right to it with all his power, and according to the maxim of the present Bishop of London, that the King can do no wrong. William, the Dutchman, was an usurper, unless the anomaly be admitted, that as both were Kings, neither of them could do wrong! Lord Somers saw this anomaly, and lawyer like, advocated the strongest side: had that Lord Somers lived in the present day, he would have been just what his descendant is, and would have found contrary precedents to support the Bishop of London's maxim. This is what is called time-serving. Some of the keenest-sighted of the time-servers begin to see that there must again be another revolution by some means or other, and they begin to

desert the dying powers that be, and to lay by for the new

comers.

Although Mr. Wilson has expressed his disapprobation of the demoralizing and filthy conduct of the Ministers, still as an addresser of the King, he practically encourages that conduct, or why did not the address request the dismissal of those filthy Ministers. The object of all these little corrupt juntos in addressing the King, and declaiming about sedition and blasphemy, is, to support the present Ministers in oppesition to the addresses which are so numerously preparing against them. On all occasions where the present and all other Ministers under the English monarchy have had an important object to carry, they have set their agents to make a hideous clamour, with some two or three terrific words, so as to draw away the attention of the great body of the people from the main object. I readily admit, that "The Republican" is the only periodical work which, in Corruption's vocabulary, can be called blasphemous; I use the word according to its common acceptation, for to me it is synonymous with truth. I admit that it contains violent and strong attacks upon the Christian religion, shewing that it is founded in error and imposture, but the number sold is very small, not amounting to a thousand of each number, and those chiefly to confirmed Republicaus and Deists; so that the word blasphemous should be omitted in those addresses, to make them other than the vehicles of falsehood. Again, I have no objection to have The Republican" called a seditious publication by Corruption, or the present Government, which are now known to be synonymous--the work is written with a seditious intent towards the present system of legislation. No one can be deceived by this publication -he who runs may read, and understand to the bargain: if it contains statements consistent with truth and common sense, it will be accepted, and those who think otherwise may reject it; I am indifferent, and use no kind of pains to put it into the hands of any unwilling person. But as to demoralization, I throw it back in Mr. Wilson's face, and tell him that such is his work and not mine. I challenge the whole of Corruption's host to shew me a demoralizing sentence from any thing I have written or published. I challenge Mr. Wilson, for I verily believe that he has made use of my name without ever having read any of my writings or publications. I challenge that member of the Common Council, who has twice spoken of the demoralizing writings of Paine and Carlile, to shew me a demoralizing sentence Vol. IV. No. 16.

from the writings of either. I forget the name of the latter gentleman, as I feel nothing but pride at finding my name coupled with that of Paine, and heed not who is the person that so couples our names. I claim, in the face of all mankind, and challenge any man to shew the contrary, the character of moralists for Paine and myself. I leave the other gentlemen who are falsely accused, and connected with me, to answer for themselves-they are living, and capable, far better than myself. For my own part, I feel not abuse, but I will detect falsehood as far as I can, and expose all puny and ignorant calumniators-men who always must have some butt for slander.

In the declaration from the Ward of Cheap, I see the name of Thomas Tegg as a denouncer of Sedition and Blasphemy!!! This man has circulated ten thousand copies of Volney's Ruins of Empires, a work that has made more Deists and Atheists than all the other antichristian writings that have been circulated in this country. Thomas Tegg the bookseller of Cheapside; a noted shop for the most seditious caricatures, or those which the party with whom he subscribes calls seditious. Thomas Tegg a denouncer of Sedition and Blasphemy!!! This is tag rag and bob-tail indeed!!! But perhaps Mr. Tegg might subscribe with the same disposition, as I subscribed the declaration which was got up preparatory to my mock trials last year, by those very loyal men who would not on any account interfere with the due administration of the laws, or for a moment think of biassing the minds of a jury! If I were in London now, I would sign all the loyal addresses that I could get at, and be as loud in denouncing sedition and blasphemy as any of them. I know that my signature, and a few others of the same stamp, entirely stopped the progress of that declaration last year, for prior to my signing it, the managers repeatedly promised to publish the list of signatures in the newspapers but never did it after. I could sign such an address or declaration with as good a conscience as any man. No man abhors sedition, blasphemy, vice, corruption, or immorality, more than myself. I trust I shall ever be found the practical discourager of all those evils, as well as the professing abhorrer. The most notorious reformers should get at those addresses and declarations and sign them, as the best method to baffle hypocrisy and delusion. This is like combating the enemy on his own ground and with his own weapons, and that too quite consistently and honestly, for whilst such men confine themselves to ambiguous words, they are

easily beat out of all their pretensions. The present seems to be corruption's last gasp in the shape of getting up addresses, for even the famous Portsmouth address which was lately presented to the King at Spithead, was taken to the workhouse and all the women and children were made to sign it by way of swelling the number. Even now all the loyal addresses are stuck up in pot-houses for signatures, and after all, i doubt whether the King from all the addresses that will be again presented to him, will find so many names as those contained in one address to Mr. Hunt from Lancashire.

In the front of all the Addressers and Declarers against Sedition and Blasphemy, as they impiously call the Truth, stand the "Wise Men of the East;" William Curtis, John Atkins, George Bridges, and Co., the job and contract-loving aldermen of the city. These worthies have been up to the King with their address, as the address of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, whereas they were but eight aldermen, and the Lord Mayor must have been but an eye-sore to all parties concerned. The King has answered them just in the style of his official journal, the Courier, assuring them that there sentiments are the sentiments of the nation, and that he will make common cause with them. I wish him no better support, and that he may continue himself worthy of such a connection. It is the fairest road for the abolition of monarchy that I can point out, therefore I feel a comfortable assurance that I shall not in vain advocate republicanism in this country. I began it theoretically, but I now find that I am working practically, and that my object bids fair to be accomplished sooner than I had reason to expect.

There is one thing visible which shows the decline of corruption's power, and that is, that the Addressers and Declarers dare not hold an open meeting so as to have any opposition or discussion. There Addresses and Declarations are all contraband and secret before they appear as adver tisements in the newspapers. Why do they, not imitate the Queen's Addressers? How different is the respect and attachment shown to the one and the other! We almost doubt whether the wise aldermen would have ventured their heads in a procession, had it not been for the protection they enjoyed from the Lord Mayor and Sheriff Williams. The Cambridge Addressers were escorted to Carlton House as so many criminals, by a posse of police officers! Really this all looks queer, and that the government of this country