with enthusiasm by the Whigs and Acquitted Felons at the Crown and Anchora Solemn Festival, in honour of the Sovereignty of the People, was decreed in France, at the Motion of JEAN DE BRY, as violent a Jacobin (to do him justice) as any of those who assisted at the celebration in the Strand.

Far be it from me to insinuate that there could be any direct communication between the ENLIGHTENED in the two Countries, upon this subject. I understand, on the contrary, that all communication is at present prevented; and moreover, four days would be hardly sufficient, with "all appliances and means to boot," to convey a Hint of this importance from London to Paris.

I only remark it as a singular coincidence, worthy, as I think, of being pointed out to the notice and admiration of the sober People of this Country. The PREMIER PEER of ENGLAND and JEAN DE BRY! who would have thought to have seen them united by a sympathy so striking!

Utrumque nostrum incredibili modo

Consentit astrum.

One word more - As to the Explanation given of this Toast of the Duke of NORFOLK-It is said to be perfectly consistent with the spirit of our happy Constitution. The "SOVEREIGNTY of the PEOPLE" may co-exist in England with the SOVEREIGNTY of the KING. Will the Duke of NORFOLK take the trouble to enquire of JEAN DE BRY, whether or no it has been found so in France?

I am, Sir, &c. &c.

A FREEMASON.

The

The AUTHOR of the following Letter, views the transaction which cost His Grace of NORFOLK his Lieutenancy, and Militia, in a totally different and indeed opposite light to the preceding. And, as we pique ourselves on our fairness, we shall not withhold what is urged in defence of a Toast so much quoted; and, as we are here told, so liable to misinterpretation. We confess we prefer the following con struction to any that we have before seen, of a favourable sort → Mr. Fox's not excepted.

MR. ANTI-JACOBIN,

Really, Sir, I cannot help agreeing with Messrs. TOOKE and Fox, that His Grace the Duke of NORFOLK's dismission from the two Offices of high trust which he so well became, is a very unexampled outrage upon the convivial, or, (as Mr. TOOKE most happily expresses it, in one of his Ta) the SYMPOSIASTIC Liberty of the Subject.

It is evident, that when a Toast was given which has offended Courtiers and Placemen, the whole company were in high spirits. The heart, Sir, of excommunicated Whigs may surely, at moments like these, demand a kind of privilege to be (according to the expression of an agreeable Atheist, now guillotined *) Sans Culottes - if not stark naked. Such parties are no Theatres of Morality, public or private, much less of Allegiance; and what enjoyment is left us of Clubs at a Political Tavern, if, though select in their numbers, congenial in rank, and united in the social fraternity of the Members, Inquisitors of Downing-street, and Spies of Mr. WILBERFORCE, can, by colour of a Ticket purchased, hold the invisible sword of DAMOCLES over the Chairman's de

ANACHARSIS CLOOTZ said in France, " mon ame est Sans-Culottes,"

fenceless

fenceless head watch every little sentence of playful Treason take notice of a Pun, if it should be rather impious; and find Regicide or Atheism in a Bumper Toast!

If this is to go on, I presume it will soon be enacted, in the genuine spirit of the two celebrated Bills, that every Chairman of a Club must have a License to give a Toast, signed by Mr. Justice ADDINGTON upon the margin of such Toast, with. all its proper Italics and Punctuation.

What, in the first place, can be more disingenuous than to select one Toast, insulated from all the rest, instead of taking the context of the whole string, and setting off against it others less exceptionable ? *

It is no less illiberal, to select one so very mysterious, and in which there is no harm (unless << more was meant than met the ear,") then, to put the worst construction upon it; and last of all, to make a report of it in the Cabinet Newspapers, which give a marked emphasis to words or syllables, and omit a pause in the sentence, which may have divided the two members of it. In a report of written words, if a colon or other stop could be thus omitted, your Paper, Sir, would not be innocent.

But what says the Toast itself?" OUR SOVEREIGN THE MAJESTY OF THE PEOPLE." The words, in the Abstract (for I deprecate the magic of inuendos) are a little quaint, but very innocent and perfectly constitutional, with or without stops-(for I'll take it both ways) "OUR SOVEREIGN THE MAJESTY (or the KING) OF THE PEOPLE!"- Suppose an interval, or stop, after the

This humane principle of Justice was of use at the Old Bailey.

word

word Sovereign "Our Sovereign

the People."

it marks the sentiment better still

who is the (Majesty or) King of

I am perfectly aware, that Mr. Fox-who was not present (any more than myself) but is a more logical Expositor of any words that are in his way represents the Duke to have meant," that OUR King, i. e. George the "Third, owes the Majesty of HIS pre-eminence to the "People, as a part of the Legislature who settled that "Crown upon him: and moreover, that ever since that "Act of Parliament, it had been tacitly implied, that we << have no such thing as a Monarchy belonging to us, on any other terms, or by any other tenure, than as we ❝ have a Turnpike Road or an Inclosure."

The Exposition is very ingenious: though I cannot find it struck any one of those Auditors, Echoers, or Drinkers, of the Toast, among whom it passed; but was reserved for the commanding talents and spirit of a Leader who tells his Followers, at the distance of a week or ten days, what they might, could, or should, have understood and intended.

I have enquired with unremitted assiduity, whether our (which I beg you will print in Italics, that I at least may be better understood) was, or was not, marked by the high-born Chairman with any particular emphasis of tone. But in this point every Symposiast Reporter gives a different account, according to the number of bottles taken off by each at the moment of hearing the words, and the comparative strength of their respective Heads, with a reference to any such given amount of bottles. But I recur to my own solution.

With or without emphasis, the words only say, that ●ur King is the King of the People. By this construc

tion, it might mean only that he is King (as far as he is King) not of other States, but of this. Surely a very harmless truism!

And shall we, then, suffer the ATTORNEY GENERAL to step in, and inuendo away all the candour of so plain an Exposition; by contending (as he must do, if he means to impute blame to the Toast) that "His Grace "of NORFOLK (if sober) meant that our King is the "People; or that we have no Sovereign but in the "Majesty of the People: that is, in other words, that we "have no King at all (in TITLE) but that all his power " is in the power of Subjects OVER HIM, and over one " another?"

Was ever disingenuity like this? Yet this ATTORNEY GENERAL has the gift of reasoning; but (as FALSTAFF said)" his potations are thin." I doubt if he is Member of a single Club. He certainly neither drinks nor swears. His midnight lamps are more contemplative and studious than those of the Duke, but less animated and brilliant.

Such a man will never do for the SYMPOSIARCH-the Master of Revels to the Whigs, the Controller of the merry politics of a Tavern. And without some such forced construction, there is (as I think I have proved) nothing in the Toast but what you, Sir, might drink yourself, not only harmlessly, but (if the wine were of the Duke of NORFOLK's choosing) beneficially; and what I, Sir, if you would admit me of your party, should be happy to drink with you.

1

Your's,

A SYMPOSIAST.

To