ed that he meant to
appropriate the money; he only delayed, and with sufficient meanness,
the gratification of him by whose prosperity he was pained.

Men sometimes suffer by injudicious kindness; Philips became ridiculous,
without his own fault, by the absurd admiration of his friends,
who decorated him with honorary garlands, which the first breath of
contradiction blasted.

When upon the succession of the House of Hanover every Whig expected to
be happy, Philips seems to have obtained too little notice; he caught
few drops of the golden shower, though he did not omit what flattery
could perform. He was only made a commissioner of the lottery (1717),
and, what did not much elevate his character, a justice of the peace.

The success of his first play must naturally dispose him to turn his
hopes towards the stage; he did not, however, soon commit himself to
the mercy of an audience, but contented himself with the fame already
acquired, till after nine years he produced (1722) The Briton, a tragedy
which, whatever was its reception, is now neglected; though one of the
scenes, between Vanoc the British Prince and Valens the Roman General,
is confessed to be written with great dramatic skill, animated by spirit
truly poetical. He had not been idle though he had been silent, for he
exhibited another tragedy the same year on the story of Humphry, Duke of
Gloucester. This tragedy is only remembered by its title.

His happiest undertaking was (1711) of a paper called The Freethinker,
in conjunction with associates, of whom one was Dr. Boulter, who, then
only minister of a parish in Southwark, was of so much consequence to
the Government that he was made first Bishop of Bristol, and afterwards
Primate of Ireland, where his piety and his charity will be long
honoured. It may easily be imagined that what was printed under the
direction of Boulter would have nothing in it indecent or licentious;
its title is to be understood as implying only freedom from unreasonable
prejudice. It has been reprinted in volumes, but is little read; nor can
impartial criticism recommend it as worthy of revival.

Boulter was not well qualified to write diurnal essays, but he knew how
to practise the liberality of greatness and the fidelity of friendship.
When he was advanced to the height of ecclesiastical dignity, he did
not forget the companion of his labours. Knowing Philips to be slenderly
supported, he took him to Ireland as partaker of his