ate disposition of the secretary's office." After reading
this, and then the note, it occurred to me that the king should not be
so severely censured for any mistake in judgment in filling an office
suddenly left vacant by a resignation. If the writer did so he was
malignant, and ought to be condemned by all liberal-minded and good
people. And after having studied thoroughly the character of Mr. Paine,
for I now supposed him to be the author, I said: although the language
is his, the spirit is not. I confess this staggered me not a little,
but in a few moments I regained myself, after reading these lines from
Bancroft's History, vol. vi., pp. 214, 215, 216: "Yielding to the daily
importunities of the king, Grafton prepared to _dismiss_ Shelburne....
Shelburne was removed. The resignation of Chatham instantly followed....
The removal of Shelburne opened the cabinet to the ignorant and
incapable Earl of Rochford, who owed his selection to the mediocrity of
his talents and the impossibility of finding a secretary of state more
thoroughly submissive." This was satisfactory to me. What was evidence
against my hypothesis by the note of Doctor Goodrich, was evidence in
favor of it when the facts were known. This shows how careless men
become who do not have in view a scientific method, and who do not
search after the soul of things, but content themselves with a
superficial reading. I would here warn the reader to question the
statement of any writer which does not come with more than a plausible
degree of truth. The day of historic fable is past. History is a
science. The man of science takes but little on authority not capable of
proof, and it is through this scientific method that the humblest mind,
capable of rational judgment, becomes supreme over itself.

Note 12, p. 34. [4.] That Junius had a private grudge against Lord
Granby, is an affirmation not supported by the facts. Junius himself
says, in a note to Letter 7: "The death of Lord Granby was lamented by
Junius. He undoubtedly owed some compensations to the public, and seemed
determined to acquit himself of them. In private life he was
unquestionably that good man, who, for the interest of his country,
ought to have been a great one. I speak of him now without partiality.
_I never spoke of him with resentment._ His mistakes in public conduct
did not arise either from want of sentiment, or want of judgment, but in
general from the difficulty of saying _no_ to the bad p