Note 10, p. 31. [3.] Shelburne was _dismissed_; he did not resign. This is a grave error in the doctor, when the conduct of king and ministers is the theme, and when we are studying the motives and character of the writer. As I wish to excite inquiry, in the mind of the reader, to lead him to a just method of criticism and investigation, I will briefly state how I detected even so apparently trifling a mistake as the above. The first sentence of the paragraph is as follows: "Drawing lots would be a prudent and reasonable method of appointing the officers of state compared to a late 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.