Mansfield, charmed to see the era arrived that they had so ardently expected and prepared, abandoned the silly Duke and his still sillier associates, and remained fast friends to the reviving prerogative. Then, _and not till then_, the Whig Lords grew alarmed at the designs of the Court. Lord Rockingham resigned with Newcastle; and Devonshire was affronted and disgraced. These last then thought the country grew seriously in danger; but had Newcastle and his friends been able to keep their places, I question whether we should ever have heard _from them_ of arbitrary schemes, any more than of Mr. Burke’s pamphlet; though I have no more doubt of the dangerous projects of the Court, than I believe Lord Rockingham’s party likely, or capable to prevent them. I shall say but little on the conclusion of a work which prescribed unlimited voting with Lord Rockingham and his friends as the test of _honesty_; while at the same time, conscience is disclaimed, “_because_,” says the book, “_no man can see into the heart of another_”--the context of which curious doctrine is, that it is more virtuous to follow another man, or other men (into whose hearts neither can one see), than to obey the impulse of one’s own conscience. Nothing, or almost nothing, was promised to the Nation by that faction, should they attain power; and yet, with so scanty a catalogue of merits, they claimed implicit confidence from all men! “_For_,” says the author, “_can a man have sat long in Parliament without seeing any one set of men whose character, conduct, or disposition would lead him to associate with them, and aid and be aided by them in any one system of public utility_?”[98] I answer, if he is an honest man, it is impossible for him to have sat long in Parliament, and not have seen through the selfish or factious views of every set of men; and if he was a sensible man, he must have seen the weakness and insufficience of Lord Rockingham and his party. But what shall we say, if this monkish obedience was demanded, not only to this leader and his leaders, but to a faction composed of men of the most opposite and heterogeneous principles? Lord Rockingham and his friends had adopted and joined in measures concerted, proposed, imposed, now by Lord Chatham, now by Mr. Grenville. Were Lord Chatham’s system or principles, if he had either, the same with Lord Rockingham’s? were Mr. Grenville’s? If they were, why were they not of our party? If they were not, why was any man bound to vote with them? or when? Might Lord Rockingham dissent from Lord Chatham or Mr. Grenville, and might not another man dissent from them too? or might such men dissent only when Lord Rockingham did? What entitled Lord Rockingham to be such a pope, such a rule of faith, such a judge in the last resort? If Lord Chatham or Mr. Grenville might sometimes be right, why might not the Duke of Grafton or Lord North be so too? What enjoined a man to follow Lord Rockingham, both when he agreed with Lord Chatham or Mr.