What is that we want to find? We want to find the new method of scientific inquiry applied to the questions in which men are most deeply interested--questions which were then imperiously and instantly urged on the thoughtful mind. We want to see it applied to POLITICS in the reign of James the First. We want to see it applied to the open questions of another department of inquiry,--certainly not any less important,--in that reign, and in the reign which preceded it. We want to see the facts sifted through those scientific tables of review, from which the true form of SOVEREIGNTY, the _legitimate_ sovereignty, is to be inducted, and the scientific axioms of government with it. We want to see the science of observation and experiment, the science of nature in general, applied to the cure of the common-weal in the reign of James the First, and to that particular crisis in its disease, in which it appeared to the observers to be at its last gasp; and that, too, by the principal doctors in that profession,--men of the very largest experience in it, who felt obliged to pursue their work conscientiously, whether the patient _objected_ or not. But are there any such books as these? Certainly. You have the author's own word for it. 'Some may raise this question,' he says, 'this _question_ rather than _objection_'--[it is better that it should come in the form of a _question_, than in the form of _an objection_, as it would have come, if there had been no room to '_raise the question_']--'_whether we talk_ of perfecting _natural philosophy_' [using the term here in its usual limited sense], 'whether we talk of perfecting natural philosophy _alone_, according to our method, or, _the other_ sciences--_such as_, ETHICS, LOGIC, POLITICS.' _That_ is the question 'raised.' 'We certainly intend to comprehend them ALL.' _That_ is _the author's_ answer to it. 'And as _common logic_ which _regulates matters by syllogism_, is applied, not only to natural, but to every other science, _so_ our inductive method _likewise_ comprehends them ALL.' With such iteration will he think fit to give us this point. It is put in here for those 'who raise the question'--the question 'rather than objection.' The other sort are taken care of in other places. '_For_,' he continues, 'we form a history and tables of invention, for _anger, fear, shame,_ and _the like_; and _also for examples in civil life_' [that was to be the principal part of the science when he laid out the plan of it in the advancement of learning] 'and the _mental_ operations of _memory, composition, division, judgment_, and the rest; _as well_ as for _heat_ and _cold, light_ and _vegetation_, and _the like_.' That is the plan of the new science, as the author sketches it for the benefit of those who raise questions rather than objections. That is its comprehension precisely, whenever he undertakes to mark out its limits for the satisfaction of this class of readers. But this is that same FOURTH PART to which he