ld be well served.

Secondly--That they were not by themselves of sufficient strength to
support the weight of administration.

Thirdly--That they were not the men whose services were the most likely
to be called for by the sovereign, in the present crisis.

First--I am to prove, that the country could not be well served but by
the Rockingham connexion.

There are three points principally concerned in the constituting a good
administration; liberal principles, respectable abilities, and
incorruptible integrity.--Let us examine with a view to these, the other
four parties in the British government. The connexion of the earl of
Shelburne, that of lord North, the Bedford party, and the Scottish. In
reviewing these, it is necessary that I should employ a manly freedom,
though, at the same time, I should be much unwilling to do a partial
injustice to any of them.

It is true, there is some difference between the language of the same
men in office, and out of office. The Bedford connexion, however, have
never been conceived to bear an over favourable aspect to the cause of
liberty. They are the avowed enemies of innovation and reform.

The Scottish party are pretty much confounded with the set of men that
are called, by way of distinction, the king's friends. The design of
these men has been to exalt regal power and prerogative upon the ruins
of aristocracy, and the neck of the people. Arguments, and those by no
means of a frivolous description, have been brought to prove, that a
most subtle and deep-laid scheme was formed by them, in the beginning of
the reign, to subserve this odious purpose. It has been supposed to have
been pursued with the most inflexible constancy, and, like a skiff, when
it sails along the meandering course of a river, finally to have turned
to account the most untoward gales.

Lord North, whatever we may suppose to have been his intrinsic
abilities, stands forward, as, perhaps, the most unfortunate minister,
that this country ever produced. Misfortune overtook him in the
assertion of the highest monarchical principles. In spite of misfortune,
he adherred inflexibly to that assertion. In the most critical
situations he remained in a state of hesitation and uncertainty, till
the tide, that "taken at the flood, led up to fortune," was lost. His
versatility, and the undisguised attachment, that he manifested to
emolument and power, were surely unworthy of the stake that was
entrusted to him.

In