1792- remaris on thunderproof'sefsays. i^S- 

 king a few straggling criticisms, that hardly deserve 

 any notice. 



la the first place, Mr T. accuses me of misquotin|^ 

 him, and perverting his meaning, in that part of his 

 " remarks," where he speaks of the pacific character 

 of James I. I think it is evident, from the warm 

 and enthusiastic manner in which he mentions the pro- 

 longation of this monarch's life, that he wifhed to con- 

 nect with it the idea of peace and prosperity. Had 

 he lived, Mr T. afserts, to the present time, this 

 country would have been now in a state of prosper)- 

 ty, beyond the imagination or vanity of man to 

 conceive. He indeed afsociates the " tranquillity of 

 the country," with the life of James ; but this I con- 

 ceive to be a uselefs repetition, as the predicted pro- 

 sperity could arise only from the pacific inclinations 

 of this monarch ; not surely from his talents for in- 

 ternal government or legislation. 



Mr T's distinction betwixt " worst," and " most 

 destructive," though curious enough, has not even 

 the merit of a quibble or sophism. I did not say 

 that he applied the superlative " worst," to the moral 

 character of lord Chatham. This he acknowledges 

 himself; and surely, in a political sense, the "worst 

 minister," and the " most destructive minister," are 

 synonimous terms. 



I afserted that Mr T. called Sir Robert Walpole 

 the best of ministers. He denies it, and says I am 

 the first who ever said so. I beg leave to quote the 

 paragraph whence I drew my conclusion. After 

 calling lord C. " the most destructive minister that 

 ever any nation was cursed with," he adds, " y^^this 



