The other lord, in whom the discontented managers placed much of their hopes, was the Earl of Nottingham, already mentioned; than whom no man ever appeared to hate them more, or to be more pleased at their fall, partly from his avowed principles, but chiefly from the hopes he had of sharing in their spoils.  But it fell out, that he was no way acceptable to the Queen or her new servants:  these apprehended no little trouble and impediment to the public business, from his restless, talkative, overweening manner, if once he was suffered to have any part in affairs; and he stood very ill with the court, having made a motion in the House of Lords, and in Her Majesty’s presence, that the Electoral Prince of Hanover might be invited to reside in England, although he had before declared to the Queen how much he was against that proposal, when it was first offered by the other party.  However, some very considerable employments had been given to his nearest relations, and he had one or two offers for himself, which he thought fit to refuse, as not equal to his merits and character.  Upon the Earl of Rochester’s decease, he conceived that the crown would hardly overlook him for president of the council, and deeply resented that disappointment.  But the Duke of Newcastle, lord privy seal, dying some time after, he found that office was first designed for the Earl of Jersey, and, upon this lord’s sudden death, was actually disposed of to the Bishop of Bristol by which he plainly saw, that the Queen was determined against giving him any opportunity of directing in affairs, or displaying his eloquence in the cabinet council.  He had now shaken off all remains of patience or temper, and, from the contemplation of his own disappointments, fell, as it is natural, to find fault with the public management, and to assure his neighbours in the country, that the nation was in imminent danger of being ruined.  The discontented[55] lords were soon apprised of this great change, and the Duke of Roxburgh,[56] the earl’s son-in-law, was dispatched to Burleigh on the Hill, to cultivate his present dispositions, and offer him whatever terms he pleased to insist on.  The Earl immediately agreed to fall in with any measures for distressing or destroying the ministry but, in order to preserve his reputation with the Church party, and perhaps bring them over to his interests, he proposed, that a bill should be brought into the House of Lords for preventing occasional conformity, and be unanimously agreed to by all the peers of the low-church[57] principle, which would convince the world of their good intentions to the established religion,[58] and that their oppositions to the court wholly proceeded from their care of the nation, and concern for its honour and safety.[59]

[Footnote 55:  P. Fitzgerald says “factious.” [W.S.J.]]

[Footnote 56:  John Ker, Earl of Roxburgh, was created Earl of Kelso, Marquess of Cessford and Beaumont, and Duke of Roxburgh in 1707. [W.S.J.]]