[Footnote 57:  P. Fitzgerald says “Whig.” [W.S.J.]]

[Footnote 58:  P. Fitzgerald says “established Church.” [W.S.J.]]

[Footnote 59:  Nottingham succeeded in carrying the bill against Occasional Conformity on December 15th, 1711.  See Swift’s “Letter to a Whig Lord,” in vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]

These preparations were public enough, and the ministers had sufficient time to arm themselves; but they seem to have acted, in this juncture, like men who trusted to the goodness of their cause, and the general inclinations of the kingdom, rather than to those arts which our corruptions have too often made necessary.  Calculations were indeed taken, by which it was computed, that there would be a majority of ten upon the side of the court.  I remember to have told my Lord Harcourt and Mr. Prior, that a majority of ten was only a majority of five, because if their adversaries could bring off five, the number would be equal:  and so it happened to prove; for the mistake lay in counting upon the bare promises of those who were wholly in the interest of the old ministry, and were only kept in awe by the fear of offending the crown, and losing their subsistence, wherein the Duke of Somerset had given them full satisfaction.

With these dispositions of both parties, and fears and hopes of the event, the Parliament met upon the seventh of December, one thousand seven hundred and eleven.  The Queen’s speech (excepting what related to supplies) was chiefly taken up in telling both Houses what progress she had made towards a general peace, and her hopes of bringing it to a speedy conclusion.  As soon as Her Majesty was withdrawn, the House of Lords, in a committee, resolved upon an address of thanks; to which the Earl of Nottingham proposed an addition of the following clause.

“And we do beg leave to represent it to Your Majesty, as the humble opinion and advice of this House, that no peace can be safe or honourable to Great Britain and Europe, if Spain and the West Indies are to be allotted to any branch of the house of Bourbon.”

He was seconded by the Earl of Scarborough; and, after a debate of several hours, the question for the clause was carried, as I remember, by not above two voices.[60] The next day the House agreed with the committee.  The depending lords, having taken fresh courage from their principals, and some who professed themselves very humble servants to the present ministry, and enemies to the former, went along with the stream, pretending not to see the consequences that must visibly follow.  The address was presented on the eleventh, to which Her Majesty’s answer was short and dry.  She distinguished their thanks from the rest of the piece; and, in return to Lord Nottingham’s clause, said, She should be sorry that any body could think she would not do her utmost to recover Spain and the West Indies from the house of Bourbon.

[Footnote 60:  The previous question in favour of the Earl of Nottingham’s amendment was carried by a single vote, the main question by a majority of no less than eight! [S.] But Bishop Burnet says “by three voices” ("Hist.  Own Time,” ii. 584), and Coxe says “by a majority of 64 to 52.” [W.S.J.]]