with what resignation the Junto Lords (as they were then called) were submitted to by their adherents and followers; for it is well known, that the chief among the dissenting teachers in town were consulted upon this affair, and such arguments used, as had power to convince them, that nothing could be of greater advantage to their cause than the passing this bill.  I did, indeed, see a letter at that time from one of them to a great[66] man, complaining, that they were betrayed and undone by their pretended friends; but they were in general very well satisfied upon promises that this law should soon be repealed, and others more in their favour enacted, as soon as their friends should be re-established.

[Footnote 66:  It was to the Treasurer himself. [ORIGINAL NOTE.] Scott says that it was written by Mr. Shower on December 20th, and that the writer complained that the Dissenters had “been shamefully abandoned, sold, and sacrificed, by their professed friends.” [W.S.J.]]

But nothing seemed more extraordinary than the event of this refined management, by which the Earl of Nottingham was so far from bringing over proselytes (wherein his abilities fell very short even of the Duke of Somerset’s); or preserving the reputation of a firm churchman, that very few people did so much as imagine he had any such design; only when he brought in the bill, they conceived it was some wonderful deep reach of politics, which they could not comprehend:  however, they liked the thing, and without troubling themselves about the persons or motives from whence it rose, it had a very speedy passage through both Houses.  It must be confessed, that some attempt of this nature was much more necessary to the leaders of that party, than is generally thought.  The desire of power and revenge was common to them all; but several among them were also conscious that they stood in need of protection, whose safety was therefore concerned in the design of ruining the ministry, as well as their ambition.  The Duke of Marlborough foresaw those examinations, which were afterwards made into some parts of his management, and was apprehensive of a great deal more; that the Parliament would perhaps enquire into the particulars of the negotiation at The Hague in one thousand seven hundred and nine; for what ends, and by whose advice the propositions of peace from France were rejected:  besides, he dreaded lest that mysterious policy might be laid open to the world, of desiring the Queen to constitute him general for life, which was a very tender point, and would admit of much proof.  It is true, indeed, that whilst the Duke’s affair was under the consideration of the House of Commons, one of his creatures[67] (whether by direction or otherwise) assured the Speaker, with a very serious countenance, that the world was mistaken in censuring his lord upon this article; for it was the Queen who pressed the Duke to accept that commission; and upon his humble refusal conceived her first displeasure against him.  How such a defence would have passed, if it had been offered in form, is easier to be conceived, than how any person in his wits could have the confidence to affirm it; which last it would indeed be hard to believe, if there were any room left for doubt.