For example, I have heard it often objected as a great piece of insolence in the clergy and others, to say or hint that the Church was in danger, when it was voted otherwise in Parliament some years ago:  and the Queen herself in her last speech, did openly condemn all such insinuations.[10] Notwithstanding which, I did then, and do still believe, the Church has, since that vote, been in very imminent danger; and I think I might then have said so, without the least offence to her Majesty, or either of the two Houses.  The Queen’s words, as near as I can remember, mentioned the Church being in danger from her administration; and whoever says or thinks that, deserves, in my opinion, to be hanged for a traitor.  But that the Church and State may be both in danger under the best princes that ever reigned, and without the least guilt of theirs, is such a truth, as a man must be a great stranger to history or common sense, to doubt.  The wisest prince on earth may be forced, by the necessity of his affairs, and the present power of an unruly faction, or deceived by the craft of ill designing men:  One or two ministers, most in his confidence, may at first have good intentions, but grow corrupted by time, by avarice, by love, by ambition, and have fairer terms offered them, to gratify their passions or interests, from one set of men than another, till they are too far involved for a retreat; and so be forced to take “seven spirits more wicked than themselves.”  This is a very possible case; and will not “the last state of such men be worse than the first”? that is to say, will not the public, which was safe at first, grow in danger by such proceedings as these?  And shall a faithful subject, who foresees and trembles at the consequences, be called disaffected, because he delivers his opinion, though the prince declares, as he justly may, that the danger is not owing to his administration?  Or, shall the prince himself be blamed, when in such a juncture he puts his affairs into other hands, with the universal applause of his people?  As to the vote against those who should affirm the Church was in danger, I think it likewise referred to danger from or under the Queen’s administration, (for I neither have it by me, nor can suddenly have recourse to it;) but if it were otherwise, I know not how it can refer to any dangers but what were past, or at that time present; or how it could affect the future, unless the senators were all inspired, or at least that majority which voted it.  Neither do I see any crime further than ill manners, to differ in opinion from a majority of either or both Houses; and that ill manners, I must confess I have been often guilty of for some years past, though I hope I never shall again.