peace? And I believe there is no whig in England that will openly deny her power in either. As to the latter, which is the more avowed, her majesty has promised that the treaty shall be laid before her parliament; after which, if it be made without their approbation, and proves to be against the interest of the kingdom, the ministers must answer for it at their extremest peril. What is there in all this that can possibly affect your principles as a whig? or rather, my lord, are you not, by all sorts of principles lawful to own, obliged to acquiesce and submit to her majesty upon this article? But I suppose, my lord, you will not make a difficulty of confessing the true genuine cause of animosity to be, that those who are out of place would fain be in; and that the bulk of your party are the dupes of half a dozen, who are impatient at their loss of power. It is true, they would fain infuse into your lordship such strange opinions of the present ministry and their intentions, as none of themselves at all believe. Has your lordship observed the least step made toward giving any suspicion of a design to alter the succession, to introduce arbitrary power, or to hurt the toleration, unless you will reckon the last to have been damaged by the bill lately obtained against occasional conformity, which was your own act and deed[1], by a strain of such profound policy, and the contrivance of so profound a politician, that I cannot unravel it to the bottom.
Pray, my lord, give yourself leave to consider whence this indefatigable zeal is derived, that makes the heads of your party send you a hundred messages, accost you in all places, and remove Heaven
- ↑ This bill was brought in Dec. 15, 1711, under a disguised title, by Daniel Finch, earl of Nottingham.
