ration, and that he
had done this even since his committal to the Tower. His guilt,
whatever it was, had been increased by him, and not diminished, since
the beginning of the proceedings taken against him. But he had only
done what most other statesmen of that day had been doing, or would
have done if they had seen advantage in it. He was not more guilty
than some of his bitterest opponents, the Duke of Marlborough among
others. All but the very bitterest opponents were glad to be done with
the whole business. It must have come to a more or less farcical end
sooner or later, and sensible men were of opinion that the sooner the
better. Of Harley, "Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer," as his titles
ran, we shall not hear any more; we have already foreshadowed the
remainder of his life and his death. This short account of his sham
impeachment is introduced here merely as a part of the historic
continuity of the narrative. History has few characters less
interesting than that of Oxford. He held a position of greatness
without being great; he fell, and even his fall could not invest him
with tragic dignity.

On December 13, 1718, Lord Stanhope, who had been raised to the
peerage, first as Viscount and then as Earl Stanhope, introduced into
the House of Lords a measure ingeniously entitled "A Bill for
Strengthening the Protestant Interest in these Kingdoms." The title of
the Bill was strictly appropriate according to our present ideas, and
according to the ideas of enlightened men in Stanhope's days also; but
it must at first have misled some of Stanhope's audience. Most
Churchmen are now ready to admit that the interests of the Church of
England are strengthened by every measure which tends to secure
religious equality; but most Churchmen were not quite so {172} sure of
this in the reign of George the First. The Bill brought in by Stanhope
was really a measure intended to relieve Dissenters from some of the
penalties and disabilities imposed on them in the reign of Queen Anne.

[Sidenote: 1719--Catholic emancipation foreshadowed]

The second reading of the Bill was the occasion of a long and animated
debate. Several noble lords appealed to the opinion of the bishops,
and the bishops spoke in answer to the appeal. The Archbishop of
Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of
Bristol, the Bishop of Rochester (Atterbury), the Bishop of Chester,
and other prelates, spoke against the Bil