at 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.]]

Upon the fifteenth of December the Earl of Nottingham likewise brought
in the bill to prevent occasional conformity (although under a disguised
title), which met with no opposition; but was swallowed by those very
lords, who always appeared with the utmost violence against the least
advantage to the established Church.

But in the House of Commons there appeared a very different spirit; for
when one Mr. Robert Walpole offered a clause of the same nature with
that of the Earl of Nottingham, it was rejected with contempt by a very
great majority. Their address was in the most dutiful manner, approving
of what Her Majesty had done towards a peace, and trusting entirely to
her wisdom in the future management of it. This address was presented to
the Queen a day before that of the Lords, and received an answer
distinguishedly gracious. But the other party[61] was no ways
discouraged by either answer, which they looked upon as only matter of
course, and the sense of the ministry, contrary to that of the Queen.

[Footnote 61: P. Fitzgerald says "faction." [W.S.J.]]

The Parliament sat as long as the approaching festival would allow; and
upon the twenty-second, the