Atterbury’s probable doom was made a subject of coarse humour after a manner which was uproariously approved in Whig coteries. For example, the ‘British Journal,’ March 23rd, says:――‘What will be the fate of a certain Prelate is not yet known, but if his fears are of the same complexion with those that influenced his Sire, he will not be hang’d, for as ’tis story’d of _him_――he was drown’d as he resolutely cross’d at a Ferry on Horseback, when Two Pence might have sav’d him. This he thought a fare too much for Charon.’ At the same time, a tender treatment was adopted towards some of the other accused persons. Lord Orrery was said to be ill. A conference of physicians was accordingly held (by command of the Secretary of State) at the Cockpit, on Lord Orrery’s health; a result was come to which is indicated in the following paragraph: ‘On Thursday evening, the Earl of Orrery was carried privately from the Tower to Whitehall, and admitted to Bail in a Recognizance of 200,000_l._;――himself in 100,000_l._, and his Sureties, the Earl of Burlington and the Lord Carlton, in the rest. His Lordship lay that night at his House in Glass-House Street, near Piccadilly, and will, as we hear, remove, in a day or two, to his Seat of Brittall in Buckinghamshire.’ [Sidenote: _TREATMENT OF ATTERBURY._] On the 4th of April, Atterbury being then at dinner, in the Tower, the room was suddenly and unceremoniously entered by Col. Williamson (the Deputy-Lieutenant of the Tower), Mr. Serjeant (the Gentleman Porter), and two Warders. The Colonel abruptly intimated to Atterbury that he had come to search him. ‘Show your warrant,’ said the prelate. ‘I have warrant by word of mouth,’ was the reply; but when the Colonel was asked from whom he held it, he only declared, on his salvation, that he had a verbal order from the Ministry, and would name no other authority. The bishop appears to have been harshly treated, and he was deprived of everything he possessed. Atterbury immediately petitioned the House of Lords, and a motion was consequently made, that the above-named officials should be brought to answer for their conduct before the House. The motion was lost by fifty-six against thirty-four; but fifteen of the minority entered a strong protest, on the ground that the House by its decision seemed to justify the depriving an accused person of his papers and other means of defence, and the violence by which the illegal deprivation had been carried out. [Sidenote: _OGLETHORPE AND ATTERBURY._]