cabinet council. He had now shaken off all remains of patience or temper, and, from the contemplation of his own disappointments, fell, as it is natural, to find fault with the public management, and to assure his neighbours in the country, that the nation was in imminent danger of being ruined. The discontented[55] lords were soon apprised of this great change, and the Duke of Roxburgh,[56] the earl's son-in-law, was dispatched to Burleigh on the Hill, to cultivate his present dispositions, and offer him whatever terms he pleased to insist on. The Earl immediately agreed to fall in with any measures for distressing or destroying the ministry but, in order to preserve his reputation with the Church party, and perhaps bring them over to his interests, he proposed, that a bill should be brought into the House of Lords for preventing occasional conformity, and be unanimously agreed to by all the peers of the low-church[57] principle, which would convince the world of their good intentions to the established religion,[58] and that their oppositions to the court wholly proceeded from their care of the nation, and concern for its honour and safety.[59] [Footnote 55: P. Fitzgerald says "factious." [W.S.J.]] [Footnote 56: John Ker, Earl of Roxburgh, was created Earl of Kelso, Marquess of Cessford and Beaumont, and Duke of Roxburgh in 1707. [W.S.J.]] [Footnote 57: P. Fitzgerald says "Whig." [W.S.J.]] [Footnote 58: P. Fitzgerald says "established Church." [W.S.J.]] [Footnote 59: Nottingham succeeded in carrying the bill against Occasional Conformity on December 15th, 1711. See Swift's "Letter to a Whig Lord," in vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]] These preparations were public enough, and the ministers had sufficient time to arm themselves; but they seem to have acted, in this juncture, like men who trusted to the goodness of their cause, and the general inclinations of the kingdom, rather than to those arts which our corruptions have too often made necessary. Calculations were indeed taken, by which it was computed, that there would be a majority of ten upon the side of the court. I remember to have told my Lord Harcourt and Mr. Prior, that a majority of ten was only a majority of five, because if their adversaries could bring off five, the number would be equal: and so it happened to prove; for the mistake lay in counting upon the bare promises of those who were wholly in the interest of the old ministry, and were only kept in awe by the fear of offending the crown, and losing their subsistence, wherein the Duke of Somerset had given them full satisfaction.