With these dispositions of both parties, and fears and hopes of the event, the Parliament met upon the seventh of December, one thousand seven hundred and eleven. The Queen's speech (excepting what related to supplies) was chiefly taken up in telling both Houses what progress she had made towards a general peace, and her hopes of bringing it to a speedy conclusion. As soon as Her Majesty was withdrawn, the House of Lords, in a committee, resolved upon an address of thanks; to which the Earl of Nottingham proposed an addition of the following clause. "And we do beg leave to represent it to Your Majesty, as the humble opinion and advice of this House, that 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.