The first I shall mention, was that of introducing certain new phrases into the court style, which had been very seldom or never made use of in former times.  They usually ran in the following terms:  “Madam, I cannot serve you while such a one is in employment:  I desire humbly to resign my commission, if Mr. ------ continues secretary of state:  I cannot answer that the city will lend money, unless my L-- ------ be pr[esiden]t of the c[ounc]il.  I must beg leave to surrender, except ------ has the staff.  I must not accept the seals, unless ------ comes into the other office.”  This has been the language of late years from subjects to their prince.[9] Thus they stood upon terms, and must have their own conditions to ruin the nation.  Nay, this dutiful manner of capitulating, had spread so far, that every understrapper began at length to perk up and assume:  he “expected a regiment”; or “his son must be a major”; or “his brother a collector”, else he threatened to vote “according to his conscience.”

Another of their glorious attempts, was the clause intended in the bill for the encouragement of learning;[10] for taking off the obligation upon fellows of colleges in both Universities to enter upon holy orders:  the design of which, as I have heard the undertakers often confess, was to remove the care of educating youth out of the hands of the clergy, who are apt to infuse into their pupils too great a regard for the Church and the Monarchy.  But there was a farther secret in this clause, which may best be discovered by the first projectors, or at least the garblers of it; and these are known to be C[o]ll[i]ns[11] and Tindal,[12] in conjunction with a most pious lawyer their disciple.[13]

What shall we say to their prodigious skill in arithmetic, discovered so constantly in their decision of elections; where they were able to make out by the rule of false, that three were more than three-and-twenty, and fifteen than fifty?  Nay it was a maxim which I never heard any of them dispute, that in determining elections, they were not to consider where the right lay, but which of the candidates was likelier to be true to “the cause.”  This they used to illustrate by a very apt and decent similitude, of gaming with a sharper; if you cannot cheat as well as he, you are certainly undone.

Another cast of their politics was that of endeavouring to impeach an innocent l[a]dy, for no reason imaginable, but her faithful and diligent service to the Q[ueen],[14] and the favour her M[ajesty] bore to her upon that account, when others had acted contrary in so shameful a manner.  What else was the crime?  Had she treated her royal mistress with insolence or neglect?  Had she enriched herself by a long practice of bribery, and obtaining exorbitant grants?  Had she engrossed her M[ajest]y’s favours, without admitting any access but through her means?  Had she heaped employments upon herself, her family and dependants?  Had she an imperious, haughty behaviour?  Or,