London, 22 Aprils 1709. Dear Brother,
The Tories, some of the old Whigs, and all the Scots, are mighty angry to have been outvoted in the passing the clause that came down as an amendment from the house of Lords in the Treason Bill, as loosers they take the liberty to speak very freely, how truely 'tis not my business to examine. 'Twas carried by six, and they say they can name above that number who had they been left to their liberty wou'd have been with them, but they were dragoon into't, and sent possitively word that if they did not vote as desired they shou'd be turn'd out of their places. The court says the Queen has time {sic) the give this Act of Grace so imme- diately after the passing this Treason Bill to satisfy the Scots, and she would have her good subjects, but others give it more ill-natured turns, as that it came to them thus at their riseing that the true meaning and cheif end on't might not have been easiely seen thro'. I was told Mr. Broomley said publickly in the house when it was read that there was but one man in the Kingdome that was pardon by this Bill, which person held a correspondency with France in the time of Sir John Fenwick, for the exceptions were many that it turn this General pardon into a particular pardon. But the truth of this will appear when it comes out into print ; I know a great many that intend to buy the Act to sattisfie themselves as to that point alone. Last Wensday I was told the Parliament wou'd be desired to adjourn themselves for a
week, because it 'twas thought the Duke of M wou'd
bring over some proposals to communicate to the house, but my Politians were [wrong] for yesterday were prorogued till the 19th May by Commission ; and in the even the Duke of
M did come to St. James, and was with the Queen a
great while this morning. I hear the peace is not in that forwardness as 'twas thought before the Duke came over.
�� �
