But, I believe, there may be several arguments of another nature produced, which can make it very evident, to those who will hear reason, that the queen's ministers never had it in their thoughts to alter the succession of the crown.
For, first, when her majesty had determined to change her servants, it is very well known, that those whom she appointed to succeed them, were generally accounted favourers of what is called the low church part; not only my lords Oxford, Bolingbroke, and Harcourt, but a great majority of the rest: among which, I can immediately name the dukes of Shrewsbury, Newcastle, and Argyll; the earls of Peterborough, Rivers, Strafford, Hay, and Orrery; the lords Mansel and Masham, with several others, whom I cannot at present recollect. Whereas, of the other party, the dukes of Ormond and Buckingham, and the earl of Dartmouth, were the only persons introduced at first, and very few afterward: which, I suppose, will clearly evince, that the bringing in of the pretender, was not the original scheme of such ministers, and that they were by no means proper instruments for such a work.
And whoever knew any thing of the queen's disposition, must believe she had no inclinations at all in favour of the pretender. She was highly and publickly displeased with my lord Bolingbroke, because he was seen under the same roof with that person at an opera, when his lordship was sent to France, upon some difficulties about the peace. Her majesty said, "that he ought immediately to have withdrawn, upon the appearance of the other:" wherein, to speak with freedom, I think her judgment was a little mistaken. And at her
toilet,
