CHAPTER XXVIII.

_The Revolution and the Union._

ALTHOUGH at the centre of authority, the Revolution, had been

accomplished, the principles and the difficulties which had caused

it, were not solved. The opposite interests and influences, and the

diverse sentiments and convictions in politics and religion, which

had characterised parties in Scotland since the Reformation, were not

harmonised. On some political ideas and points keener feelings than

ever had been generated and aroused. The deposed dynasty had still

many adherents in Scotland, so that the new government found itself

face to face with embarrassment and a complicated series of obstacles.

The Covenanters, or the extreme party of the presbyterians, were

dissatisfied with the way in which the Convention had treated the

question of Church government, as they disapproved of all compromises,

while the bishops and the episcopal party were bitterly offended and

disappointed. The leading Jacobites were preparing to assail the new

government by force of arms.

King William had a difficult task in nominating ministers for the

government of Scotland. The leader of a revolutionary movement, and

each subordinate actor in it imagines that he is well entitled to a

place in the new arrangement of affairs, or to some important post in

the administration; hence, whomsoever the King might appoint, he would

offend those who found their own claims ignored. A numerous class of

Scotsmen were eager to proffer their advice and their service to King

William, recommending him not to govern the kingdom by a faction, or to

be led by those who had their own personal interest in view, but to be

guided solely by considerations for the public good. The position of

the King in Scotland was complicated and perplexing, inasmuch as both

the Church and the parliament demanded reform of a radical character.

But King William had at least one ♦Scotsman whom he could trust,

William Carstairs, a presbyterian minister, and afterwards Principal

of the University of Edinburgh. He had suffered persecution under the

preceding reigns, and his hand still bore the marks of the thumbscrew.

He had been long deep in the secrets and schemes of the Prince of

Orange, and no man of that period was more worthy of confidence;

William knew him well, and implicitly trusted him. He was appointed

chaplain to their Majesties for Scotland; but he continued to be much

with the King, and from the first advised him to adopt a moderate

policy in Scotland. Carstairs’ own sentiments were liberal, and

the severe persecution which he had undergone, had not in the least

hardened his nature or clouded the judgment of his remarkable mind. The

Duke of Hamilton was appointed royal commissioner when the Convention

was turned into a parliament, yet it was reported that he did not

consider himself sufficiently rewarded for his services. The Earl of

Crawford was nominated a Privy Councillor, and President of Parliament;

he was a presbyterian, and warmly supported that party. Lord Melville

was appointed Secretary of State, and he also belonged to the

presbyterians, and commanded their respect and confidence. Sir James

Montgomery had thought himself entitled to the secretaryship, and

though he was offered the office of Lord Justice Clerk, he deemed it

below his merits, and therefore returned from London to Edinburgh a

disappointed man, with feelings of aversion to the King and government,

and determined on concerting plans of opposition. Lord Stair was

made President of the Court of Session; and his son, John Dalrymple,

was appointed Lord Advocate. Both of these had been concerned in

the proceedings of the former reigns, so that many who considered

themselves free from this blemish were greatly displeased and chagrined

at their re-elevation.¹

♦ “Scotsmen” replaced with “Scotsman”

¹ M‘Cormick’s _Life of Carstairs_; Burnet’s _History of His Own

Time_, Volume IV., pages 42, 43.

A number of the Scotch Whigs, disappointed by the new arrangements,

assembled in Edinburgh, and brooded over plans of opposition to the

government. Among these angry politicians, the highest in rank were

the Earl of Annandale and Lord Ross, who found a leader and a kindred

spirit in Montgomery. Under this bold man, they formed themselves into

a society called “The Club,” appointed a clerk, and met daily in a

public-house to concert modes of opposition. With them Sir Patrick

Hume, (who had returned from exile), and Fletcher of Saltoun, became

associated, while many others joined them, and appeared on the side

of the opposition. In conjunction with these men, Montgomery exerted

himself to the utmost to form a party, which might be strong enough to

control the proceedings of the Convention.¹

¹ _Leven and Melville Papers._

The Convention reassembled on the 5th of June, 1689, and passed an act

which converted it into a parliament. Hamilton, the royal commissioner,

was instructed to give the King’s assent to acts for reforming

the constitution of the committee of the Lords of the Articles,

establishing the presbyterian polity, and ♦remedying other grievances.

But the members of the Club were intently bent on a teasing opposition

to the government. They had determined, if possible, to ruin the

Dalrymples, and reiterated that both the father and son had served

under the late reigns, and oppressed the people. A form of conflict of

a novel character was thus begun in the Scotch parliament. The chief

contention was for a free debating parliament, such as England enjoyed,

and thus it became necessary to abolish the committee called the Lords

of the Articles. This was a very old institution of elective origin,¹

but it had been from time to time modified and transformed to suit the

ends of the Crown. Nearly all parliamentary business and action had

become concentrated in this committee; it had always been an aim of the

recent kings to reduce a session to as few normal sittings as possible,

and thus prevent discussions of their measures before the house. A

majority of the members clamoured loudly for parliamentary reform, and

a long and vehement debate ensued on the abolition of the Committee

of the Articles. The King’s proposal to modify the constitution of the

Lords of the Articles and still retain them, was repeatedly rejected,

and total abolition demanded; but this was not then obtained. In the

debate touching the nomination of the judges of the Court of Session,

the members of the Club maintained that parliament should have a veto

on their appointment.

♦ “remeding” replaced with “remedying”

¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume

I., pages 369‒370. In the century under review the mode of

forming it was stated at page 130.

Much of the time of the session was spent in fruitless efforts. But on

the 22nd of July, an act abolishing episcopacy was passed, which stated

that the King, with the consent of parliament, would settle in Scotland

the form of Church government most agreeable to the inclinations of

the people. The royal commissioner adjourned the session on the 2nd of

August.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 98,

104; Appendix, Minutes of Estates.

Thus, when the Estates adjourned, no form of Church polity was legally

established; but the Privy Council was empowered to allow the ministers

to continue their meetings of kirk-sessions, presbyteries, and synods,

till the government of the Church should be further established by an

Act of Parliament, and by the authority of the General Assembly.

Meanwhile Viscount Dundee and the Jacobites in the north were

struggling to the utmost against the government. Since Dundee left

Edinburgh, he had concerted a rising in the Highlands. General Mackay,

with the royal army, was making desperate but unavailing efforts to

crush the rising. His first campaign in the Highlands was an utter

failure. Dundee resolved to muster the chiefs and clansmen in Lochaber,

and a force of about two thousand assembled, consisting mainly of the

Macdonalds, the Camerons, and Macleans. He marched through Badenoch

to Athole, and arrived at Blair Castle on the morning of the 27th of

July, 1689, where he received tidings that the royal army under General

Mackay had entered the Pass of Killiecrankie. Dundee allowed Mackay to

advance through the Pass, and gave him battle on the open ground. He

immediately marched from the Castle of Blair along the Water of Tilt,

and turned round the Hill of Lude, and took up his position on the brow

of the hill which overlooked Mackay’s army. When Mackay perceived the

approach of Dundee’s followers, he at once prepared for action. His

army consisted of three thousand five hundred men, and two troops of

cavalry. After examining the ground, he formed his men into one line

three deep. Near the centre of his line was a piece of marshy ground,

and behind it he placed his cavalry, which might be ready to attack the

enemy in flank, after the fire of the infantry was spent. His line of

battle was longer than Dundee’s, hence, when the latter was advancing

to the attack, some companies of the clansmen were exposed to a raking

flank fire. The two armies had faced each other for several hours, and

the Highlanders were becoming impatient. At three quarters of an hour

before sunset, they were ordered to prepare for action, and Dundee

placed himself at the head of his company of cavalry, and resolved to

charge in person. The signal to charge was given, and the Highlanders

raised a shout which re-echoed afar from the surrounding hills. They

advanced down the hill firing their guns, but the royal line returned

the fire briskly, and thinned their ranks. As they came close upon the

hostile line, they threw down their guns, drew their broadswords, and,

with yells which rent the air, rushed on the royalists before they had

time to fix their bayonets. The onset was fierce and irresistible, and

at once broke the ranks of the enemy, who had no effective means of

defence against the strokes of the broadswords, and the royal troops

fled down the valley in utter confusion. In a few minutes the Battle

of Killiecrankie was fought and won. Dundee fell mortally wounded by

a shot, expiring in the moment of victory; about six hundred of his

followers were slain.

In spite of the disaster, the General never lost his coolness and

courage. As soon as he saw Dundee’s mode of attack, he ordered his

cavalry to charge the Highlanders in flank, and in person he led a

troop to charge their right flank, and spurred through the thickest

of the enemy, but only one single horseman followed their General.

When he turned round to observe the state of matters, his army was

out of sight; “in the twinkling of an eye,” he said, “our men were out

of sight, having gone down pell mell to the river, where the baggage

stood.” After some time, he found that only about four hundred of

his army remained; some of his men had fled, and two thousand of them

slain or taken prisoners. Having collected the remnants of his army, he

placed himself at its head, and retired from the scene of the battle.

His officers recommended a retreat through the Pass of Killiecrankie,

but he wisely rejected their advice, and proceeded across the hills

toward Strath Tay, and thence to Stirling, which he reached on the 29th

of July.

News of the defeat of the royal army reached Edinburgh on the 28th

of July, the day after the battle, and caused intense consternation.

It was reported that Mackay was killed and his army destroyed; that

Dundee was already master of the country beyond the Forth, and rapidly

advancing to take possession of the capital. A meeting of the Privy

Council was immediately held, and orders issued to muster all the

fencible men in the west, and to concentrate all the troops at Stirling

to defend the passage of the Forth. Some of the members of the Council

proposed to transfer the seat of Government to Glasgow, others were

for retiring into England. This ferment of excitement continued for

two days, but on the third intelligence was received of Dundee’s

death――an event which was regarded both in Edinburgh and London as a

full compensation for the defeat and destruction of the royal army. The

fall of Dundee was a fatal blow to the cause of King James in Scotland.

Cannon, who succeeded him in command, mismanaged everything; the war

against the Government languished, and soon ceased.

The King found it an extremely difficult task to rule Scotland. He

could hardly find any Scottish politicians in whom he had confidence.

The Duke of Hamilton had not given satisfaction as royal commissioner;

and when Parliament re-assembled at Edinburgh on the 15th of April,

1690, Lord Melville appeared as the King’s representative. On the first

vote being taken, the Government obtained a small majority which soon

increased, and the power of the opposition Club was completely broken.

The King had formed a rather low opinion of the morality and the honour

of the Scottish aristocracy. His commissioner was instructed to treat

with the leading men inclined to opposition, to promise them posts or

money, and thus ward off troublesome opposition; and indeed, to use

direct bribery, if necessary, for the ends of the Government.――“Thus

you are allowed to deal with the leading men in Parliament, that they

may concur for redressing of the grievances, without reflecting upon

some votes of Parliament much insisted on last session, which, upon

weighty considerations, we thought not fit to pass into laws; and what

employment or other gratification you may think fit to promise them

in our name, we shall fulfil the same. You are to deal with all other

persons as you shall have occasion, whom you judge most capable to be

serviceable to us, that they may be employed as instruments of taking

these leading men, or for getting intelligence, or for influencing

shires, or royal boroughs, that they may instruct their commissioners

cordially to comply with our instructions for redressing of the

grievances; and what money or other gratification you may promise

them shall be made good.”¹ William promised encouragement to the

Presbyterians, and advised them to proceed with discretion and

moderation; but he was unwilling to abolish patronage. Further, he

directed that the acts passed in the last session favourable to them

should be ratified, and suggested that a bill for the final settlement

of the Church should be passed. He wisely abandoned the chief points

of difference touching the forms of parliamentary procedure; and it was

settled that henceforth there were to be no standing committees like

the Lords of the Articles; the Estates were merely to appoint their

committees from time to time, to digest measures submitted to them.

The officers of State, however, were still permitted to attend these

committees, with a right of moving and debating, but not of voting.²

¹ _Leven and Melville Papers_, page 417.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., Appendix.

On the 15th of April, the statute of 1669, which so emphatically

asserted the King’s supremacy in all cases and over all persons, was

repealed. All the Presbyterian ministers ejected since the beginning of

the year 1661 were restored, but only about sixty of them were alive;

while the Episcopal incumbents in the restored ministers’ parishes

were ordered to leave their manses within a few weeks. Parliament

approved of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and re-established

the Presbyterian polity; while the government and re-organisation of

the Church were entrusted to the sixty restored ministers, and to such

other ministers and elders as they should think fit to associate with

themselves in the work. A General Assembly was authorised to meet at

Edinburgh in October, and empowered to appoint visitors to eject all

ministers who were inefficient, scandalous in morals, or erroneous in

doctrine. All the churches which had been deserted by their ministers,

or from which the ministers had been removed before the 13th of April,

1689, or whose ministers had been deprived, since that date, for not

praying for the King and the Queen, were declared vacant. There was

some opposition to these arrangements in parliament, but they were

finally carried by a large majority.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume IX., pages 111, 132‒134.

The King wished to retain patronage, but the opposition against it was

too strong, and it was abolished in this way. When a vacancy occurred,

the heritors and elders had to nominate a minister for the approval of

the congregation; and if the congregation disapproved of the nominee,

they were to produce their reasons before the presbytery, by whom the

matter was to be finally settled. In royal burghs it was specially

provided that the calling of ministers should be vested in the

magistrates, town council, and kirk-session.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 196,

197. The act allowed compensation to those who lost their

rights of patronage.

It was enacted that all the office-bearers in the universities and

schools should sign the Confession of Faith, submit to the Presbyterian

form of polity, and take the oath of allegiance to the King and

the Queen. A commission was named and authorised to visit all these

institutions, and to eject all unsound and scandalous persons, and all

who refused to submit to the established government. In a short time

all the universities were visited, and purged of obnoxious professors.¹

¹ _Ibid._; _Fasti Aberdonenses_, pages 361, ♦368, 379, 380.

♦ “168” replaced with “368”

This parliament passed an act which deprived the Church of the power of

enforcing censures by the infliction of civil penalties. A draft of the

Toleration Act was introduced by a private member, but it was coldly

received and allowed to drop. But the King had wisely resolved not to

permit the dominant party to indulge in persecuting any of those who

differed from themselves.

There were, however, two parties almost equally dissatisfied with the

new ecclesiastical arrangements――the genuine Episcopalians, and the

extreme Presbyterians, or Cameronians. The Cameronians rejected the new

settlement on principle, as it ignored the Covenants. But they were not

a dangerous party to the new government, for reasons which were then

and now pretty obvious. The party who firmly held Episcopal views, on

the other hand, were not very numerous, but when they became identified

with the Jacobites, the two united politically formed a strong party

against the government. The Jacobites were not all Episcopal, but

common interests and the same political object induced them to unite

with the Episcopalians as one party.

Soon after the parliamentary sanction of Presbyterianism, a preliminary

meeting of ministers and elders was held at Edinburgh, to prepare for

the ensuing General Assembly. The meeting was rather stormy at the

beginning, some opposition to the governing body of sixty being offered,

and a protest entered; but peaceful counsels prevailed, and the

proceedings went on smoothly. A number of young and active preachers

were added to the governing body, and arrangements were made for the

coming Assembly. Presbyteries were erected in various districts, and

empowered to try and to eject all scandalous and negligent ministers,

according to the Act of Parliament. Nearly half of the parish churches

were already vacant, and the presbyteries proceeded with remarkable

energy to purge the Church and to turn out more of the incumbents.¹

¹ _Historical Relation of the Late General Assembly at

Edinburgh in the year 1690_, pages 4‒14.

Thirty-seven years had passed since the last General Assembly was

dissolved by Cromwell’s officers, and the prospect of reassembling

a body that had sometimes shaken the throne, caused grave thought

and much anxiety to the King and his advisers. The Government strove

earnestly to secure a peaceful Assembly. Lord Melville wrote to the

leading ministers beseeching them to follow moderate measures, to act

discreetly and proceed quietly, as the only way to insure the success

of their polity. The Earl of Crawford also exerted himself to the

utmost amongst his friends, and impressed upon them that much depended

on their own tact and conduct. Lord Carmichael was appointed royal

commissioner to the Assembly; he was a Presbyterian, and a man of good

common sense and mild temper.¹

¹ _Leven and Melville Papers._

The Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 16th of October, 1690. About one

hundred and eighty ministers and elders attended; but the greater part

of the kingdom beyond the Tay was unrepresented. Carmichael presented

the King’s letter, which briefly stated:――“We expect that your

management shall be such as we shall have no reason to repent of what

we have done. A calm and peaceable procedure will be no less pleasing

to us than it becometh you. We never could be of the mind that violence

was suited to the advancing of true religion, nor do we intend that

our authority shall ever be made a tool to the irregular passions of

any party. Moderation is what religion enjoins, neighbouring churches

expect from you, and we recommend to you.” The Assembly agreed to

return an address to the King, and stated:――“If after the violence for

conscience’ sake that we have suffered and so much detested, and those

grievous abuses of authority in the late reigns, whereby through some

men’s irregular passions we have smarted, we ourselves should lapse

into the same errors, we should certainly prove the most unjust towards

God, foolish towards ourselves, and ungrateful towards your Majesty, of

all men on earth.”¹

¹ _Acts of the General Assembly._

An interesting matter came before the Assembly in the form of an

offer of submission from three of the Cameronian ministers, who had

exonerated their consciences by exhibiting their testimony against

the corruptions of the Church. The Assembly agreed to receive them

into communion, and the moderator exhorted them to walk orderly and to

oppose all divisions in the Church. An act was passed which required

all ministers and elders to sign the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Another act enjoined the presbyteries to observe all the ministers

in their bounds who neglected the fasts appointed by the Church, or

administered the sacrament in private, or celebrated clandestine

marriages; while private baptism was expressly prohibited. Regulations

were adopted touching the union of presbyteries where the number of

ministers was incomplete, reclaiming Roman Catholics, and procuring a

supply of Bibles and Catechisms for the Highland parishes. The Assembly

then annulled all the denunciations proclaimed nearly forty years

before by the Protestors and the Resolutioners against each other.

Two commissions of visitation were appointed, one for the presbyteries

south of the Tay, and the other for those to the north of it; and

they were instructed to eject inefficient and erroneous ministers,

and to see that those retained in the Church and admitted to share in

her government, signed the Confession and submitted to her discipline.

The extreme Covenanting party, who had suffered so much in the two

preceding reigns without yielding an inch, and still maintained

a consistent view, though a narrow one, were greatly displeased

with the form of the settlement of the Church. As indicated, three

ministers deserted them, and were received by the Assembly; their names

were William Boyd, Alexander Shields, and Thomas Lining. Though the

Cameronian ministers had joined the Church and allowed the paper which

enumerated the backslidings of the nation to be suppressed, their

flocks were not prepared to follow them or to homologate what they

considered a wicked compliance. As soon as they knew what had occurred,

they framed a paper expressing their ideas, and immediately sent it

to Edinburgh, where, however, it was stopped in its progress by the

committee of overtures. The Cameronians were naturally angry at this

treatment. They assailed their ministers for having betrayed them,

while they accused themselves for having recognised the Prince of

Orange, for having been induced to assist in protecting the Convention

of Estates, and for having owned the Assembly. Meanwhile they were at

a loss what to do, as they had no ministers; in a short time, however,

this want was supplied, and they became the first body of Scotch

dissenters from the Presbyterian Church.

After sitting about a month the Assembly adjourned, and the royal

commissioner gave the King a favourable report of its proceedings. The

extreme views of the covenanting age were allowed to slumber in silence,

no attempt being made to renew the Covenants.¹

¹ _Acts of the General Assembly_; _Faithful Contendings

Displayed_.

The commissioners appointed by the General Assembly entered with

energy on their work. In the current Jacobite writings it was

reported that the most frivolous pretexts were deemed sufficient

to condemn an obnoxious curate. But the commissioners had often to

encounter opposition, especially in the north, where their acts of

deposition were resisted by the congregations, and the newly-appointed

Presbyterian ministers rejected. When they arrived at Aberdeen,

in March, 1691, they were assailed by a mob, and forced to return

southwards without accomplishing anything. The greater part of the

clergy ejected by the commissioners were Jacobites, who persisted in

praying for King James. But a number of them who considered themselves

unjustly treated by the commissioners, despatched a deputation to

present their grievances to the King, and they managed to enlist his

sympathy in their cause. Royal letters were sent to the Privy Council

and to the commission, in which the King intimated that severity should

cease, and that all the Episcopal ministers who were qualified for the

ministry, and willingly submitted to the government in Church and State,

should be permitted to remain in their parishes. But the Presbyterians

deemed these letters an encroachment upon their rights, and paid no

attention to them. The commission proceeded boldly with its work of

purifying the Church; while a second letter from the King had no more

effect than the first.¹

¹ Carstairs’ _State Papers_, page 146; Cunningham’s _Church

History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 295‒297; Dr. Grub’s

_Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume III., pages

327‒328.

Indeed, the old conflict between the Church and the Crown was

threatening to revive. The Assembly had been adjourned to the 1st of

November, 1691, but before that date, it was adjourned by the King

to the 15th of January, 1692. When this day came, the Assembly met

at Edinburgh; the southern Presbyterians were fairly represented, but

only five commissioners from the presbyteries north of Dundee appeared.

The entire Assembly consisted of one hundred and eleven ministers, and

fifty-four ruling elders.¹

¹ _Register of the Proceedings of the Assembly._

The Earl of Lothian acted as royal commissioner, and presented a letter

from the King. William referred to the letters which he had sent to

the commission, and complained that the indications he had received of

their readiness to admit their Episcopal brethren into communion with

them had not been realised; and said he had been informed that they

were not a full General Assembly, as a majority of the ministers of

the Church were not allowed to be represented; that he had instructed

those ministers who wished to conform to apply to them for admission,

according to a form and declaration which he had sent with his

commissioner, and he thought it right that the commissioners for

arranging these matters should be composed of an equal number of

Episcopal and Presbyterian members. The commissioner produced the

form proposed by the King for the conforming Episcopal ministers. It

required the subscriber to declare and promise to submit to and concur

with the Presbyterian government of the Church, and sign the Confession

of Faith and the Catechism. The Assembly referred the matter to a

committee. Meanwhile many of the Episcopal clergy sent in addresses

to the Assembly requesting to be admitted into the Church on the

conditions proposed, and these were also remitted to a committee. The

Presbyterians were not prepared for a union of this character; as they

were suspicious of the King’s proposals. After sitting four weeks, the

royal commissioner addressed the Assembly in a reproachful style for

not having shown any disposition to promote unity with their brethren,

and in the King’s name dissolved the Assembly. When he sat down

the moderator rose, and asked if the Assembly was dissolved without

appointing a day for its next meeting. The commissioner said that his

Majesty would appoint another Assembly in due time, and give notice

of it. The moderator then asked liberty to speak, but he was told that

he could only be heard as a private person, not as representing the

Assembly. Yet he delivered his opinion on the point, and stated that

though they were under many obligations to the King, and always ready

to obey his lawful commands, still in the name of his brethren, he

begged to declare “that the office-bearers in the house of God have

a spiritual intrinsic power from Jesus Christ, the only Head of the

Church, to meet in assemblies concerning the affairs thereof, the

necessity of the same being first represented to the magistrate; and

farther, I humbly crave that the dissolution of this Assembly, without

inducting a new one to a certain day, may not be to the prejudice

of our yearly General Assemblies, granted to us by the laws of the

kingdom.” Touching the state of parties at this time, Burnet says: “The

Episcopal party carried it very high; they gave it out that the King

was now theirs; and that they were willing to come to a concurrence

with Presbytery, on design to bring all about to Episcopacy in a little

time. The Presbyterians, who at all times were stiff and peevish, were

more than ordinary so at this time: they were jealous of the King;

their friends were disgraced, and their bitterest enemies were coming

into power: so they were surly, and would not abate one point of their

government: and upon that the Assembly was dissolved.”¹

¹ _Register of the Proceedings of the Assembly._ _History of

his Own Time_, Volume IV., page 151. Dr. Grub says: “There

is some reason to doubt whether the Episcopal clergy were

sincere in their profession of a wish for union on the terms

proposed; in any event, it was hardly to be expected that the

Presbyterians would voluntarily consent to a plan which if

carried out would have given their opponents a majority in

the General Assembly.”――_Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae_, Volume

III., page 330.

This was represented to the King as an insolent invasion of the rights

of the Crown, and much angry feeling was evoked on both sides. William

had pretty high ideas of his kingly powers, and was jealous of all the

prerogatives which he thought belonged to the Crown.

Though open war against the government had ceased, still the exiled

King had many adherents in Scotland, especially in the north and among

the Highland chiefs. As past and subsequent events had proved, the

Celtic portion of the inhabitants could make themselves extremely

troublesome to any government. An attempt was therefore made to

purchase the friendship of the Highland clans. The King and his

government had avowedly adopted a system of bribery and corruption. It

should be stated that at this period dishonesty, treachery, and cruelty

were not specially limited to the Highlanders of Scotland; and if truth

and morality be the standard of estimation, neither the King nor his

government had much claim to be regarded as examples of high morality.

The Government engaged the Earl of Breadalbane to corrupt the Highland

chiefs――in other words, to purchase their submission, and if possible

to secure their allegiance to King William; for this purpose a sum

of money, reported to be twenty thousand pounds, was placed at the

Earl’s disposal. It was in the month of April, 1690, that the Earl was

authorised to execute this business; and the King in his instructions

to him directed particular attention to Sir Donald McDonald, Maclean,

Clanranald, Glengarry, Lochiel, and the Mackenzies. The King named a

sum not exceeding two thousand pounds to be offered, or a dignity under

an earldom, to any chief whose allegiance it might be necessary to buy

at so high a price;¹ and to give these money operations more effect,

a proclamation was emitted in August, 1691, commanding all the chiefs

to take the oath of allegiance in the presence of a civil magistrate

before the 1st of January, 1692, under the penalties of treason and

military execution. The chiefs at first refused to rely on the promises

of Breadalbane, and continued for months suspicious, but at length the

most of them complied with the terms of the proclamation, and took the

oath of allegiance.

¹ _Leven and Melville Papers._

But there were some persons, and one man high in office in particular,

who was greatly disappointed that the body of the Highland chiefs were

yielding to the demands of the government. The individual specially

offended at their submission was Sir John Dalrymple of Stair, who

had been Lord-Advocate, and was then Secretary of State for Scotland.

He was exceedingly anxious that a number of the clans should stand

out, and thus afford an excuse for their complete slaughter; indeed,

there is ample evidence that he was wildly angry, as his hope of

exterminating the Celtic people became day by day less probable. In the

end of October, 1691, he wrote: “It must be a strange inadventure if

the Highlanders be not convinced of the King’s extraordinary goodness

to them, when he is content to be at a charge to accommodate them, and

give them the plain prospect of future peace, security, and advantage,

when he can gratify many by destroying them with as little charge.

And certainly, if there do remain any obstinacy, these advices will

be taken. The King, by the offer of mercy, has sufficiently shown his

good intentions, and by their ruin he will rid himself of a suspicious

crew.” In November, 1691, he intimated to Breadalbane, “I wrote to you

formerly, that if the rest were willing to concur, as the crows do, to

pull down Glengarry’s nest this winter, so as the King be not hindered

to draw four regiments from Scotland,――in that case destroying him

and his clan, and garrisoning his house as a middle for communication

between Inverlochy and Inverness, will be fully as acceptable as if he

had come in. This answers all ends, and satisfies those who complain

of the King’s too great gentleness.”¹ On the eve of the massacre, the

Secretary wrote――“Just now, my lord, Argyle tells me that Glencoe has

not taken the oaths, at which I rejoice; it’s a great work of charity

to be exact in rooting out that damnable sept, the worst in all the

Highlands.”²

¹ Sir John Dalrymple’s _Memoirs_, Volume II., page 265;

Burton’s _History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 525‒528,

1853.

² Graham’s _Annals and Correspondence of the Viscount, and the

First and Second Earl of Stair_, Volume I., page 159, 1875.

Macdonald of Glencoe, owing to several untoward circumstances, was a

few days behind the prescribed time for taking the oath of allegiance;

but he did take it before the Sheriff of Argyle at Inveraray; and the

sheriff forwarded it to the Privy Council in Edinburgh, but the clerks

refused to take it. The upshot was that the massacre of the Chief of

Glencoe, and all his retainers, was ordered by the King, and despatches

sent to the commander of the forces in that quarter to execute it.

The King’s instructions were issued on the 11th and 16th of January,

1692. The instructions of the later date touching Glencoe, were as

follows:――“If Macdonald of Glencoe and that tribe can be well separated

from the rest, it will be a proper vindication of public justice to

extirpate that sept of thieves.――W. Rex.” On the same day Secretary

Stair wrote to Livingstone, the Commander of the Forces: “I send

you the King’s instructions, super and subscribed by himself. I am

confident you will see there are full powers given you in very plain

terms, and yet the method is left very much to your own discretion.”

The result of these instructions was, that on the 1st of February,

Campbell of Glenlyon, with a company of one hundred and twenty soldiers,

entered Glencoe, and were hospitably treated in the homes of Macdonald

and his clan for twelve days; but, on the cold stormy night of the

13th of February, 1692, the chief and forty of his clan were ruthlessly

murdered by the King’s troops under Glenlyon. A number of the intended

victims escaped, owing to the darkness of the night and the severity

of the snowstorm, and fled almost naked to the rocks and mountains.

The deserted houses of the doomed clan were burned down. The soldiers

collected the property of their victims, which consisted of nine

hundred cattle, and two hundred ponies, and a number of sheep and goats,

and drove the whole to Fort William, where they were divided among the

officers of the garrison.

Although the massacre was deliberately planned and treacherously

executed, it was not nearly so complete as intended, for the storm

prevented four hundred of the troops from reaching the scene till after

the appointed hour. Considered politically, it was a hideous blunder,

as it tended to render the clansmen more suspicious, and roused in

their hearts a bitter hatred of the Government. Indeed the Government

was much surprised at the sentiments of the people touching the

massacre. Secretary Stair was greatly astonished when he heard the

expressions in which he was characterised, and that his services to

the King were bitterly assailed; but he openly declared that his only

regret was, that every soul of the clan was not slain on that stormy

morning. Several attempts have been made to free King William of the

responsibility of the massacre, although he not only authorised it, but

also by his subsequent action fully condoned it. The deed has left a

stain on his character which time can never obliterate.¹

¹ The substance of the original information about the massacre

is contained in the report of the commissioners who were

appointed to investigate the matter on the 29th of April,

1695.

Parliament met at Edinburgh in April, 1693, with the Duke of Hamilton

as royal commissioner. There was a feeling of uneasiness throughout

the nation. A Jacobite rising was dreaded, as the massacre of Glencoe

had raised the hopes of the Jacobites: it was accordingly enacted that

the oath of allegiance should be taken, and a declaration of assurance

subscribed, by which William and Mary were acknowledged as King

and Queen, as well by right as in fact. All persons in office were

commanded to take the oath of allegiance, and to sign the assurance;

and in the latter a promise was made to maintain their Majesties’ title

and government against the late King James and his adherents, and all

other enemies.

Another act enjoined that no one should be admitted or continued

as a minister in the Established Church, unless he had first taken

and subscribed the oath of allegiance and the assurance, signed the

Confession, and owned the established Presbyterian polity of the Church

as the only true one, declaring that he would submit to it, and never

attempt directly or indirectly to subvert it. The Estates requested the

King to call a General Assembly for settling the affairs of the Church,

and especially for admitting all the Episcopal ministers holding

benefices to a share in her government who should qualify themselves

as stated above; at the same time intimating that all who failed to

qualify might be deposed, while all who complied would be protected in

their livings.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages

262‒264, 303.

It might have been expected that the Episcopal clergy would object

to the oath of allegiance and assurance, but Parliament seems to

have thought that the Presbyterian ministers would have no scruple

in taking the oath of assurance――though when it came to be applied,

they were found to be opposed to it on various grounds. They canvassed

it sharply, and distinctly asked, “Where is there a point that has

been more earnestly and obstinately disputed than the doctrine of

deposing kings and magistrates? Are there not arguments brought from

the Holy Scripture, from the nature of magistracy, from the peace of

society, from the dreadful consequences, the vast deluge of blood,

the lamentable dissolution of kingdoms, which have followed such

undertakings? whereby many learned and pious men have endeavoured,

at all times, to overthrow that king-dethroning power, which never can

be practised without greater effusion of blood and violation of all

rights than the greatest of tyrants have ever occasioned. And why, then,

should Parliament at this time of day impose a yoke upon the Church,

which neither we nor our fathers were made sensible of before? Amidst

all the past struggles about controverted titles to the Crown, the

Church was never bound by oath to either of the contending parties,

and why should a party oath be imposed now?”¹

¹ M‘Cormick’s _Life of Carstairs_, pages 52‒56.

The Presbyterian ministers applied to the Privy Council to be relieved

from taking the oath of assurance. But it was reported that the Council

advised the King to insist that every minister should subscribe the

oath before taking his seat in the ensuing General Assembly. The King

seems to have been inclined to follow this course, but at last, on

the advice of his chaplain, Carstairs, yielded the point; and when

the Assembly met on the 29th of March, 1694, no attempt was made to

force the oath of assurance on the members. The Assembly appointed

a commission to receive into communion the Episcopal ministers who

qualified themselves in terms of the recent Act of Parliament; but few

of them sought admission into the Church on the prescribed conditions.

Many of them, however, still remained in the parish churches; as yet,

in the northern quarter of the kingdom, they were hardly touched. In

the summer of 1694, the commission of the Assembly visited Aberdeen and

Inverness, and attempted to displace the old clergy, but it was found

to be impossible to proceed with the intended deprivations; in Aberdeen,

and some country parishes, the people were attached to the Episcopal

ministers, and would not allow them to be ejected. To meet this,

Parliament in 1695 passed several acts. It was provided that a portion

of the stipend of each of the vacant churches north of the Forth should

be applied to pay temporary missionaries, appointed by the presbyteries

to officiate in these churches. It was enacted that any one intruding

themselves into a church, manse, or benefice, without a regular call

and legal admission by the presbytery of the bounds, should be declared

incapable of enjoying any church in the kingdom for a period of seven

years after their removal from the church into which they had intruded.

The Privy Council was ordered to remove those who had intruded into

vacant churches since the establishment of the Presbyterian polity,

without a regular call and legal admission. The deprived ministers were

prohibited from celebrating marriages and baptisms under the penalty of

imprisonment.¹

¹ M‘Cormick’s _Life of Carstairs_, pages 57‒64; _Acts of the

General Assembly_; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,

Volume IX., pages 387, 415, 420.

But on the other hand, this session of Parliament passed some Acts more

favourable to the Episcopal clergy. They were allowed a longer period

for taking the oaths of allegiance and assurance. It was also enacted

that all who qualified themselves within the appointed time should

be permitted to continue in their manses and churches, and to perform

their functions in these parishes, without taking part in ordination

or Church government, unless duly assumed by a competent Church court.

It was provided that all the Episcopal ministers thus qualified, should

be free to apply or not to the Church court for admission to a share in

her government, and that these courts should also be free to admit or

not admit them, if they did apply. Under this act many of the Episcopal

clergy continued in possession of their churches. Within three months,

more than a hundred of them took advantage of its provisions, which

were not fettered as former acts had been with any promise of

conformity to Presbyterianism.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages

491‒450; Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume IV., page

275.

There still remained a compact body of the Episcopal clergy who refused

to make any move towards the King’s government or Presbyterianism,

and these were naturally regarded as open enemies to the Revolution

settlement, and usually classed amongst the Jacobites. Their religion

was closely associated with their politics, and they became the active

champions of the Jacobite party and the exiled King. The national

records down to the Union are full of complaints against them. Even

when the Jacobite incumbent had died, in some places it was found

to be impossible, till after the lapse of several years, to plant a

Presbyterian successor in his church. At the time of the Union there

were one hundred and sixty-five Episcopal ministers within the pale of

the Established Church, living in the manses, preaching in the pulpits,

and enjoying the stipends, but gradually these died out, and then

Presbyterian ministers took their places.¹

¹ _Acts of the General Assembly_; Skinner’s _An Ecclesiastical

History Of Scotland_.

Since the Reformation the national mind had been pre-occupied with

religious struggles, which were mixed up with politics; but its

attention now became directed to different enterprises. Directly after

the Revolution, the spirit of the nation began to incline more toward

industry, to the erection of manufactories, to trade, and to commerce.

Dreams of commercial greatness and vast wealth rose before the national

imagination and captivated it; and one person appeared with dazzling

schemes to satisfy the people and the cravings of the time. William

Paterson had a mind overflowing with grand commercial projects, and

it was reported that he had given hints which led to the establishment

of several banking companies; but his enemies maliciously said that

he had acquired his knowledge of foreign countries in his buccaneering

adventures. As a part of the Isthmus of Darien was unoccupied by

the Spaniards, Paterson formed the idea of founding on it a central

emporium for the merchandise of the world. He thought that a link could

be formed there to connect the trade of Europe and Asia, so that the

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans might be ploughed with ships from every

quarter of the globe, directing their prows to that narrow neck of land,

and thus enriching the Scots, who, by occupying the Isthmus, would hold

the keys of the commercial world in their hands. The scheme assumed a

definite form in an act of the Scotch parliament passed in June, 1695,

which authorised the establishment of a trading company to America,

Africa, and the Indies.

This act presented an outline of the scheme, and the powers and

privileges of the company, and it was carefully drawn in all its

details. In virtue of a former act passed in 1683, for encouraging

foreign trade, and granting power to merchants to form companies for

carrying on foreign trade, the new act sketched out the constitution

of a joint-stock company very minutely, under the name of the Company

of Scotland, trading to Africa and the Indies. The act empowered the

company to equip, freight, and navigate their own or hired ships, in

any manner which they thought fit, and to trade from any of the ports

of Scotland, or the ports of other countries not at war with Britain;

and to plant colonies, to build forts and towns, in any part of Asia,

Africa, or America, in uninhabited places, or in other regions with

the consent of the inhabitants, if such countries were not possessed

by any European power: and with liberty to employ all lawful means for

their own defence and protection, and the advancement of their special

objects; and to make and conclude treaties of peace and commerce

with kings, princes, or proprietors of lands or countries, in the

above quarters of the globe. They were authorised if attacked to make

reprisals. The company was to have the free right of their own property

of all kinds, in whatever part of the world they might acquire, possess,

and establish it; and simply acknowledging their allegiance to the King

of Britain by the annual payments of a hogshead of tobacco, in name

of blench duty, and that only if demanded. All other Scotsmen were

prohibited from trading within the company’s privileges without their

license, and they were empowered to seize on all intruders, “by force

of arms, at our own hands,” for a period of twenty-one years. The ships,

goods, and merchandise of the company were to be free from taxes and

dues imposed by the parliament, for twenty-one years. It was arranged

that only the half of the subscribed capital of the company could

be held by persons non-resident in Scotland. The following are the

names of some of the partners of the company recorded in the Act

of Parliament:――Lord Belhaven, Adam Cockburn of Ormiston, the Lord

Justice-Clerk, Sir John Maxwell of Pollok; George Clark, late bailie

of Edinburgh; John Cross, merchant in Glasgow; William Paterson,

Esquire, James ♦Foulis, David Nairn, Esquire, Thomas Deans, Esquire,

and Walter Stuart, merchants in London; and all others joining with

them within one year after the 1st of August, 1695. And these having

assembled, were then to be regarded as an incorporate body, “and a free

incorporation, with perpetual succession, by the name of the Company

of Scotland, trading to Africa and the Indies.”¹

♦ “Fowlis” replaced with “Foulis”

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages

377‒381.

Even though this company completely failed in its objects, its

origin and formation are interesting and important events in the

commercial history and civilisation of the nation: and therefore

the following part of the original Act may be quoted:――“And farther,

it is enacted that the company, by commission under their seal, may

make and constitute all and each of their directors, governors, and

commanders-in-chief, and other officers, civil or military, by land

or by sea; as also that the company may enlist, enrol, hire, and

retain all such persons, subjects of this kingdom, or others who

shall be willing to enter into their service or pay, providing always

that they uplift or levy none in this kingdom to be soldiers, without

warrant from his Majesty or of his Privy Council, over which governors,

commanders-in-chief, or other officers, and all in their service

and pay, the company shall have the power, command, and disposition,

both by sea and by land.... And lastly, all persons concerned in this

company are hereby declared to be free denizens of this kingdom; and

that they, with all that shall settle, or inhabit, or be born in any of

the foresaid plantations, colonies, towns, factories, and other places,

that shall be purchased and possessed by the company, shall be reputed

as natives of this kingdom, and have the privileges thereof.”

The stock or subscribed capital of the company was to be £600,000.

When the books were opened in London, in October, 1695, the £300,000

offered to the English merchants was quickly subscribed. But the

enterprise soon aroused the jealousy of the privileged English

companies. The English Parliament presented an address to the King

against it, and the books and documents of the company were seized by

the orders of the House of Commons. At last, they concluded that the

directors of the company were guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour,

for attempting such a thing, and that Lord Belhaven and the other

Scotch nobles, whose names appeared as directors should be impeached.

These hostile proceedings alarmed the London subscribers, and they

slipped out of the company by failing to pay the instalments of their

shares, and thus forfeited their stock. But this action of the English

rather irritated than discouraged the promoters of the concern in

Scotland; it seemed to have touched the national pride of the Scots,

and they pushed on their enterprise. One month after the denunciations

of the English Parliament, the books were opened in Edinburgh; and

on the first day, the 26th of February, 1696, more than £50,000 was

subscribed; and within five months £400,000 was subscribed. It seemed

as if nearly all the realised capital of the nation had rushed into the

project.

The company proceeded with remarkable energy. A house for conducting

their business was erected in Edinburgh; and schemes of trading with

Greenland, Archangel, and the Gold Coast, were considered; the possible

improvements of machinery, the qualities of goods, and the exportable

produce of the country were all under inquiry. Certainly the main

points of the scheme presented a grasp of principles, a distinctness

of conception, and a liberality of mind, which cast the mass of

speculative trading adventures into the shade. The enterprise, as

designed by Paterson, was to be conducted on free trade principles.

He called on his countrymen to discard the narrow policy of British

commerce; he contemplated a system for the good of mankind, and told

his countrymen not to try to enrich themselves by making other nations

poor, but to embrace such liberal policy as would be beneficial to all.

His conduct throughout was that of a man of exceptional grasp of mind,

and elevated above sordid considerations.

All the opposition of the English trading companies did not prevent the

Scots from proceeding with their undertaking. The company purchased six

vessels from the Dutch, and equipped them. On the 26th of July, 1698,

three of their ships, with one thousand and two hundred men on board,

sailed from Leith, amidst the tears and prayers of a vast concourse

of people, all deeply interested in the success of the enterprise. On

the 4th of November they landed at a point on the Gulf of Darien. They

built a fort to command the Gulf, and marked two sites for towns, which

they proposed to call New Edinburgh and New St. Andrews. They purchased

the land which they occupied from the natives, and sent friendly

messages to all the Spanish governors within their reach. Their first

public act was a declaration of freedom of trade and religion to all

nations.

But their privations soon began; and the causes of the failure of the

undertaking are easily discovered. There was a lack of trading skill

and experience among the emigrants; they had not a definite political

organisation for the preservation of order, the prime requisite of all

probable success. Further, there was no adequate provision made for

sending instructions and receiving assistance from home, which was

a lamentable want of foresight. From their arrival till June of the

following year, they received no communication from Scotland. It was

too sanguinely believed that the colony had departed to a country

abounding in the good things of life, and it was assumed that they

could at least obtain food by the sale of their merchandise; but much

of their stuff was damaged, and for the rest there was no market. By

and by they began to feel the sad pressure of want, while the unhealthy

influences of the climate told severely upon them, and the combined

effects of insufficient food and pestilence rapidly reduced their

numbers. The disheartening and trying task of burying their dead

shortly arrested their energy; and when spring came, nothing but

certain death awaited them if they remained. They, therefore, resolved

to leave the settlement, and within eight months from the time they

landed, they evacuated it. They placed themselves in their ships,

which from the number of the sick and the enfeebled state of all, were

only imperfectly manned. They sailed in June, 1699, two of their ships

reaching New York in August; but two hundred of the men died on the

passage, and those alive were almost exhausted, and few survived. The

third ship landed in Jamaica.

At the very time when the baffled colonists were preparing to flee from

pestilence, and leaving the settlement, the company at home was fitting

out another expedition. Two ships sailed in May, 1699, and other four

in the month of August, carrying the provisions and stores which should

have been despatched sooner. In September, the same year, a third

expedition was sent out, consisting of one thousand and three hundred

men, with stores of merchandise and provisions. So little anticipation

had the directors of the company of the sad tidings then coming to

Scotland, that they commissioned a ship to seek out a new site for a

second colony on the western coast of Africa. When the unwelcome rumour

first reached the country, the news was received with incredulity

and treated with scorn, as a weak invention of the enemy; but the

disagreeable truth of the failure of the enterprise soon forced itself

upon the nation. Then a storm of wrath arose among all classes of the

people. The conduct of the English colonial governments, and the long

silence of the King himself, who had been repeatedly addressed on the

subject, but never had been moved to promise anything, was denounced.

Still the company determined to persist in their undertaking, and the

third expedition was instructed to join the second, which had sailed in

ignorance of the fate of the first, and to retake the colony by force.

But the arrival of the second expedition at its destination quickly

dispelled all the dreams which had been formed. They found the fort

destroyed and the huts burned down, while the chief indication of their

countrymen was their numerous graves. In the winter, their friends

who had left Scotland in September joined them, but they were all in

a desponding state of mind. Meanwhile the Spaniards were preparing

to overthrow the settlement. After one successful military effort, in

which a small body of the Colonists attacked and defeated a portion of

the Spanish army, they were besieged both by sea and land. In March,

1700, they capitulated to the Spaniards, and left the colony; but only

a few of them ever returned to their native country.

The failure of this settlement was the death-blow of the American and

African Company of Scotland, and although they continued their trading

on a limited scale for some time, almost the whole of their capital was

absorbed and lost. This great loss to a poor country added much to the

troubles at home, and was widely and severely felt.¹

¹ _Darien Papers_, printed for Bannatyne Club; _A Collection

of State Tracts published in the Reign of King William_; _A

Defence of the Scots Settlement at Darien_, 1699; _Memoirs of

Darien_, 1714.

When the definite tidings of the final evacuation of the Darien

settlement arrived in Scotland, the nation rose to a height of frenzy

rarely manifested. The Jacobites were extremely wroth, and exerted

themselves to the utmost to fan the national indignation as a weapon

of opposition to the King and the Government. The national pride of

the Scots was deeply wounded. They were strongly disposed to attribute

the failure of the colony to the jealousy and the action of the English

and the King, and they had some grounds for this. The Scots could not

see that the causes of the failure of their trading company and its

colony were mainly within itself, and were to be found in the natural

result of a lack of foresight, of defective organisation, and their own

mismanagement; but any thoughts of this were drowned amid the torrents

of indignation which spread to every home in the kingdom. “When the

news of the total abandoning of Darien was brought over, it cannot be

well expressed into how bad a temper this cast the body of the people;

they had now lost almost two hundred thousand pounds sterling upon

this project, besides the imagined treasure that they had promised

themselves from it; so that the nation was raised into a sort of fury

upon it, and in the first heat of that, a remonstrance was sent about

the kingdom for names, representing to the King the necessity of a

present sitting of Parliament, which was drawn in so high a strain,

as if they had resolved to pursue the effects of it by armed force. It

was signed by a great majority of the Members of Parliament; and the

ferment in men’s spirits was raised so high, that few thought it could

have been long curbed, without breaking forth into great extremities.”¹

¹ Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume IV., page 421.

Early in the year 1700 the directors of the company and the

representatives of the shareholders resolved to address the King. They

selected Lord Hamilton to present their appeal to his Majesty, but

he was refused an audience, and reprimanded for his conduct. It was

then proposed to present a national address to the King, requesting

him to assemble Parliament, and to submit the affairs of the company

to it; but this was met by a proclamation against addresses, which

still farther roused the spirit of discontent and opposition to

the Government. When the Parliament met on the 21st of May, 1700,

the Duke of Queensberry, the royal commissioner, and the Earl of

Marchmont, delivered speeches, and enlarged upon the good work which

the Revolution settlement had accomplished, the gratitude due to

the King for this, and his other manifold services to the Protestant

religion and to Europe, and the imprudence of insisting on anything

that would be likely to weaken his Majesty’s influence and power. This

was followed by an address from the directors of the trading company

and their Darien settlement, and also by petitions and addresses from

many of the counties and the towns, all complaining bitterly about

the Darien colony and the great loss which the nation had suffered.

It was moved that Parliament should resolve to maintain the new colony

as a legal and rightful settlement, but the royal commissioner cut the

discussion short by adjourning the Parliament till he should receive

new instructions from the King.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume X., pages 183,

195, and Appendix, pages 33‒42.

After this the opposition held a great meeting, and despatched an

address to the King. The General Assemblies which met in 1700, and

in 1701, proclaimed a national fast, with special reference to the

calamity which the failure of the project had brought upon the nation.

Another national address to the King was largely signed, but ere it

reached him he emitted a proclamation of a vague description, and

merely expressed his sympathy for the misfortunes of the Scots.¹

¹ _Carstairs’ Papers_, pages 514‒523, 525‒531, 533, 538,

543‒547, 551‒580, 582, _et seq._

Parliament reassembled in the end of October, 1700, but the members

were not satisfied with the King’s letter. It expressed sympathy and

regret for the loss sustained by the African Company, and even offered

aid, and promised to support any new projects calculated to promote the

national prosperity. But the King stated distinctly that he could not

agree to the assertion of the right of the company’s colony in Darien,

though very willing to assist them in other ways.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume X., pages 196,

201.

Parliament was soon overwhelmed with addresses and petitions from all

ranks and every quarter of the kingdom. The majority of the house

supported the petitions, and moved and adopted resolutions condemning

the interference of the English Parliament, and the proclamations

issued against the interest of the Darien settlement by the governors

of the English colonies. Several pamphlets which appeared touching and

reflecting on the Darien settlement, were denounced in Parliament as

scandalous and caluminous libels, and they were ordered to be burned

by the hand of the common hangman at the Market Cross of Edinburgh. The

indignation in Parliament and outside continued, and after much debate

the address to the King concerning the Darien settlement was carried by

one hundred and one votes to sixty-one, on the 17th of January, 1701.

It is a well-drawn and able paper, and presented a complete vindication

of the company, and of the legality and lawfulness of their Darien

settlement, a true and fatal impeachment of the proceedings of the King

and his English Parliament in the matter. It gave a concise _résumé_

of the whole concern.¹ Besides other points, the address contained four

resolutions:――1. The votes and proceedings of the English Parliament

touching the company, which were condemned as an undue interference

in the affairs of Scotland, “and an invasion upon the sovereignty

and independence of our King and parliament.” 2. Declaring that the

action of the English Envoy at Luxemburg, which was injurious to the

interest of the company, “contrary to the law of nations and an open

encroachment upon the sovereignty and independence of this Crown and

Kingdom.” 3. Condemning the proceedings and the proclamations emitted

by the governors of the English plantations against the Darien Colony.

4. Declaring that though the settlement in Darien was formed in exact

conformity with the company’s Act of Parliament, the Spaniards had

treated the colonists as enemies and pirates; “that our Indian and

African Company’s Colony of Caledonia in Darien, in the Continent of

America, was, and is legal and rightful.”

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume X., page 208,

241, 242, 244‒246, 248‒251, and Appendix, pages 73‒92.

The attitude of Scotland was becoming threatening and extremely

troublesome to the English government. The plan of a complete union

was again attempted, but the difficulties on both sides were great

and constantly deepening. The relations between the two kingdoms were

strained and pressing, and a bill for appointing commissioners to

treat concerning a union was passed in the House of Lords on the 25th

of February, 1700, and sent to the House of Commons. But at the second

reading in the Lower House it was thrown out. The King saw clearly that

the only way of maintaining peace in Scotland was by a union of the two

nations; and on the 28th of February, 1701, he reminded the House of

Commons of his proposal regarding the union. But the King died on the

8th of March, 1702.

The accession of Queen Anne was hailed with applause both in England

and in Scotland. The Revolution Parliament, which had lasted throughout

the reign of William, reassembled at Edinburgh on the 19th of June,

1702, passed resolutions touching the Darien concern, and appointed

commissioners to treat with England on the proposal of a union between

the two kingdoms. The English Parliament passed a bill authorising

the appointment of commissioners to treat of the union, and the

commissioners of both nations opened their proceedings on the 10th of

November, 1702. It soon became manifest that the admission of the Scots

to equal trading rights was the chief difficulty on the south side

of the Tweed. The first point concerning the succession to the throne

was shortly agreed to; and the second, stipulating that there should

be only one legislature for the United Kingdom. But when the Scotch

commissioners insisted on equal trading advantages the old difficulty

reappeared, the Scots insisting on free trade between the two kingdoms,

and that this should be considered without reference to existing

companies. They held many meetings, but could not agree on the trading

privileges; and on the 3rd of February, 1703, they were adjourned by

the Queen, and met no more.

In the spring of 1703, Scotland was greatly agitated by the elections

for the new Parliament summoned by the Queen. The Jacobites exerted

themselves to the utmost, and succeeded in returning a considerable

number of their party. The new house met on the 16th of May. The

Duke of Queensberry presented himself as royal commissioner, and the

business of this memorable parliament began in earnest. All the laws in

favour of presbyterianism were ratified, and it was declared to be high

treason to speak against the Claim of Right. The Earl of Strathmore

proposed a bill for the toleration of all Protestants, but it was

rejected.

Parliament then proceeded to deal with the secular affairs which had

filled the national mind for several years, and a series of rather

alarming acts were passed. One act announced that the sovereign had

no right to make war on the part of Scotland without the consent of

the Scotch Parliament; and another――at which the Jacobites rejoiced

――removed the restrictions upon the importation of French wines,

thus opening up a trade with the enemy of England. Some proposals

of a republican character were mooted, Fletcher proposing to take

the patronage of offices from the Crown and place it in the hands of

Parliament.

On the act for the security of the kingdom there was a long and

vehement debate, from the 28th of May to the 16th of September, but

at last it was carried by a majority. Its main points enacted that on

the demise of the Queen without issue, the Estates were to appoint a

successor from the Protestant descendants of the royal line of Scotland;

but the recognised successor to the throne of England was directly

excluded from their choice, unless such conditions of government was

settled as would secure the honour and sovereignty of this kingdom,

and free religion and the trade of the nation from English or any

other foreign influence. The coronation oath was not to be administered

without instructions from Parliament, under the penalty of high

treason. Another clause of the act commanded that the nation should

be immediately placed in a state of defence, and all the able-bodied

men mustered under their usual leaders. The royal assent was refused

to this act, which raised another storm of denunciation against the

English. Some of the members talked of rather dying like freemen than

living as slaves; and when attempts were made to stem their passions,

they said, if denied the freedom of expressing their opinions and

wishes in Parliament, they would proclaim them with their swords.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI.

This fierce antagonism between the two kingdoms could not endure, and

in the face of all obstacles the Union was approaching. Parliament

reassembled on the 6th of July, 1704. The Marquis of Tweeddale was

royal commissioner; and the Queen’s letter expressed the gravity of

the situation. She appealed to Parliament to settle the succession, but

they directly passed a resolution not to name a successor to the Crown

till a satisfactory treaty with England for the regulation of trade was

concluded, and meanwhile adopted measures to secure the independence

of the kingdom. The Act of Security was again passed, and now received

the royal assent. Under this act the Scots began to arm, and once more

prepared in earnest to give battle to their enemy, if he should finally

refuse to accede to reasonable demands.¹

¹ _Ibid._

The English Parliament in 1705 passed an act authorising a treaty of

Union to be negotiated between England and Scotland. The Crown was

empowered to appoint commissioners to meet and treat with any body of

commissioners authorised by the Scotch Parliament, and to place the

result of their proceedings before the Queen and the parliaments of

both kingdoms. The last clause of the bill restricted the commissioners

from making “any alteration of the liturgy, ceremonies, discipline, or

government of the Church, as by law established.”

The Scotch Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 28th of June, 1705, and

the proposal of the English Parliament for a Union was to be the great

business before it. There was a change in the ministry, and the Duke

of Argyle appeared as the royal commissioner. He was deemed the most

likely man to promote the important measure which had become necessary

for the security, happiness, and civilisation of the people. The task,

however, was still surrounded with many difficulties. The Jacobites

were a strong and compact party, determined to oppose the Union at

every step; and if possible to defeat all attempts to settle the Crown

on the Revolution principles. But a majority of the Parliament resolved

to hold to the demands for free trade and colonial rights: these were

the views of the National party led by Fletcher, and yet some of the

chief men of this party were strongly opposed to the incorporating

provisions of the Treaty. In the early part of the session various

acts were introduced and discussed, touching the currency, the herring

fishing, prohibiting the importation of goods, and other matters

connected with trade; but the subsequent and more important resolutions

regarding the Union rendered these of less importance.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages 205,

213‒219, _et seq._; Hume’s _Diary_, pages 62‒70.

On the 13th of July, a draft of the act and commission for the treaty

with England was read in Parliament; and on the 25th of August, it was

again brought before the house. A long and hot debate ensued on it,

and several amendments were proposed. But on 1st of September the act

was carried, authorising the appointment of commissioners; the Duke

of Athole, with a considerable number of followers protesting. The

same day the question of who should nominate the commissioners was

brought up. Were they to be appointed by Parliament, or referred to the

discretion of the Queen? The Duke of Hamilton moved that the nomination

of the commissioners should be left to the Queen. Fletcher of Saltoun

bitterly opposed this, and the Jacobites joined him with all their

might; the point was warmly debated, but in vain. Hamilton’s motion

was carried by a majority of forty. The Duke of Athole again protested,

and the Jacobites adhered to him.¹ The Jacobites were extremely enraged

at this vote, as they considered it the key of the position; and one

of their leaders who recorded his protest along with Athole, expressed

his judgment of the matter in these words:――“From this day we may date

the commencement of Scotland’s ruin; and any person that will be at the

pains to reflect upon the management of this affair must be the more

enraged when he sees how easily it might have been, and yet was not,

prevented: for if the first restricting clause (which was lost by the

unaccountable neglect of some members) had been carried, we should

not have had one word more of the Treaty; or had the nomination been

left to the Parliament, those of the commissioners that represented

the barons would have been so well chosen that they might easily

have obstructed the Treaty from being brought to such a conclusion as

afterwards happened.”²

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages 218,

224, 235‒237; also Appendix, pages 83, 86‒87; Hume’s _Diary_,

pages 70‒71.

² Lockhart’s _Memoirs_, Volume I., pages 133‒134.

The scope of the act indicated the general object of the Treaty. But

it contained one special condition, “that the commissioners shall not

treat of or concerning any alteration of the worship, discipline, and

government of the Church of this kingdom, as now by law established.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., page 295.

The number of the Union Commissioners was thirty-one on each side.

On the Scotch side the Queen or her advisers had exercised a marked

discretion in naming the list of Commissioners. A well-considered

effort was certainly made to represent all the different parties of

the nation; even the Jacobites were represented by one of their ablest

men, Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath. This Jacobite leader gives a

list of the names of all the Commissioners on both sides, and adds

the following remarks on them:――“All these were of the Court or Whig

interest, except Mr. Lockhart in the Scots, and the Archbishop of

York in the English commission. This last, as was reported, was named

merely out of respect to the dignity of the office he bore, but would

not be present so much as once at the Treaty; the other because being

my Lord Warton’s nephew, they expected to carry him off. And as he

was surprised at his being named, so he had no inclination for the

employment, and was at first resolved not to have accepted it; but

his friends and those of his party believed he might be serviceable

by giving an account how matters were carried on, and prevailed with

him to alter his resolution.... And having communicated to them his

difficulties, he desired their advice and direction how he should

behave, and particularly whether or not he should protest and enter his

dissent against those measures, being resolved to receive instructions

from them as a warrant for his procedure, and to justify his conduct;

to whom they all unanimously returned this answer, that if he should

protest, he could not well continue longer to meet with the other

commissioners; and if he entered his dissent, it would render him

odious to them, so as he would be utterly incapable to learn anything

that might be useful afterwards in opposing their designs; whereas

if he sat quiet, concealed his opinions as much as possible, they

expecting to persuade him to leave his old friends and party, would not

be so shy, and he might make discoveries of their designs, and thereby

do a singular service to his country. Therefore they agreed in advising

him neither to protest nor dissent, nor do anything that might discover

his opinions and design, but to sit silent, making his remarks of

everything that passed, and to remain with them as long as he possibly

could; and then at last, before signing of the result of the Treaty, to

find some excuse or other of absenting himself.”¹

¹ Lockhart’s _Memoirs_, Volume I., pages 141‒3.

The difficulties of the task before the Commissioners were enormous.

Almost every kind of conflicting interest which absorbs the human

mind, the opposition springing out of national pride and vanity, a

mass of traditional and inherited prejudice, and adverse sentiments

and feelings――the growth of ages――all had to be set aside and overcome.

Thus it was, that when the Union was concluded, the diverse elements,

adverse to its spirit, were so great in Scotland, that a generation

or two passed away, ere the blessings and advantages of it to the

people of this kingdom began to be fully appreciated and recognised.

Indeed the Jacobite party believed and proclaimed that Scotland was

utterly ruined by the Union; while many others, not influenced by party

feelings, were strongly disposed to take the most gloomy view of what

proved to be one of the most beneficial events in the history of the

country.

The Commissioners met at Whitehall on the 16th of April, 1706. There

had before been many attempts to form a union of the two kingdoms, but

this time the Commissioners on both sides really wished to accomplish

it; and they were fully impressed with the vast importance of the

matter, and prepared to make every reasonable concession for the mutual

advantage of both nations. Their proceedings from beginning to end bore

the impress of sincerity and earnestness. They proceeded systematically,

and approaching the subject before them step by step, acted with great

tact and judgment. Their whole proceedings form an admirable specimen

of methodical negotiation, and the arduous undertaking was completed on

the 23rd of July. Before putting the Treaty into the form of articles,

they had to discuss and to deliberate on many subjects and complicated

points: such as the relative taxation, the customs, the excise, and

the revenue of both kingdoms, the coinage, weights and measures; the

number of the Scotch representatives in the united Parliament in both

the Upper and in the Lower Houses; and many other difficult questions

touching political relations and organisation. According to the terms

of the commission, a copy of the Treaty was presented to the Queen, and

her Majesty made the following speech:――“My Lords, I give you thanks

for the great pains you have taken in this Treaty, and am very well

pleased to find that your endeavours and applications have brought

it to so good a conclusion. The particulars of it seem so reasonable,

that I hope they will meet with approbation in the Parliaments of both

kingdoms. I wish, therefore, that my servants of Scotland may lose no

time in going down to propose it to my subjects of that kingdom; and

I shall always look upon it as a particular happiness, if this Union,

which will be so great a security and advantage to both kingdoms, can

be accomplished in my reign.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., Appendix,

pages 161‒191.

It was agreed to take the first legislative sanction of the Treaty in

Scotland, with the aim of soothing the opposition which it was sure to

encounter. The Scottish Parliament was therefore assembled at Edinburgh

on the 3rd of October, 1706, to hold its fourth and last session. The

Earl of Queensberry was appointed Royal Commissioner, and the Earl

of Mar, Secretary of State; the latter was well informed about the

designs of the Jacobite party. According to Lockhart, “Mar gained the

favour of all the Tories, and was by many of them esteemed an honest

man, and well inclined to the royal family. Certain it is, he vowed

and protested so much many a time; but no sooner was the Marquis of

Tweeddale and his party dispossessed, than he returned as the dog

to his vomit, and promoted all the Court of England’s measures with

the greatest zeal imaginable.... His great talent lay in the cunning

management of his designs and projects, in which it was hard to find

him out.”¹ A great and sustained effort was made in many parts of the

kingdom to arouse popular feeling and passion against the Union, and

some strange combinations were attempted; some of the Cameronians were

ready to assume a form of opposition which exactly suited the Jacobites,

though when they came to act side by side with their old enemies, they

began to see their folly.

¹ Lockhart’s _Memoirs_.

A large number of pamphlets and papers were published against the

Union, and circulated throughout the country, which appealed to every

prejudice and feeling that was likely to rouse the passions and wrath

of the populace. The religious sentiments and convictions of the

people were industriously stirred. Those who were proud of the deeds of

their ancestors and of national glory, were emphatically told that the

ancient renown and independence of the kingdom was to be extinguished

for ever. Many past generations of Scotsmen had fought and struggled

for their rights, their liberties, and their freedom, endured hardship,

persecution and every form of privation; but now the degenerate sons

of such a brave and noble race were about to barter away their glorious

inheritance. What a disgrace, to be stigmatised by all succeeding ages

to the end of time!

Though the outside pressure against the Union was strong and bitter,

the government was well prepared to meet it. Many addresses and

petitions were presented to Parliament against the Union, but of

course there were petitions in favour of it, and the Church threw

her influence on the side of the government; still it seemed that the

volume of popular feeling was with the opposition, and Parliament began

its arduous work amid threatening circumstances.

In the Queen’s speech to the Estates the following sentence occurs:

――“The Union has been long desired by both nations, and we shall

esteem it as the greatest glory of our reign to have it now perfected,

being fully persuaded that it must prove the greatest happiness of our

people.” At the first sitting, the Treaty was read and ordered to be

printed, and copies delivered to the Members of Parliament, while the

minutes of the Union Commissioners were ordered to be printed. On the

12th of October, the articles of the Treaty were read one by one, and

then discussed at the different sittings from the 12th to the 30th

of the month, making suggestions as they proceeded, but taking no

divisions. A mob had threatened and insulted several of the members

on the streets of the capital on the 23rd of October, and a party of

the foot-guards had to be called out to quell the disturbance, and to

protect Parliament, but no lives were lost.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages

300‒311.

The first real effort of the opposition was made on the 4th of November,

when it was moved that a vote should be taken on the first article of

the Treaty of Union, upon the understanding “that if the other articles

of the Union be not adjusted by the Parliament, then the agreeing

to the first one shall be of no effect,” and that immediately after

settling the first article, Parliament proceed to an act for securing

the doctrine and the government of the Established Church. A long

debate ensued. The Duke of Hamilton delivered an animated speech on

Scottish nationality; Seton of Pitmedden spoke in favour of the Union

in a calm and well-reasoned speech; but the great speech of the night

was Lord Belhaven’s. It was a long torrent of denunciatory rhetoric

against the Union, delivered with passionate vehemence. It seems to

have produced little impression on the members; but it was intended

more for the outside public than for them, and was widely circulated

amongst the people. A sentence or two may be quoted:――“I see the

English constitution remaining firm; the same Houses of Parliament; the

same taxes, customs, and excise; the same trading companies, laws, and

judicatures; whilst ours are either subjected to new regulations, or

are annihilated for ever. And for what? that we may be admitted to the

honour of paying their old arrears, and presenting a few witnesses to

attest the new debts, which they may be pleased to contract. Good God!

is this an entire surrender? My heart bursts with indignation and grief,

at the triumph which the English will obtain to-day, over a fierce

and warlike nation that has struggled to maintain its independence so

long!” An amendment was proposed, declaring that the nation was averse

to an incorporating union; that if it was accepted by Parliament in

its present form, instead of bringing peace it would cause dismal

distractions among the Scots themselves, and fatal breaches and

confusion between the two nations; and therefore it was proposed

to retain the sovereignty and independence of the monarchy, the

fundamental constitution of the government as established by the Claim

of Right and the laws of this kingdom. After this amendment was debated,

the motion put to the house was, “Approve of the first article of

the Union――yes or no.” Before the vote was taken, the Duke of Athole

protested for himself and his adherents, that an incorporating union as

proposed in this Treaty “is contrary to the honour, the interest, the

fundamental laws, and the constitution of this kingdom; the birthright

of the peers, the rights and privileges of the barons and the burghs,

and the property and the liberty of the subjects.” The motion for

approving the article was then put and carried by a majority of

thirty-three; and throughout the subsequent proceedings on the Union,

the government retained about this majority, in spite of all the

efforts of the Jacobites.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages

312‒315.

From this date till near the end of December, at almost every sitting

addresses were presented and read against the Union. On the 30th

November, a printed paper was laid before parliament, entitled, “An

Account of the Burning of the Articles of the Union at Dumfries.

Bearing the declaration read and affixed on the Market Cross thereof by

the crowd assembled on that occasion. And it being moved, that inquiry

should be made as to who had been the printer and the ingiver of this

scurrilous paper, and that it be burned by the hands of the hangman,

it was left to the committee to call for the magistrates of Edinburgh,

and to make inquiry and trial touching the ingiver of this paper;” and

“Ordains also, that this scurrilous print be burned at the Market Cross

of Edinburgh, on Monday next, between eleven and twelve in the forenoon.

And the magistrates of Edinburgh appointed to see the orders punctually

executed.”¹ But the Treaty was pressed forward, and on the last day

of November they had reached the eighth article, and remitted it with

some of the preceding ones to a committee. Amendments and additions

were made to some of the articles, and a clause was inserted in the

Treaty definitely stating that the Presbyterian Church should continue

unalterable in her worship, doctrine, and government, “to the people of

this land in all succeeding generations.”²

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., page 344.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages

316‒344, 413.

The parts of the Treaty relating to trade and commerce were generally

satisfactory to the Scots, and were adopted with slight modifications.

The nineteenth article of the Union sanctioned the retention of

the judicial organisation of Scotland. The weakest point of the

Treaty was the twentieth article, which affirmed “that all heritable

offices, superiorities, heritable jurisdictions, offices for life, and

jurisdictions for life, be reserved to the owners thereof, as rights

of property, in the same manner as they are now enjoyed by the laws of

Scotland, notwithstanding of this Treaty.” Probably the Scotch nobles

would not have submitted to the curtailment of these rights which

had descended to them from remote ages, for they were very proud, and

placed a high value on their privileges.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages

345‒385. A good illustration of the peculiar pride of the

Scotch nobles may be seen in the records of parliament.

At the opening of almost every session a number of them

protested regarding the precedence of their names on the

rolls of parliament.

The Jacobites resolved to make their last grand effort to defeat the

Union on the twenty-second article, which apportioned the share of

representation from Scotland in the Imperial Parliament. This article

was read on the 7th of January, 1707, and the debate continued through

four sittings. It was vehemently discussed point by point, and six

protests were entered against the first paragraph, which were followed

by more menacing counter-protests as each clause of the article

was carried. The fierce and noisy proceedings of the Jacobites were

unavailing, as the article was finally carried on the 10th of January.

The same day an address from the citizens of Perth against the Union

was presented and read in the House.¹ The remaining articles of the

Union were passed on the 14th of January; and on the 16th an act was

passed approving and ratifying the Treaty of Union by a majority of

forty-one.²

¹ _Ibid._, Volume XI., pages 386‒387; Lockhart’s _Memoirs_,

Volume I., pages 206‒220. It is now curious and amusing

to read the sentiments of the Jacobites on the Union which

was to bring certain ruin upon the nation. “It is not to

be expressed what a rage all those that had been upon the

concert, nay, I may say, the whole nation, were in, to see

the Duke of Hamilton thus three times, one after another,

break the designs and measures that were laid down for

opposing the designed slavery of the nation.... The courtiers

were resolved not to swallow a cow and stick at the tail; and

as they had begun, carried on, and finished their projects,

contrary to all the ties of justice and honour, and the

welfare of the country, so they continued the same well-pathed

road, and commenced the Union with as great an invasion upon

the rights of the subject, by depriving them of the powers of

naming their own representatives, as ever was done to a free

people.”――_Ibid._, pages 214‒221.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages

399‒406.

The twenty-second article of the Union limited the representation of

Scotland to forty-five members in the House of Commons of the United

Kingdom, and to sixteen peers in the House of Lords. Parliament next

proceeded to frame regulations for returning their representatives to

the British Parliament, should the Union be carried in England. After

some debate, it was agreed that the representative Peers from Scotland

in the United Parliament should be chosen by election, in the form

still followed. At every general election, when the new Parliament is

returned, the body of the Scottish Peerage meet at Holyrood, and elect

sixteen of their own number to represent them in the House of Lords.

The forty-five Scotch members to be sent to the House of Commons were

divided between the counties and the burghs thus――fifteen were given to

the burghs and thirty to the counties; Edinburgh got one representative

to itself, and the other burghs were classed into fourteen groups.

The body of electors in Scotland after the Union was not numerous;

but the election of the representatives from Scotland to the first

United Parliament was not left with them. By an act of the Estates, the

members of the Union Parliament themselves elected the representatives

to the first Imperial Parliament, in the same way as committees were

usually chosen. Some other matters were arranged; and on the 25th

of March, the Royal Commissioner having addressed a few words to the

members, parliament was adjourned and met no more.¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 415‒421, 491, 431, 485, 491.

On the 28th of January, 1707, the Queen intimated to the English

Parliament that the Union had been ratified in Scotland, and she

directed it to be put before the House. The Treaty passed through both

Houses without encountering much opposition, and on the 6th of March

it received the royal assent, and henceforth became a part of the

Constitution of the United Kingdom.

Viewing the Union as a mean to an end, and excepting the Battle of

Bannockburn, and the Reformation, there is scarcely an event in the

history of Scotland, which has had more effect on the welfare of

the people than it. From an industrial and commercial standpoint, it

exceeded in importance any other event in the preceding history of

the nation. In short, the Union rendered the future development of

civilisation in Scotland more easy, more rapid, and more complete, as

it immensely widened the field of trading and commercial enterprise to

the Scots, and directly tended to afford greater security to them at

home and abroad. The Scots had always a fund of energy and power of

endurance, but external obstacles and surrounding circumstances had

long retarded their progress; hence when the nation was placed under

more favourable external conditions by the Union, and the people once

fairly began to embrace these advantages, they advanced in wealth and

in civilisation with remarkable speed.