The Union Commission at Westminster--The Act of Union
passed--Belhaven’s Speech--Violent conduct of Fletcher and other
Members during the Debates.
When the English Parliament met in October, not only the Alien clause,
but all the hostile clauses of which the Estates complained, were
repealed. Whether Fletcher was pleased that the object of his motion
was so completely and speedily gained may be doubted; but there was
now nothing to prevent the progress of the negotiations for the Union.
So the Commissioners of both nations met at Westminster on the 16th of
April 1706.
The result of their labours still remains. The question which they had
to face was how to adjust the relations of the two countries in a
manner consistent with a complete Union. It was not enough to say that
there was to be one Sovereign, one Parliament, and equal trading
privileges. The Union meant far more than that. Although the machinery
of Government and the modes of social life were simpler then than
they now are, the problem of applying the principle of a full and
incorporating Union to the usages of the two nations was one of the
most formidable character. The institutions and the internal economy
of the two peoples were, in many respects, entirely different. If they
were to be really united, if they were to become one people in their
interests and their aspirations, it was necessary that, at the
commencement of their common national life, there should be a clear
understanding of the precise terms on which they stood to one another.
The difficulty of arriving at such an understanding was enormous. The
one nation was rich, the other was poor. In what proportions were they
to contribute to the common treasury? Each had a public debt; but the
debt of England was far heavier than the debt of Scotland; and some
equitable adjustment of the national liabilities must be arranged.
Each nation had its own laws. Were these to be assimilated, or left
unchanged? What was to be the form of that one Parliament, on which
the responsibility of enacting laws for the United Kingdom was now to
be devolved? Was there to be one executive for England, and another
for Scotland? The incidence of taxation was different in each country.
The customs and the excise and the manner of their collection was
different. The coinage of England was different from that of Scotland.
All these matters were now to be considered and adjusted, if
possible, in a fair and reasonable manner; so that the Articles of
Union should be ratified by the two Parliaments, and favourably
received by the nations. Such were some of the difficult questions
which were discussed by the Union Commissioners at Westminster from
April to July 1706; and the famous Treaty of Union, the result of
their deliberations, is, upon the whole, one of the most successful
works of practical statesmanship which the world has ever seen.
On Monday the 22nd of July 1706 the Commissioners of both Kingdoms met
at Westminster and signed the Treaty of Union; and on the following
morning they went to St. James’s, and presented the document to her
Majesty.
The Scottish Parliament was to meet upon the 3rd October, and the
Government wished to keep the Articles of Union secret until then. No
copies of the Treaty were allowed to pass into circulation. A
proclamation forbidding the making of wagers upon the subject was
strictly enforced, and a strong effort was made to prevent the
publication of writings about the Union. But it was, of course,
impossible to stop the discussion of so momentous a question; all the
more, as many persons were in possession of the main outlines of the
Treaty. The Whigs had already made up their minds that the Articles
would be ratified by the Estates; and even the most violent members of
the Jacobite and Country Parties saw that the general feeling of
Scotland was now favourable to the Union, a fact which Lockhart
explains by saying that false accounts of the Articles were given by
the Scottish Commissioners on their return from England. ‘We have,’
Halifax writes, ‘all the reason to promise ourselves success in an
Union with Scotland. All the letters from that country give us great
hopes that it will be accepted by their Parliament.’[16]
[16] Halifax to the Elector of Hanover, 23rd August 1706.
In the discussions which now took place, the community seems to have
been divided into three classes: those who were distinctly in favour
of an Union, those who were distinctly opposed to it, and those who
were in favour of an Union, provided the separate Parliament of
Scotland was allowed to remain. If Fletcher was the author of a
pamphlet which has been attributed to him, entitled, _The State of the
Controversy betwixt United and Separate Parliaments_, he must be
reckoned as amongst the last class; and, indeed, he seldom expressed
any opinion which was not consistent with supporting a federal Union.
But it is very doubtful whether he wrote this pamphlet. He was,
however, supposed to be writing, while the Commission was sitting at
Westminster, in favour of a dissolution, on the ground that the
question could only be lawfully settled by a Parliament elected for
that purpose by the constituencies.[17] But, though the press was busy
printing pamphlets on the subject of the Union, the time for such
discussions was past, and everything depended on what was done on the
floor of the Parliament House.
[17] Baillie to Roxburghe, 19th April 1706, in the Jerviswoode
Correspondence. The full title of the pamphlet to which I have
alluded is: ‘State of the Controversy betwixt United and
Separate Parliaments, whether these Interests which are to be
united by the present Treaty, and the Interests which, by the
same Treaty, are to remain separate and distinct, are most
properly and safely lodged under the Guardianship of a United
Parliament, or under that of Separate Parliaments. Printed in
the year 1706.’
During the discussions on the Articles of Union Fletcher displayed the
same courage, and the same defects of temper, as during the previous
sessions of the Parliament. Sir David Hume, in his diary, frequently
mentions the scenes in which the member for Haddingtonshire was the
leader. For instance, on one occasion, when it was proposed that a
sermon should be preached, on a ‘Fast Day,’ in the Parliament House, a
proposal which was supported by some lay members of the Commission, or
Standing Committee, of the Church of Scotland, ‘Salton having alleged
that if he would tell what he knew, those of the Commission who were
for that manner of the Fast would be ashamed to hold up their faces;
he being challenged by several honourable members of the House, who
were also members of the Commission, the business was with some
struggle let fall.’ On the next day after this incident, Fletcher, in
attacking the Commissioners on Union, said they had ‘betrayed their
trust.’ He was called to order, but said he was ‘sorry he could not
get softer words.’ Then it was moved that he should be sent to the
bar; but at last he was persuaded to say he was sorry if he had
offended any one, and the matter dropped.
On another day Hume describes how, when he entered the Parliament
House, he found an altercation going on, apparently over the Minutes
of the last sitting. Fletcher said, ‘What my Lord Stair has said in
reference to the Minutes is not true.’ To this Stair answered that he
‘desired the House to take notice of what Salton had said; otherwise
he would be obliged to say what he had said was a lie.’
There was an hour’s ‘discourse’ about this; and then they were both
called upon to ask pardon of the House. Fletcher at once apologised to
the House, but ‘shifted, craving Stair’s pardon.’ Stair then said, ‘If
what he had said offended the House, he craved pardon.’ The Chancellor
next appealed to Fletcher. He said he ‘hoped Salton would acknowledge
that he meant no reflection on my Lord Stair, but only to contradict
the thing he had said, and if he had given him any offence he craved
his pardon, which,’ Sir David goes on, ‘Salton assented to, and both
of them gave their word of honour not to resent it without-doors.’
There were many scenes of this description during the last session of
the Scottish Parliament. The passion with which the debates were
conducted was extraordinary. It was sometimes difficult to hear a word
of what was said. ‘Scandalous disorder,’ in the words of one member,
challenges to fight on the floor of the House, shouting,
interruptions, calls to order, Hamilton, whose voice was very loud,
overbearing his opponents by sheer strength of lung, Fletcher
springing to his feet, ready, at a moment’s notice, to draw his
sword,--it was amidst all this clamour and noise that the Union was
debated.
Perhaps the stormiest sittings of all that stormy session were those
of the 2nd and 4th of November, when the first Article of Union was
debated and voted on. It was on the first of these days that Belhaven
made his great oration. It was certainly the event of that day; and it
is generally spoken of as the greatest speech delivered during the
debates on the Union. But we have no means of knowing whether this was
the case; for no materials exist from which we can judge of the
eloquence of Stair, whom all the writers of his time agree in
describing as an orator of surpassing power, the greatest that ever
spoke under the roof of the Parliament House. And though the palm of
oratory belonged to Stair, he was not without rivals. When Roxburghe
spoke, he charmed even his opponents. The speeches of Argyll were
full of passionate vehemence. Hamilton’s pathetic eloquence is the
theme of every Jacobite pen. Nor can it be doubted that Seafield and
Cockburn of Ormiston were adroit and ready debaters; while Fletcher’s
speeches in the session of 1703 are, so far as polished language and
close reasoning go, superior to any of Belhaven’s.[18] But of all that
was said in the debates of these two days, only two speeches have been
preserved in full. The speech of Seton of Pitmedden, a plain country
gentleman, is one of them. Its solid reasoning and sound conclusions,
which events have justified, did not catch the public fancy. On the
other hand, the speech of Belhaven, full of predictions, every one of
which time has falsified, was eagerly received, was read by thousands,
and is still to be found, in more than one reprint, in every private
library in Scotland. Belhaven was a great actor; but it is one thing
to gain applause, and another thing to gain votes. Burke producing a
dagger on the floor of the House of Commons, Brougham kneeling on the
woolsack, are examples, in more recent times, of how little impression
is produced by the display of dramatic powers; and, both in its
composition and its effects, it is as a theatrical display that the
famous speech of Belhaven must be regarded.
[18] None of Fletcher’s speeches in the session of 1706-1707 are
preserved. The speaking in the Estates at this time was very
good. The author of the Ochtertyre MS. says, in describing Mr.
Spittal of Leuchat: ‘He spoke the most elegant Scots I ever
heard, probably the language spoken at the Union Parliament,
which was composed of people of high fashion.’
On the same day Fletcher spoke, ‘with great warmth,’ says Cunningham,
‘and vehemently reproached and inveighed against the Queen’s
Ministers, without any regard to his own fortune, though very large.
Some there are who say that he was too hot in his arguments, and too
violent in his resentments, and that he did thereby hurt his own
cause.’
But the cause was past helping or hurting now. The time for argument
was gone. It was on Saturday the 2nd of November that Fletcher and
Belhaven poured forth the vials of their wrath; and on the following
Monday the vote was taken. As is well known, the Squadrone threw in
their lot with the Government, and the majority, by which the Union
was supported during the rest of the session, was secured.
From that time until the 16th of January 1707, when the Treaty of
Union was finally approved by the Estates, Fletcher continued to
oppose the Government. As soon as the Act approving of the Treaty,
with the changes made in it by the Estates, had been touched with the
sceptre, it was sent up to London, to be discussed in Parliament; and
the Estates continued to sit for the transaction of formal business,
and also to frame the Acts of Parliament which were to regulate the
method of electing the sixteen representative peers and the forty-five
commoners who were to represent Scotland in the Parliament of Great
Britain.
Fletcher’s last piece of business in the Scottish Parliament was to
move, ‘That no peer, nor the eldest son of any peer, can be chosen to
represent either shire or burgh of this part of the United Kingdom in
the House of Commons.’ This motion was rejected, by a majority of
thirteen, in favour of an amendment providing that the elections for
counties and burghs in Scotland should continue, as regards those who
were capable of electing or being elected, on the same footing as
before the Union.
Fletcher may have been present, on the 19th of March, when the Act of
the English Parliament ratifying the Treaty of Union was presented to
the Estates; but, according to tradition, he left Edinburgh
immediately after the House rose. ‘On the day of his departure, his
friends crowded around him, entreating him to stay. Even after his
foot was in the stirrup, they continued their solicitations, anxiously
crying, “Will you forsake your country?” He reverted his head, and
darting on them a look of indignation, keenly replied, “It is only fit
for the slaves that sold it!” then leaped upon the saddle and put
spurs to his horse, leaving the whole company struck with a momentary
humiliation, and (blind to the extravagance of his conduct) at a loss
which most to admire, the pride of his virtue, or the elevation of his
spirit.’[19]
[19] The author of the _History of Modern Europe, in a series of
Letters from a Nobleman to his Son_, who tells this story, says,
‘This anecdote the author had from the late Patrick, Lord
Elibank.’
And so, to the intense indignation of Fletcher, the old Scottish
‘Estates’ became a thing of the past. It would be difficult to find,
in the history of any other country, laws more harsh and sanguinary
than the long series of enactments which the Parliament of Scotland
had passed for the purpose of suppressing liberty and increasing the
power of the Crown. The independent spirit of the English people had
constantly been reflected in the independent spirit of the English
Parliament. The Scottish Parliament had been, before the Revolution,
submissive to tyranny, because it did not fairly represent the people,
and because of the defects which were engrained in its constitution.
It had been a Parliament of which the only function, except on a few
memorable occasions, was to pass, almost in silence, the laws which
had been prepared by the King’s servants. It sat for only a few days
in each session, and free debate was almost unknown. The franchise by
which the county and burgh members were elected was always in the
hands of a few persons; and latterly, although a majority of the
Scottish people were Presbyterians, no one who was not an
Episcopalian could be either an elector or a member. The savage laws,
therefore, which were passed, and which have frequently been quoted
for the purpose of proving the slavish spirit of the Estates, were
just the laws which, in an age of violence, might be expected to
proceed from a legislature which represented only a tyrannical
minority in the country. There were, indeed, times when the Scottish
Parliament threw off the yoke. In the reign of Charles the First it
extorted from the weakness of the King concessions which would never
have been obtained by an appeal to his clemency; and in the reign of
James the Second even the Lords of the Articles refused to act any
longer as the blind tools of despotic power. The occasions, however,
on which the Estates resisted the royal authority had been few. There
is, nevertheless, a brighter side to the picture; for the Scottish
statute law relating to private rights was equal, if not superior, to
anything which the English Parliament had produced at the close of the
seventeenth century. Wonder has often been expressed at the
marvellously concise language of the Scottish Acts of Parliament. But
the explanation is very simple. Each statute was the work of one or
two thoroughly trained lawyers, who knew exactly what they wished to
say, and whose productions were not afterwards subjected to the
unskilled criticism of a large assembly.
It is curious to remember that this admirable system of laws was the
handiwork of the very men who were foremost in the business of
suppressing the liberties of the nation. The period between the
Restoration and the Revolution, every page of whose history is stained
by crimes perpetrated under the sanction of the law, was the Augustan
age of Scottish jurisprudence; and the rolls of the Scottish
Parliament during these years are full of statutes, dealing with
almost every department of the law, and containing provisions which
conferred real benefits on all classes of the people.
Apart, then, from those laws which were destructive of public liberty,
the Scottish Parliament had done good work for Scotland even under the
Stuarts. It was now free; and what Fletcher resented was not the Union
with England, by which Scotland gained a great deal, but the
destruction of the Scottish Parliament, which had become, not only the
symbol of national independence, but a real instrument of
self-government. It was evident that the wishes of the Scottish people
could never prevail at Westminster, even in matters which concerned
Scotland alone, against the prejudices or the ignorance of Englishmen,
when Scotland was represented by only forty-five commoners and sixteen
peers. But the Treaty had been ratified, and there was nothing more to
be said.