A.D. 1695-1714.
BRITISH SOVEREIGNS:--William III., 1688-1703.--Anne, 1703-1714.
The Darien Scheme--Hopes of the Jacobites--Death of James
II.--Death of King William--Accession of the Princess Anne--The
Scottish Parliament--Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat--Meeting of
Scottish Parliament--Union with England--Ferment in Scotland
against it--Hooke’s Negotiation--Preparations in France to
invade Scotland--Unsuccessful result of the expedition--State of
Scotland--Proceedings of the Jacobites--Death of Queen Anne.
In the meantime, December 28, 1694, had died Queen Mary, to the great
grief of her husband and the sincere regret of the nation generally.
We are not required to enter here into a history of the Darien
scheme, which originated in 1695, and was so mismanaged as to involve
in ruin thousands of families formerly in comparative opulence. It
appears to have had little influence on the Highlands, for although a
few natives took part in the expedition out of dissatisfaction with
William’s government, the great mass of the Highlanders were too far
behind the age to resort to such a roundabout means of aggrandizing
a fortune.
The attitude assumed by King William and the government to the Darien
expedition exasperated the Scottish nation so much that there seemed
to be some danger of a counter-revolution. To the bitterness of
disappointment succeeded an implacable hostility to the king, who
was denounced, in pamphlets of the most violent and inflammatory
tendency, as a hypocrite, and as the deceiver of those who had
shed their best blood in his cause, and as the author of all the
misfortunes which had befallen Scotland. One of these pamphlets was
voted by the House of Commons a false, scandalous, and seditious
libel, and ordered to be burned by the common executioner, and
an address was voted to his majesty to issue a proclamation for
apprehending the author, printer, and publisher of the obnoxious
publication. The king was so chagrined at the conduct of the Scotch
that he refused to see Lord Basil Hamilton, who had an address to
present to his majesty from the company, praying for his interference
on behalf of their servants who were kept in captivity by the
Spaniards.
In direct contradiction to the House of Lords, the Scottish
parliament voted that the colony of Darien was a lawful and rightful
settlement which they would support; a resolution which induced the
Duke of Queensberry, the commissioner, to prorogue the session. But
this step only tended to increase the discontents of the nation;
and, to show the king that the people would be no longer trifled
with, an address to his majesty, containing a detail of national
grievances, and representing the necessity of calling an immediate
meeting of parliament, was drawn up and signed by a considerable
number of the members; and a deputation, with Lord Ross at its head,
was appointed to present the address to the king. His majesty,
however, evaded the address, by informing the deputation that they
would be made acquainted in Scotland with his intentions; and, as if
to show his displeasure, he ordered the parliament to be adjourned by
proclamation.
The Scottish nation was now fully ripe for a rebellion, but neither
James nor his advisers had the capacity to avail themselves of
passing events, to snatch the tottering crown from the head of the
illustrious foreigner, who was destined to be the happy instrument of
placing the liberties of the nation upon a more sure and permanent
footing than they had hitherto been. The hopes of the Jacobites
were, however, greatly raised by the jarrings between the king and
his Scottish subjects, and an event occurred, about this time, which
tended still farther to strengthen them. This was the death of the
young Duke of Gloucester, the only surviving child of the Princess
Anne, on the 29th of July, 1700, in the eleventh year of his age. As
the Jacobites considered that the duke was the chief obstacle in the
way of the accession of the Prince of Wales to the crown, they could
not conceal their pleasure at an occurrence which seemed to pave the
way for the restoration of the exiled family, and they privately
despatched a trusty adherent to France to assure King James that
they would settle the succession upon the Prince of Wales. Such a
proposition had indeed been made by William himself at an interview
he had with Louis XIV. in 1697, when a prospect opened of James
being elected king of Poland on the death of John Sobieski; but this
proposal was rejected by James, who told the king of France, that
though he could bear with patience the usurpation of his nephew and
son-in-law, he would not allow his own son to commit such an act of
injustice; that by permitting his son to reign while he (James) was
alive, he would, in fact, be held as having renounced his crown,
and that the Prince of Wales would also be held as having resigned
his own right, if he accepted the crown as successor to the Prince
of Orange. As James had now given up all idea of a crown, and was
wholly engrossed with the more important concerns of a future life,
it is probable that he received the proposal of his friends in a very
different spirit from that he evinced when made by William.
The designs of the Jacobites, however, were frustrated by the
intrigues of the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of
Hanover, grand-daughter of King James I., who had for several years
contemplated the plan of getting the succession to the English crown
settled upon herself and her heirs. An act was accordingly passed
by the English parliament in June, 1701, at the desire of the king,
whom the princess had prevailed upon to espouse her cause, declaring
her to be the next in succession to the crown of England, after
his majesty and the Princess Anne, in default of issue of their
bodies respectively, and that after the decease of William and Anne
respectively without issue, the crown and government of England
should remain and continue to the Princess Sophia and the heirs of
her body, being Protestants. This act, which, by one swoop, cut
off the whole Catholic descendants of James I., of whom there were
fifty-three alive, all nearer heirs to the crown than the princess,
gave great offence to all the Catholic princes concerned in the
succession.
The act of settlement in favour of the Princess Sophia and her
heirs, was a death-blow to the Jacobite interest, but still the
hopes of the party were not extinguished. As James had given up all
idea of dispossessing William, and even discountenanced any attempt
to disturb the peace of the kingdom during his own life-time, the
partisans of his family had given up every expectation of his
restoration. But the death of King James, which took place at St.
Germains on the 16th of September, 1701, and the recognition of his
son by Louis XIV. as king, were events which opened up brighter
prospects than they had yet enjoyed. The unfortunate monarch had,
for several years, taken farewell of worldly objects, and had turned
his whole attention to the concerns of eternity, dying ardently
attached to the creed which, from principle, he had embraced. Of
the arbitrary and unconstitutional conduct of James, at the period
preceding the revolution, it is impossible for any lover of genuine
liberty to speak without feelings of indignation; but it must not be
forgotten that in his time the prerogatives of the crown were not
clearly defined, and that he was misled by evil counsellors, who
advised him to violate the existing constitution.
Nothing but the prospect of an immediate war with England could,
it is believed, have induced Louis to recognise, as he did, the
Prince of Wales as king of England, Ireland, and Scotland. William
remonstrated against this act of the French king, as a violation
of the treaty of Ryswick, and appealed to the King of Sweden, as
the guarantee for its observance; but Louis was inflexible, and
maintained in the face of all Europe, that he was not debarred by
the treaty from acknowledging the title of the Prince of Wales, to
which he had right by birth. He admitted that by the fourth article
of the treaty he was bound not to disturb William in the possession
of his dominions, and he declared his intention to adhere to that
stipulation; but this explanation was considered quite unsatisfactory
by William, who recalled his ambassador from Paris. The conduct of
the French king excited general indignation in England, and addresses
were sent up from all parts of the kingdom, expressive of attachment
to the government. The English parliament passed two separate acts
of attainder against the pretended Prince of Wales, as the son of
James was termed, and the queen, his mother, who acted as regent.
Great preparations were made for entering into a war with France,
and William had concerted with his allies the plan of a campaign,
but he did not live to see the gigantic schemes which he had devised
for humbling the pride of France put into execution. He expired at
Kensington on the 8th of March, 1702, in consequence of a fall from
his horse about a fortnight before, which fractured his collar-bone.
He had reigned thirteen years, and was in the fifty-second year of
his age.
The accession of the Princess Anne gave satisfaction to all parties,
particularly to the Jacobites, who imagined, that as she had no
heirs of her own body, she would be induced to concur with them
in getting the succession act repealed, so as to make way for her
brother, the Prince of Wales. At first the queen seemed disposed to
throw herself into the hands of the Tory faction, at the head of
which was the Earl of Rochester, first cousin to the queen, who was
averse to a war with France; but the Earl, (afterwards the celebrated
Duke) of Marlborough, his rival, succeeded, through the intrigues
of his countess, in altering the mind of her majesty, and war was
accordingly declared against France on the 4th of May.
The Scottish parliament, to which the Duke of Queensberry was
appointed commissioner, met on the 9th of June; but before his
commission was read, the Duke of Hamilton objected to the legality of
the meeting, the parliament having been virtually dissolved, as he
maintained, by not having met within the statutory period; and having
taken a formal protest against its proceedings, he withdrew from the
house, followed by seventy-nine members of the first rank in the
kingdom, amidst the acclamations of the people. The seceding members,
thereupon, sent up Lord Blantyre to London with an address to the
queen, but she refused to see him. This refusal highly displeased the
people, whose resentment was still farther increased by a prosecution
raised by the lord advocate against the faculty of advocates, for
having, by a vote, approved of the secession and address. Several
acts were passed by the parliament, one of the most important of
which was that authorizing the queen to name commissioners for
negotiating a treaty of union with England. An attempt was made
by the Earl of Marchmont, the lord-chancellor, (better known as
Sir Patrick Home of Polwarth) without any instructions from his
colleagues, and even contrary to the advice of the commissioner, to
alter the succession, by bringing in a bill similar to that which had
passed in England for abjuring the Prince of Wales, and settling the
succession on the Princess Sophia and her heirs; but as the ministry
had no instructions from the queen, the bill was not supported. It
is not improbable that Marchmont intended, by the introduction of
this measure, to sound the disposition of the queen in regard of her
brother.
The queen, by virtue of the powers conferred on her by the
parliaments of England and Scotland, named commissioners to treat
about a union, who met at the Cockpit, near Whitehall, on the 22d of
October; but after some of the preliminaries had been adjusted, the
conference broke off, in consequence of the Scottish commissioners
insisting that all the rights and privileges of the Darien company
should be preserved and maintained.
A partial change in the Scottish ministry having taken place, the
queen resolved upon calling a new parliament, in the spring of
1703, previous to which she issued an act of indemnity in favour of
every person who had taken any part against the government since
the revolution, and allowed such of them as were abroad to return
home. Under the protection of this amnesty many of the Jacobites
returned to Scotland, and took the oaths to the government, in the
hope of forwarding the interest of the Prince of Wales. At this time
Scotland was divided into three parties. The first consisted of the
revolutionists, who were headed by the Duke of Argyle. The second of
what was called the country party, who were opposed to the union,
and who insisted on indemnification for the losses sustained in the
Darien speculation, and satisfaction for the massacre of Glencoe and
other grievances suffered in the late reign. The Duke of Hamilton
and the Marquis of Tweeddale took the direction of this party.
The last, called Mitchell’s club, from the house they met in, was
composed entirely of the Jacobites or Cavaliers. These were headed by
the Earl of Home.[659] The two latter parties, by coalescing at the
elections, might have returned a majority favourable to their views;
but the Earl of Seafield, who had succeeded the Earl of Marchmont
as chancellor, had the address to separate the Jacobites from the
country party, and, by making them believe that he was their friend,
prevailed upon them to throw their interest at the elections into
the scale of the government. The parliament, however, which met on
the 6th of May, was not so pliable to ministerial dictation as might
have been expected, for although the royal assent was refused to
what was called the act of security for limiting the power of the
crown, “this session of parliament,” to use the words of Lockhart,
“did more for redressing the grievances and restoring the liberties
of the nation than all the parliaments since the year 1660.”[660]
It was in this parliament that the celebrated patriot, Fletcher of
Saltoun, first distinguished himself. The Earl of Marchmont again
brought in his bill for settling the crown of Scotland upon the house
of Hanover; but such was the indignation with which it was received
by the house, that some of the members proposed that the bill should
be burnt, while others moved that the proposer of the measure should
be committed to the castle of Edinburgh. On a division the bill was
thrown out by a very large majority.
After the prorogation of the parliament, the courtiers and the heads
of the cavaliers repaired to London to pay court to the queen, who
received them kindly, and conferred marks of her favour upon some of
them. The Marquis of Athole, in particular, who aspired to be leader
of the Jacobites, was made a duke, and invested with the dignity of
a knight of the order of the Thistle, which she had just revived to
enable her to extend the royal favour. Her policy seems to have been
to gain over all parties to her interest; but she was soon made to
believe that a conspiracy existed against her among the cavaliers to
supersede her, and to place her brother upon the throne. The moving
spirit in this plot, known as the Scotch Plot, was the now notorious
Lovat.
[Illustration: ROBERTSON. (Tartan)]
“An indemnity having been granted to those who had left the country
with the exiled court, on condition of their returning within a time
limited, and taking the oaths, it was observed with alarm, that many
persons were taking advantage of this opportunity to return, who were
among the most formidable of the Jacobite leaders, and who could not
be supposed to be sincerely disposed to support the Protestant line
of succession. Among these ominous apparitions were Lovat himself,
the two Murrays, Sir John Maclean, Robertson of Struan the poet
chieftain,--‘a little black man, about thirty years old,’ as he was
described by those who kept their eyes on him; and David Lindsay,
secretary to the Pretender’s prime minister, Middleton. The fiery
Lord Belhaven had just paid a visit to France. He was an opponent
of English ascendency, and a cadet of the house of Hamilton; and
his mission could, of course, have no other object but to offer the
allegiance of that house to the young prince. Political intriguers,
such as the renowned Ferguson, looked busy and mysterious. Mrs. Fox,
whose name was connected with the plot for which Sir John Fenwick
suffered, had ventured over to Britain, under a feigned name; and
sundry young men of good birth, whose avowed mission to France had
been to study medicine, had, either in vanity or carelessness,
allowed it to transpire that they had been at the court of St.
Germains, and had seen those royal personages who created so
dangerous an interest throughout the country. The general movement
of these parties was northwards, and was accompanied by incidents
such as those which happened to Lovat. Captain Hamilton, an officer
stationed at Inverness, wrote to Brigadier-general Maitland, governor
of Fortwilliam, on the 23d of July, that a great hunting match had
been planned for the 2d of the month, at which many of the Highland
chiefs were to assemble their vassals.
“‘The Duke of Hamilton is to be there, the Marquis of Athol: and our
neighbour the Laird of Grant, who has ordered 600 of his men in arms,
in good order, with tartane coats, all of one colour and fashion.
This is his order to his people in Strathspey. If it be a match of
hunting only, I know not, but I think it my duty to acquaint you,
whatever may fall out of any such body of men in arms, particularly
in our northern parts.’
“It will be remembered that this was exactly the form in which the
Earl of Mar raised the standard of rebellion at Braemar, in 1715; and
we appear to owe the suggestion to the inventive genius of Lovat.
At the same time, the British ambassador at the Hague received some
mysterious intimations about large sums forwarded in gold, through a
Dutch commercial house, to persons of importance in Scotland.”[661]
Lovat had the address before leaving France, by imposing upon Louis,
to whom he was introduced by the pope’s nuncio, to obtain from the
widow of King James, acting as regent for her son, a commission
of Major-general, with power to raise and command forces in his
behalf. As the court of St. Germains had some suspicion of Fraser’s
integrity, Captain John Murray, brother of Mr. Murray of Abercairney,
and Captain James Murray, brother of Sir David Murray of Stanhope,
were sent over to Scotland, under the protection of Queen Anne’s
indemnity, as a check upon him, and to sound the dispositions of the
people.
On arriving in Scotland, he set off for the Highlands, introduced
himself into the society of the adherents of the exiled family, and,
by producing his commission of major-general, induced some of them
to give him assurances that they would rise in arms when required,
though they regretted that such a character should have been
intrusted with so important a command. Others, however, apprehensive
of his real designs, refused to hold any intercourse with him on the
subject of his mission.
On Lovat’s return to Edinburgh, late in September, he contrived to
obtain an interview with the Duke of Queensberry, High Commissioner
to the Parliament of Scotland, and revealed to him the whole affair,
drawing considerably on his own fertile fancy for startling facts. He
also produced a letter, purporting to be from the ex-queen, signed
with the initial M., addressed to the Duke of Athole. Its words
were, “You may be sure that when my concerns require the help of my
friends, you are one of the first I have in my view. I am satisfied
you will not be wanting for any thing that may be in your power
according to your promise, and you may be assured of all such returns
as you can expect from me and mine. The bearer, who is known to you,
will tell you more of my friendship to you, and how I rely on yours
for me, and those I am concerned for.” Queensberry was delighted with
this apparent discovery, and immediately sent the letter unopened to
the queen. Lovat, however, by his plotting had made the country too
hot to hold him, and a day or two after his letter had been sent to
the queen, letters of fire and sword were issued against him, so that
he now set himself to get safely back to France. He managed to obtain
from Queensberry a pass to London, to which place the duke himself
was bound, and after a few more secret interviews in London, with
another pass which he contrived to obtain, he safely quitted England
about the middle of October.[662]
When this so-called conspiracy became publicly known it excited
considerable sensation, and the House of Lords immediately resolved
that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the matter; but
the queen, who was already well acquainted with the circumstances,
sent them a message, intimating, that as the affair was already
under investigation, she was desirous that the house should not
interfere, and she promised in a short time to inform them of the
result. Accordingly, on the 17th of December, she went to the House
of Peers, and made a speech to both houses, informing them that she
had complete evidence of evil practices and designs against her
government, carried on by the emissaries of France in Scotland. The
peers, however, proceeded in the inquiry, and after considerable
investigation they agreed to the following resolution, “that there
had been a dangerous conspiracy in Scotland toward the invading
that kingdom with a French power, in order to subvert her majesty’s
government, and the bringing in the pretended Prince of Wales; that
it was their opinion nothing had given so much encouragement to these
designs as the succession of the crown of Scotland not being declared
in favour of the Princess Sophia and her heirs; that the queen
should be addressed to use such methods as she thought convenient,
for having the succession of the crown of that kingdom settled after
that manner; and that being once done, then they would do all in
their power to promote an entire union of the two kingdoms.” Mr.
Lockhart asserts that the lords thus interfered at the instance of
the Duke of Queensberry, as he knew that the Whigs would bring him
off, and although they were so clear as to the existence of a plot,
he maintains that “it was all trick and villany.” Meanwhile Fraser,
for his imposition upon the French king, was committed a prisoner to
the Bastile, in which he remained several years.[663]
It was discovered that the address on the letter from the ex-queen
was forged by Lovat himself, she having addressed it to no one,
although it is supposed to have been meant for the Duke of Gordon.
Lovat had also to implicate the Duke of Hamilton, and as he regarded
both these noblemen as “impostors” and enemies of the exiled
family, he considered that his conduct, in thus attempting to ruin
them, “far from being a real crime, ought to be regarded as a good
and essential service to the king (James III.), and the sincere,
political, and ingenious fruit of his zeal, for his project, and the
interests of his sovereign.”[664] Such is a specimen of the morality
of this extraordinary personage, who, in his correspondence with the
revolution party, always pretended to be a friend to the revolution
settlement.
According to Lockhart, the Duke of Queensberry was at the bottom of
this sham plot, but he appears really to have been entirely innocent,
and to have acted all along for what he thought the best interests of
the government. “He was, to use a common but clear expression, made a
fool of.”[665] Although he had managed to clear himself of all blame,
still as the affair had rendered him very unpopular in Scotland, he
was dismissed from his situation as one of the Scottish secretaries
of state, and the Marquis of Tweeddale was appointed to succeed him
as lord high-commissioner to the Scottish parliament, which met on
the 6th of July, 1704.[666]
From the temper displayed in the Scottish parliament, it was obvious
that without entering into a treaty with Scotland, it would be
utterly impossible for the English ministry to carry the question
of the succession in Scotland. To accomplish this the English
parliament authorised the queen to nominate commissioners to treat
with commissioners from Scotland; but the conduct of the parliament
was by no means calculated to allay the jealousy entertained by
the Scotch, of the interference of England in imposing a foreign
sovereign upon them. Instead of simply empowering the queen to
appoint commissioners, the English parliament, instigated by the
Scottish ministry, directed the Scottish parliament in the choice of
its commissioners, and they even prohibited their own commissioners
to meet and treat with those of Scotland unless the parliament of
Scotland allowed the queen to name these commissioners herself.
Moreover all Scotsmen not settled in England, or in its service, were
declared aliens, until the succession to the crown of Scotland should
be settled on the Princess Sophia and her Protestant heirs. Several
prohibitory clauses against the trade of Scotland were also inserted
in the act, which were to take effect about eight months thereafter
if the Scottish parliament did not, before the appointed time, yield
to the instructions of that of England.
To strengthen the government party the Scottish ministry was changed,
and the Duke of Queensberry was recalled to office, being appointed
to the privy seal. The Cavaliers, thus deprived of the aid of the
duke and his friends, applied to the Marquis of Tweeddale--who, with
his displaced friends, had formed a party called the _squadrone
volante_, or “flying squadron”--to unite with them against the court;
but he declined the proposal, as being inconsistent with the object
for which it was said to be formed, namely, to keep the contending
parties in parliament in check, and to vote only for such measures,
by whatever party introduced, which should appear most beneficial to
the country.
Notwithstanding the exertions of the court party, the Scottish
ministry soon found themselves in a minority in the parliament,
which was opened on the 28th of June, 1705, by the Duke of Argyle as
commissioner. The motion of Sir James Falconer, which had hitherto
remained a dead letter, was again renewed; but although the ministry
was supported by the “squadron” in opposition to the motion, the
Cavaliers carried it by a great majority. The Dukes of Hamilton and
Athole were now desirous of pushing on the inquiry into the alleged
plot, but by advice of the Cavaliers, who insisted that such a
proceeding would be a violation of the agreement entered into between
them and the Duke of Queensberry’s friends, they desisted for a time.
But the duke having prevailed upon such of his friends as had voted
with the Cavaliers in the beginning of the session, to join the court
party, the subject was introduced before the house in the shape of a
motion, to know what answer the queen had sent to an address which
had been voted to her in the preceding session, to send down to
Scotland against the next session such persons as had been examined
respecting the plot, and the papers connected therewith. The Dukes
of Hamilton and Athole vindicated themselves against the charge of
being accessory to Fraser’s proceedings, and the latter particularly,
in a long speech, reprobated the conduct of the Duke of Queensberry,
whom he openly accused of a design to ruin him. Neither the duke nor
his friends made any answer to the charge, and Athole and Hamilton
conceiving that they had cleared themselves sufficiently, allowed
the subject to drop. The most important business of the session was
the measure of the proposed union with England, an act for effecting
which was passed, though not without considerable opposition.
Before the state of the vote upon this measure was announced, the
Duke of Athole, “in regard that by an English act of parliament made
in the last sessions thereof, entituled an act for the effectual
securing England from the dangers that may arise from several
acts passed lately in Scotland, the subjects of this kingdom were
adjudged aliens, born out of the allegiance of the queen, as queen
of England, after the 25th of December 1705,” protested that, for
saving the honour and interest of her majesty as queen of Scotland,
and maintaining and preserving the undoubted rights and privileges
of her subjects, no act for a treaty with England ought to pass
without a clause being added thereto, prohibiting and discharging
the commissioners that might be appointed for carrying on the treaty
from departing from Scotland until the English parliament should
repeal and rescind the obnoxious act alluded to. To this protest
twenty-four peers, thirty-seven barons, and eighteen of the burgh
representatives adhered. When the state of the vote was announced,
the Duke of Hamilton, to the surprise of the cavaliers and the
country party, moved that the nomination of the commissioners
should be left wholly to the queen. From twelve to fifteen members
immediately exclaimed that the duke had deserted and basely betrayed
his friends, and ran out of the house in rage and despair. A warm
debate then ensued, in which Hamilton was roughly handled, and
the inconsistency of his conduct exposed; but he persisted in his
motion, which was carried by a majority of eight votes. Had the
other members remained he would have found himself in a minority.
The Duke of Athole protested a second time for the reasons contained
in his first protest, and twenty-one peers, thirty-three barons, and
eighteen burgh representatives adhered to his second protest. The
protesters consisted of most of the cavaliers and the country party,
and the whole of the “Squadron.” The protesters, however, were not
discouraged, and they succeeded so far as to obtain an order of the
house prohibiting the Scottish commissioners from treating until the
clause in the English act, declaring the subjects of Scotland aliens,
should be repealed, a resolution which had the desired effect, the
English parliament rescinding the clause before the time fixed for
its operation arrived.[667]
In terms of the powers vested in her by the parliaments of England
and Scotland, the queen nominated commissioners, who met in the
council chamber of the Cockpit, near Whitehall, on the 16th of April,
1706. During their sittings they were twice visited by the queen, who
urged them to complete with as little delay as possible, a treaty
which, she anticipated, would be advantageous to both kingdoms. By
the second article of the treaty, it was declared that the succession
to the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, in default of
issue of the queen, should remain and continue to the Princess Sophia
and her heirs, being Protestants.
When the terms of the treaty became publicly known in Scotland, a
shout of indignation was set up in every part of the kingdom, at a
measure which, it was supposed, would destroy the independence of
the nation; and when the Scottish parliament met for the purpose of
ratifying the treaty, considerable rioting took place in different
parts of the country, and large bodies of armed men threatened to
march upon the capital, and disperse the assembly. Numerous addresses
were sent to the parliament from every part of the kingdom against
the Union, and considerable opposition was made by the Dukes of
Hamilton and Athole, Lord Belhaven, Fletcher of Saltoun, and others,
but the court party, having obtained the support of the “Squadron,”
carried the measure by a great majority. The treaty was, however,
after strenuous opposition, ratified by the Scotch as well as the
English parliament, and ultimately completed on May 1st, 1707.
As the restoration of the son of James II. now appeared to the
Scottish nation necessary to preserve its independence, various
combinations were entered into among the people to effect it. The
inhabitants of the western shires, chiefly Cameronians, formerly
the most determined supporters of the Protestant government, all at
once became the most zealous partisans of the exiled family, whose
Catholicity they showed themselves disposed altogether to overlook.
Preparatory to more active measures for accomplishing their object,
the ringleaders among them held several meetings, divided themselves
into regiments, chose their officers, provided themselves with horses
and arms, and, notwithstanding the religious asperity which had long
existed between them and the inhabitants of the northern shires,
offered to unite with them in any measure which might be devised
for accomplishing the restoration of the young prince, who had now
assumed the title of the Chevalier de St. George.[668] The court
of St. Germains, fully aware of the strong national feeling which
existed in favour of the prince, sent, in concert with the French
king, one Hooke into Scotland to obtain intelligence, and to treat
with the people for his restoration. This gentleman had been one of
the Duke of Monmouth’s chaplains when he invaded England; but after
the execution of that unfortunate nobleman, Hooke went to France,
where he became a Catholic, and entered into the French service,
in which he rose to the rank of Colonel. He had been in Scotland
in 1705 on a mission to the heads of the Jacobite chiefs and the
country party; but though a man of sense, he conducted himself with
such indiscretion, that he could only obtain general promises, from
the parties he consulted, of their readiness to advance the prince’s
interest. The cavaliers, however, sent Captain Henry Straton, a
gentleman in whom they placed great confidence, to France, in July
the following year, to ascertain the extent of the aid they might
expect from Louis.
Hooke, on this occasion, landed in the north of Scotland, about the
end of February or beginning of March, 1707, and took up a temporary
abode in Slains Castle, the seat of the Earl of Errol, high-constable
of Scotland, where he was waited upon by the countess-dowager, the
mother of the earl, her son being then absent from home. Instead
of consulting, as he should have done, the principal chiefs upon
the subject of his mission, Hooke at first confined himself to
interviews with some gentlemen in the counties of Perth and Angus, by
whom he was received with great favour and hospitality, and looked
upon as a person of no ordinary importance. The attention thus paid
him, flattered his vanity, in return for which he made them his
confidents, and proceeded, in concert with them, to deliberate upon
the mode of accomplishing a restoration. This party, however, had not
the wisdom to conceal the negotiation with Hooke, whose presence in
the country became consequently generally known. The result was, that
the Duke of Hamilton and others, conceiving themselves slighted, and
alarmed at the imprudence of Hooke’s friends, declined to correspond
with him, and entered into direct communication with the court of St.
Germains itself.
As the French king was desirous of ascertaining the exact situation
of the affairs in Scotland, M. de Chamillard, his minister of war,
had furnished Hooke with a paper of instructions, in the shape of
questions, to which he was desired to obtain distinct answers,
to enable his majesty to judge of the extent of the assistance
required from him, and the probability of success. In answer to
these questions, a memorial, addressed to the king of France, was
drawn up, and signed by several noblemen and gentlemen, in which
they stated that the greater part of the Scottish nation had always
been disposed for the service of “its lawful king” ever since the
revolution; but that this disposition had now become universal, and
that the shires of the west, which used to be the most disaffected,
were now zealous to serve him. That to reap the benefit of so
favourable a disposition, and of so happy a conjuncture, the presence
of the king (the Chevalier) would be absolutely necessary, the people
being unwilling to take arms without being sure of having him at
their head--that the whole nation would rise upon his arrival--that
he would become master of Scotland without opposition, and that
the existing government would be entirely abolished--that of the
numbers that they would raise, the memorialists would immediately
despatch 25,000 foot, and 5,000 horse and dragoons into England,
while the other peers and chiefs would assemble all their men in
their respective counties, and that the general rendezvous of the
troops on the north of the river Tay should be at Perth, those of
the western counties at Stirling, and those of the south and east
at Dumfries and Dunse. As to the subsistence of the troops, they
informed his majesty that they would require nothing from him, as the
harvests of two years were to be found in the granaries, and that so
great was its abundance, that a crown would purchase as much flour
as would maintain a man two months--that there was also great plenty
of meat, beer and brandy in the kingdom, and cloth, linen, shoes and
bonnets, sufficient to clothe a considerable number of troops. The
principal articles they stood in most need of were arms and money. Of
the former, the memorialists begged his majesty to send them as many
as would equip 25,000 foot, and 5,000 horse or dragoons, together
with a proportionate quantity of ammunition, and also some pieces of
artillery, bombs, &c. Of money, of which the country had been almost
drained by the Darien speculation, by five years of famine, and by
the constant residence of the nobility at London, they required a
remittance of 100,000 pistoles, to enable them to march into England,
and also a regular monthly subsidy during the war. In addition to
these demands, they required that the Chevalier should be accompanied
to Scotland by a body of 8,000 troops, to protect his person against
any sudden attempt by the government forces. The memorialists
concluded, by assuring his most Christian Majesty of their resolution
to bind themselves by the strictest and most sacred ties, to assist
one another in what they deemed a common cause, to forget all family
differences, and to concur sincerely, and with all their hearts,
“without jealousy or distrust, like men of honour in so just and
glorious an enterprise.”[669]
Having finished his negotiation, Hooke returned to France in the
month of May, after assuring his friends that “the Pretender” would
land in Scotland about August following. On arriving at the court
of St. Germains, Hooke gave the most flattering account of his
reception, and of the zeal of the people in behalf of the Chevalier,
and accused the Duke of Hamilton and the other persons who had
refused openly to commit themselves, of luke-warmness in the cause.
The armament, promised by the king of France, should have been ready
in August; but the court of Versailles contrived to put it off, from
time to time, under various pretences. The fact appears to be, that
Louis was indifferent about the matter, and, although he pretended
that his object was to place the Chevalier upon the throne of his
ancestors, his real object was to create a diversion in his own
favour by embroiling Great Britain in a civil war. His reverses at
Ramillies and Turin had induced him to send Hooke into Scotland
to obtain information, but, having afterwards defeated the allies
at Almanza, he was in hopes that he would be able to retrieve his
affairs without the aid of the intended descent on Scotland.
To hasten the enterprise, the cavaliers sent the Honourable Charles
Fleming, brother of the Earl of Wigton, over to France with letters
to his most Christian Majesty and the Chevalier, in consequence of
which, preparations for the expedition were commenced at Dunkirk,
where a squadron was collected under the command of the Chevalier de
Forbin. When the news of these preparations reached England, the
greatest exertions were made to meet the threatened danger. Both
houses of parliament joined in an address to the queen, in which
they pledged themselves to defend her with their lives and fortunes
against the “pretended Prince of Wales,” and all her other enemies.
They suspended the habeas corpus act, and passed a bill enacting,
that all persons should take the oath of abjuration under the pain
of being held as convicted recusants. They also passed another bill,
releasing the Scottish clans from all vassalage to those chiefs who
should appear in arms against her majesty; and “the Pretender” and
his adherents were declared traitors and rebels. A large fleet was
equipped and assembled at Deal with extraordinary promptitude, and
despatched towards Dunkirk under the command of Sir John Leake,
Sir George Byng, and Lord Dursley, and transports were engaged to
bring over ten British battalions from Ostend. When this fleet,
which the French had supposed to be destined for Lisbon, appeared
off Mardyke, they were greatly surprised; and the embarkation of
their troops, which had commenced, was immediately countermanded.
The French admiral represented to his court the danger of proceeding
with the expedition; but he received positive orders to finish
the embarkation, and to sail with the first favourable wind. The
Chevalier de St. George, at taking farewell, was presented by Louis
with a sword studded with costly diamonds, and sumptuous services of
gold and silver plate, rich dresses, and other necessaries becoming
his high station.
While the embarkation was going on, Mr. Fleming and a gentleman
of the name of Arnott were separately despatched for Scotland
from Dunkirk, on the evening of the 6th of March, 1708, in two
frigates, with instructions from the Chevalier to the Jacobite
chiefs. Fleming arrived on the northern coast on the 13th, and,
when about two leagues off the land, entered a fishing boat which
landed him at Slains castle, where he met the Earl of Errol, who
received the intelligence of the expedition with great pleasure. On
perusing the Chevalier’s instructions, he immediately despatched
a messenger to Mr. Malcolm of Grange, in Fife, with orders to
have a boat and pilots in readiness at the mouth of the Frith
of Forth to go on board the first vessel that should give the signal
agreed on.
In the mean time, the British fleet having been forced, by stress
of weather, off their station on the 14th of March, the expedition
sailed on the 17th from the road of Dunkirk; but it was detained
in Newport-pits in consequence of a change in the wind, till the
19th, when it again set sail with a fair breeze for Scotland. The
expedition consisted of seven men-of-war, two of which were fitted
up as transports, and twenty-one frigates, having on board 5,100
troops, under the command of Monsieur le Comte de Gassé, who, on
the last-mentioned day, received from the French king the patent
of a Marshal of France, and assumed the name of Mantignon. While
at Newport, three of the frigates, which had received some damage,
returned to Dunkirk; but, at a council of war, held in the apartment
of the Chevalier, it was resolved, at his desire, to proceed
without them, although these vessels had 800 troops on board, and a
considerable quantity of arms and provisions. At the same council it
was also determined to sail directly to the Frith of Forth, and to
disembark the troops at Burnt-island, whence it was proposed to send
a detachment to take possession of Stirling.[670]
The French fleet having been observed in Newport-pits from the
steeples of Ostend, a vessel was immediately despatched thence by
Major-general Cadogan to inform Sir George Byng of their having
left Dunkirk: Sir George went immediately in quest of the enemy.
The French fleet, favoured by a strong and fair wind, reached the
Frith on the evening of the 23d, without seeing any of the English
squadron, and anchored off Crail, the commander intending to proceed
up the Frith the following morning; but he had been anticipated by
the Proteus, one of the three vessels which had returned to Dunkirk,
and which, being a superior sailer, had reached the Frith before
him, and had given notice of the approach of the French fleet to the
friends of the Chevalier, who lived on the coast, by firing five
guns, the concerted signal by which the friends of the prince along
that coast were to be apprized of his arrival. Malcolm of Grange,
who had been for some days anxiously looking out for the fleet, went
immediately on board this vessel with a pilot.
The resolution of M. de Forbin to proceed up the Frith next
morning, was, however, put an end to, by the appearance, at
day-break, of the English fleet, consisting of 28 sail, standing
in for the Frith. Alarmed for the safety of his ships, the French
commander immediately cut his cables, and by favour of a strong
land breeze which fortunately sprung up, stood out to sea under
full sail, having previously given orders to the different ships,
in case of separation, to rendezvous at Cromarty or Inverness. The
French vessels being lighter and cleaner, outstripped the English
in sailing, and all of them escaped, with the exception of the
Salisbury, a ship formerly captured from the English, which was
taken. On board of this vessel were Lord Griffin, the Earl of
Middleton’s two sons, M. La Vie, a Major-general, Colonel Francis
Wauchope, some other officers, and between 300 and 400 soldiers.
On the following day, the French commander finding himself out of
sight of the enemy, and all his vessels together, with the exception
of the Salisbury, consulted with the Marshal de Mantignon, on the
expediency of landing at some place in the north of Scotland, and
proposed Inverness. The Chevalier, who was so desirous of landing,
that he had, though in vain, entreated M. de Forbin, the preceding
day, to put him ashore, though his domestics alone should accompany
him, received this proposal with great satisfaction. The fleet
accordingly, aided by a favourable wind, steered to the north
during the whole of the 25th; but at ten o’clock at night, the wind
suddenly changed to the north, and blew directly in their teeth
with considerable violence. As the storm continued the whole of the
following day, and as M. de Forbin was afraid that the fleet would
be dispersed, and might, when separated, fall into the hands of the
enemy, a council was held, at which it was unanimously resolved, with
the entire concurrence of the Chevalier, to return to Dunkirk, where
the expedition arrived on the 7th of April.
Such was the result of an enterprise, which, but for the merest
accidental circumstance, might have been crowned with the most
complete success; for had the expedition arrived only a few hours
earlier in the Frith of Forth, the whole troops, arms and ammunition,
would have been landed without opposition. Such were the dispositions
of the people of Scotland in favour of “the Pretender,” and so
disaffected had they become towards the government, that a universal
rising would undoubtedly have taken place in his support had he set
his foot in Scotland. No effectual resistance could have been offered
to him by the regular troops, which did not exceed 2,500 men; and as
little reliance could be placed in them, from their participating
generally in the national feeling, the Earl of Leven, the
commander-in-chief, had determined to retire to Carlisle or Berwick,
with such forces as would accompany him.[671] The news of the sailing
of the expedition created a panic in England, was followed by a run
upon the bank, which would have been obliged to suspend its payments
had not the most extraordinary exertions been made to support its
credit.
The principal friends of the Chevalier de St. George, and every
person of any distinction in Scotland, suspected of favouring his
pretensions, were, upon the failure of the expedition, immediately
seized and committed to the castles of Edinburgh and Stirling, and
the common jails, whence many of them were transmitted to England,
and imprisoned in the Tower of London, or in Newgate. Among those
who were carried to London, was the Duke of Hamilton, who, taking
advantage of a quarrel between the Lord-treasurer Godolphin and
the Whigs, obtained, by offering his support to the latter in the
election of the Scottish representative peers, not only his own
liberation, but also that of all the other prisoners, with the
exception of Stirling of Kier. Seaton of Touch, Stirling of Carden,
and other gentlemen of Stirlingshire, who, on receiving intelligence
that the Chevalier had landed, had mounted their horses and advanced
in a body towards Edinburgh, to support him. These last were brought
to trial for high treason, as having appeared in arms against the
government; but as no proof was brought against them, they were
acquitted.[672] The fact is, that the queen’s advisers, fully aware
of the great danger which the government had escaped, and the risks
to which it was still exposed, were disposed to act a very lenient
part, and were afraid, under existing circumstances, to commit
themselves by sacrificing any of the disaffected to a doubtful, and,
as it must have appeared to them, a precarious expediency.
For a time, the idea of a restoration seems to have been abandoned;
but the systematic attacks made by the High Church party in England,
upon the principles of the revolution, and the popular excitement
raised against the Whig ministry in consequence of Dr. Sacheverel’s
trial, raised anew the expectations of the Jacobites, which were
still farther elevated by the expulsion of the Whigs from office in
1710, by the intrigues of the Tories. Although the queen on opening
the new parliament, which met on the 25th of November, declared to
both houses that she would employ such persons only as were warmly
attached to the Protestant succession in the House of Hanover; yet
it was generally understood that she was inclined to favour the
pretensions of her brother, the Chevalier de St. George. As his
religion was, in fact, the only bar in the way of his succession, she
endeavoured, but without success, to induce him to abandon it. “You
see,” she observed to the Duke of Buckingham, when speaking of her
brother, “he does not take the least step to oblige me. I have no
reason to think he values me or my kingdom, therefore I shall give it
to the Elector of Hanover.” On another occasion, when warmly pressed
by the duke, she replied, “What would you have me to do? You know, as
the law stands, a Papist cannot inherit the crown, and, therefore,
any will I may make will be to no purpose; the law gives all to
Hanover; and therefore I had better do that with a good grace which
I cannot help. He may thank himself for it. He knows I always loved
him better than the Elector.”[673] The Tories were by no means averse
to her majesty’s views of a successor, but afraid of a reaction in
public opinion in favour of the Whigs, who were endeavouring to
excite the fears of the nation by raising a no-popery cry, they not
only carefully abstained from any act which might be considered as
favouring the claims of “the Pretender;” but even appeared as if
hostile to them. Indeed, so desirous were some of the Tory members
of the House of Commons to settle the crown upon his head, that they
required a mere profession of Protestantism from him, till he should
be firmly seated on the throne, after which he might, they said,
again resume the exercise and profession of his religion. But the
prince refused to comply.
In Scotland, however, little reserve was shown, a remarkable instance
of which occurred in the Faculty of Advocates, which body accepted
from the Duchess of Gordon a silver medal, having on one side an
impression of the head of the Chevalier de St. George, and on the
reverse a representation of the British islands, with the motto,
“_Reddite_.” At the presentation of this treasonable device, a motion
thanking her grace for her gift was carried, after a warm debate, by
a majority of sixty-three voices against twelve. Dundas of Arniston,
to whom the task of conveying the vote was intrusted, thanked
her grace for having presented the Faculty with a medal of their
sovereign, and stated a hope that she would very soon be enabled to
present them with a second medal struck upon the restoration of the
king and royal family, and the finishing of usurpation, rebellion,
and whiggery. This proceeding created an extraordinary sensation, and
Sir David Dalrymple, the Lord Advocate, was directed by the ministry
to inquire into the matter. The Faculty grew alarmed, disclaimed the
conduct of Dundas and of Horne, another member with whom they alleged
the transaction originated, and by a solemn resolution declared their
attachment to the queen and the Protestant succession. To satisfy,
in some measure, the court of Hanover, the resident of which at
the British court had presented a memorial to the queen desiring
that Dundas and his party might be prosecuted, the Lord Advocate
was dismissed from office, because he had been remiss in bringing
the delinquents to justice; but no instructions were given to his
successor to prosecute them.
The remaining years of Queen Anne’s reign were chiefly occupied with
party struggles, which embittered her existence and impaired her
constitution. The Tories disunited among themselves, split latterly
into two factions, which were respectively headed by Harley, Earl of
Oxford, and Henry St. John, Lord Viscount Bolingbroke. The Whigs, on
the other hand, united, active and vigorous, pressed hard upon them,
and employed every art to inflame the people against the authors
of their disgrace. Popery and the Pretender were the never-ceasing
topics with which they endeavoured to enlist the feelings of the
nation in their favour, and the Duke of Argyle, in a warm debate
which took place in the House of Peers on a question proposed by
the Earl of Wharton, “Whether the Protestant succession was in
danger under the present administration?” offered to prove that the
lord-treasurer had remitted a sum of money annually to the Highland
Jacobite chiefs. Oxford did not deny the charge, but defended himself
by saying, that he had only adopted the policy of King William, who
had granted yearly pensions to the heads of the clans, the better
to secure their obedience to the government. The fate of the Tory
ministry was at length sealed by the removal of Oxford and the death
of the queen, who survived that event only a few days. Fatigued by
a long attendance at a cabinet council held immediately after the
dismissal of the lord-treasurer, she was thrown into a lethargic
disorder, which terminated her existence on the morning of the
1st of August, 1714, in the fiftieth year of her age, and in the
thirteenth of her reign. With the exception of her dereliction of
duty towards her father, which, from the circumstances in which she
was placed, may admit of considerable palliation, she left behind her
an unblemished reputation; and though not possessed of much genius
or vigour of mind, she wielded the sceptre with greater skill than
is usually to be found in sovereigns, who, like her, have allowed
themselves to be controlled by favourites.
FOOTNOTES:
[659] _Lockhart Papers_, vol. i. p. 58.
[660] Idem, vol. i. p. 71.
[661] Burton’s _Life of Lovat_, pp. 76, 77.
[662] Macpherson’s _Papers_. Burton’s _Lovat_.
[663] Lockhart, vol. i. pp. 78-83.
[664] _Memoirs of the Life of Simon, Lord Lovat._ Written by himself,
p. 179.
[665] Burton’s _Lovat_, p. 90.
[666] Lockhart, vol. i. p. 98.
[667] Lockhart, vol. i. pp. 131, 132, 133, 137, 140.
[668] Lockhart, vol. i. p. 196.
[669] _Secret History of Colonel Hooke’s Negotiation in Scotland in
1707._--Edin. 1760. Pp. 69-75.
[670] M. D’Andrezel’s Account in Hooke, p. 139.
[671] Alluding to the appearance of the French fleet in the Frith,
Lockhart says, “It is impossible to describe the different appearance
of people’s sentiments; all this day (23d March) generally speaking,
in every person’s face was to be observed an air of jollity and
satisfaction, excepting the general (Leven), those concerned in the
government, and such as were deeply dipt in the revolution. These
indeed were in the greatest terror and confusion. And it was no great
wonder that the Earl of Leven did afterwards, in one of his letters
to the secretaries of state, complain that the Jacobites were so
uppish he durst hardly look them in the face as they walked in the
streets of Edinburgh; for uppish they were indeed, expecting soon to
have an occasion of repaying him and his fellow-rebels in the same
coin he and they had treated them for these twenty years past. But
next day advice was sent from Sir George Byng, that he had come up
with and was then in pursuit of the French fleet, and then it was
that every body was in the greatest pain and anxiety imaginable; some
fearing it would, and others that it would not, determine as it did.
In this perplexity were people when, on the next day, being Sunday,
a great number of tall ships were seen sailing up the Frith. This
put our general in such a terror and confusion as can scarcely be
well expressed: he drew up his army in battle array on the sands of
Leith, as if he’d oppose a landing, and in this posture did he remain
for several hours, when at last his fears, which truly had almost
distracted him, vanished by the landing of a boat, which acquainted
him that it was the English fleet returning from chasing the French.
For Sir George Byng, after a day’s pursuit, finding the French
out-sailed him, tackt about for the Frith, which was the place he
designed chiefly to guard; besides, he had sailed so unprovided that
most of his ships wanted water and provisions. Here he lay several
weeks, and for the most part the wind was easterly, so that he could
not well have sailed down the Frith, and the French might, and every
body believed would, have landed in the north, or sailed round and
landed in the west; but instead of that they went sneakingly home,
without doing any good, but on the contrary much harm, to the king,
his country, and themselves.”--Vol. i. pp. 243, 244.
[672] Lockhart.
[673] _Stuart Papers_, July, 1712. vol. ii. p. 327.