Chapter XXVIII: The Revolution and the Union (2)

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.