[1706 A.D.] The friendly hand was cordially held out; and if it were not as cordially grasped-if at some stages of the coming negotiations it were roughly pushed aside-it is to the immortal credit of the English statesmen that they went calmly forward with their great work, and accomplished it by honest perseverance, without trickery and without coercion. The reflecting politicians in both countries saw the perils that would result to both from being swayed by national prejudices and popular jealousies. There were old wounds to be healed, old injuries to be forgiven, existing injustice to be redressed, friendship to be established upon conditions of equal rights and liberties.

ARTICLES OF UNION AGREED UPON (1706 A.D.)

In the spring of 1706, thirty-one commissioners were nominated on the part of each kingdom, for negotiating the terms of union. On the 16th of April, the commissioners assembled in the cockpit at Whitehall. On the 22nd of July, the Articles of Union were finally agreed upon.

A complete union of two independent nations, to be brought about by common consent, and the terms to be settled as in a commercial partnership, was an event which seems natural and easy when we look to the geographical positions of the two nations, and to the circumstance that they had been partially united for a century, under six sovereigns wearing the crown of each kingdom. But when we look to the long-standing jealousies of the two nations-their sensitive assertions of ancient superiority-the usual haughty condescension of the wealthier country-the sturdy pride of the poorer-the ignorance of the bulk of each people of the true character of the otherthe differences of the prevailing forms of religion-the more essential differences of laws and their modes of administration-we may consider the completion of this union as one of the greatest achievements of statesmanship.

As Burton says: "If those continental nations which had been for centuries accustomed to see annexations, partitions, and the enlargement of empires by marriage and succession, had been told how many different parties and interests it was necessary to bring to one set of conclusions before the desired end could be accomplished, they would have deemed the project utterly insane, as, indeed, it would have been, if laid before two nations less endowed with practical sense and business habits."

At the very outset of the treaty, the vital principle of union was to be debated (that fundamental article upon which all other articles were to be based); an entire union of the two kingdoms-one kingdom, one crown, one parliament. This article was proposed at the opening of the negotiations, by the English commissioners. The Scottish commissioners demurred. The descent of the crown of Scotland might go according to the Act of Settlement; mutual free-trade-mutual rights-a federal union. The English commissioners declined to proceed upon such terms, "convinced that nothing but an entire union of the two kingdoms will settle perfect and lasting friendship." The Scottish commissioners yielded; but at the same time demanded reciprocity of citizenship and of privileges of trade. Unquestionably so, replied the English commissioners. It was "a necessary consequence," they said, of the first great condition.

The fundamental principle of the union was thus settled, in the words of the resolution of the English commissioners, to be "an entire and incorporating union, by which the two nations should be formed into one government, be under one sovereign head, in one represented body, standing upon one foundation, enjoying equal privileges, and in common bearing one general

[1706 A.D.]

proportion of burdens, the same in end and mean, having but one common interest, one name, and being for ever hereafter but one people." How to carry out this amalgamation, in the several relations of "one represented body"-"one general proportion of burdens"-might have presented insuperable difficulties to any set of negotiators who were not thoroughly convinced of the necessity of making a compromise of many supposed particular interests.

The question of "proportion of burdens" claimed precedence of that of "one represented body.' The English commissioners cleared away many objections, by proposing an equivalent to Scotland in a money payment, for any disadvantages she might be subjected to in a joint principle of finance.. By a system of equal duties upon imports and exports, the freedom of trade was established, and to that system no objection could be rationally offered. There were long discussions about duties of excise-about malt, and salt, and ale-which were satisfactorily adjusted. The land tax was arranged in a manner eminently favourable to Scotland.

All these matters were got over, when the complex question of representation arose. The English commissioners proposed that Scotland should have thirty-eight members in the united house of commons. The Scottish commissioners proposed fifty. The number was settled at forty-five-about one-twelfth of the whole house. The system of electing peers to sit in parliament was also settled; sixteen being taken out of the hundred and fifty-four who were then peers of Scotland. The laws of Scotland, with the exception of those relating to trade, customs, and excise, were to remain in force, though subject to alterations by the parliament of Great Britain, as the united kingdom was to be called; it being provided "that laws relating to public policy are alterable at the discretion of the parliament; laws relating to private right are not to be altered, but for the evident utility of the people of Scotland."

The standards of the coin, of weights, and of measures, were to become uniform with those of England. For removing national distinctions, the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew were to be conjoined when used in flags, banners, standards, and ensigns. And as Burton says: "The coat armorial was to be quartered according to heraldic rules, so that in its employment for Scottish national purposes, the arms of Scotland might have the dexter, or preeminent side a privilege for some time adopted, and not lightly esteemed." In the negotiations of the commissioners all matters relating to the church of Scotland were excluded. The preservation intact of the constitution and rights of that church was provided for in the acts of parliament under which the union was established.

The history of these negotiations has been told by Sir Walter Scott" with a bias which can only be attributed to that nationality which, in its intensification, may cease to be a virtue. He, who in the political questions of his own time was strenuously opposed to what may be called democratic principles, complains that the population of Scotland being as one to six, if the rule of population, "which seems the fairest that could be found, had been adopted, Scotland would have sent sixty-six members to the united parliament," instead of forty-five.

The whig, Hallam," takes a very different view from the tory, Scott: "The ratio of population would indeed have given Scotland about one-eighth of the legislative body, instead of something less than one-twelfth; but no government, except the merest democracy, is settled on the sole basis of numbers; and if the comparison of wealth and of public contributions was to be admitted, it may be thought that a country which stipulated for itself to pay less than one-fortieth of direct taxation, was not entitled to a much greater

[1706 A.D.] share of the representation than it obtained." Scott again takes occasion to accuse the Scottish commissioners of having "sold their own honour and that of Scotland," upon "being given to understand that a considerable sum out of the equivalent money would be secured for their especial use."

He then goes on to state, in the most precise way, from the papers of Lockhart, a furious jacobite, the names of the many recipients of the sum distributed, being £20,540 17s. 7d.; and says: "it may be doubted whether the descendants of the noble lords and honourable gentlemen who accepted this gratification, would be more shocked at the general fact of their ancestors being corrupted, or scandalised at the paltry amount of the bribe. One noble lord accepted of as low a sum as eleven guineas." Burton has shown that the sum which was unquestionably advanced by the English government was "employed in paying arrears of salary, or other debts. The general fact that at that time all classes of public creditors in Scotland were in arrear is too palpably notorious." The mere circumstance that arrears were paid out of an advance by England does not imply that there was a previous promise to pay, if the statesman should give a vote against the interests of his country. We lament with Burton, the more sober historian of Scotland, that "Sir Walter Scott's national pride seems to have been so entirely overwhelmed by his prejudice against the union, that no tale against its supporters is too degrading to secure his belief."

RIOTS IN SCOTLAND

It was on the 12th of October, 1706, when the estates of Scotland began to consider the Articles of Union. Immense pains had been taken by the opponents of the measure to rouse the people to a tumultuous opposition. They were in some degree successful. There was a riot in Edinburgh on the 23rd of October, when the populace broke the windows of Sir Patrick Johnson, who had been lord provost, and one of the commissioners of the treaty. They were dispersed without any loss of life. Those who consider that the outbreak of a mob-that appears to have been really very harmless-is evidence of the opinions of a nation, may agree with Lockharts that this midnight riot made "it evident that the union was crammed down Scotland's throat.'

Unprecedented pains had been taken to rouse the passions of the people, and yet any tumult making an approach to insurrection cannot be traced, even in the most exaggerated narratives of those who represent the union as hateful to the Scottish people. Addresses, indeed, came from many places to the parliament against the incorporating principle of the union. Defoe, who was busily engaged in Edinburgh, in a sort of semi-official capacitychiefly from his knowledge of commercial matters, on which he had made useful suggestions-had represented these addresses as got up by the political opponents of the treaty. Lockhart as quoted by Burton writes: "That vile monster and wretch, Daniel Defoe, and other mercenary tools and trumpeters of rebellion, have often asserted that these addresses, and other evidences of the nation's aversion to the union, proceeded from the false glosses and underhand dealings of those that opposed it in Parliament "; and then he admits that "perhaps this measure had its first original as they report."

0

Such arts were natural to be used, especially by the jacobites. They saw that the union would go far to destroy their hopes of a Stuart king for Scotland, if England persisted in her resolution of having no more right-divine sovereigns. The Cameronians held that the wicked union was a breach of the Solemn League and Covenant, they having been sworn to do their endeavour

[1706 A.D.]

to reform England in doctrine, worship, and discipline. But these were very far from representing the opinions of the dispassionate middle classes. Edinburgh shopkeepers were alarmed at the possible loss of customers; but calculating merchants saw very clearly the opening for successful enterprise, when the commerce of the two nations should be put upon an equal footing. The popular arguments against the union were chiefly appeals to nationality, which has always its amiable side, however it may sometimes exhibit a want of judgment in exact proportion to its enthusiasm.

There was an interval in the proceedings of the Scottish parliament when the parties for or against the union were gathering up their strength for a mortal conflict. The first

great oratorical display was made by a young man, Lord Belhaven a speech, says Defoe," "which, being so much talked of in the world, I have also inserted here.' It was, indeed, "much talked of in the world," being wholly addressed to "the world' and not very much fitted for a sober Scottish audience. Yet the "bended knees" and the choking passion of tears of this orator have had imitators in other solemn assemblies.

The speech, says Burton," "was circulated in all known shapes among the people, passed through unnumbered editions, and was so plentifully dispersed that a bookcollector seldom buys a volume of Scottish political pamphlets of the early part of the eighteenth century, which does not contain The

Speech of the Lord Belhaven on the subject-matter of an Union betwixt the two kingdoms of Scotland and England." This singular production has many of the characteristics of a noble eloquence; it has also not a few of those qualities which are most acceptable to a false taste. Lord Marchmont said when the speaker sat down, "Behold, he dreamed, but lo, when he awoke, he found it was a dream."

When the vote was taken upon the first article of the treaty of unionviz., "That the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain"-there was a majority of thirtythree in favour of this fundamental proposition. There was a majority in each estate of peers, of barons or representatives of counties, of representatives of towns. The second article for the succession of the monarchy, and the third for representation by one parliament, were also carried within the next fortnight. The question which was excepted from the treaty, that

H. W.-VOL. XXI. Y

[1707 A.D.] of the church of Scotland, was then agitated; and it was resolved in a way which abated the fears of the Presbyterians, by passing a separate act to provide for the security of the church, which act was to be repeated as a part of any act of the Scottish or English parliament adopting the union. Under this statute, every sovereign of Great Britain, upon his or her accession, is to take an oath to protect the government, worship, discipline, rights, and privileges of the church of Scotland. The estates then proceeded to the consideration of the minute details of the remaining twenty articles of the treaty. This discussion lasted till the middle of January, 1707.

The opposition to the union beyond the walls of the Scottish parliament could scarcely be called national, in a large sense of the word. But it was, nevertheless, a formidable opposition, manifesting itself amongst very various parties and conditions of society. The duke of Queensberry, the queen's high commissioner, was instrumental in disarming the violence, both within the parliament and without, by his patience and moderation. Queensberry was threatened with assassination. He was told that two and twenty had subscribed an oath with their blood, by which they were bound together to assassinate him. No attempt was made to commit this crime. There was a second outbreak in Edinburgh, but there was no bloodshed.

Those who have been described as the fiercest mob in Europe were singularly harmless during the three months of excitement which preceded the passing of the Act of Union. There was a more serious riot at Glasgow on the 7th of November, which lasted several days. Those who had been fighting at Bothwell Bridge with a fury which Claverhouse and Balfour have impersonated for history and romance, were now united to hunt after an obdurate provost who had declined to sanction a city-address against the union. Jacobites and Cameronians-papists and hill-preachers-were masters for a time of the city of Glasgow. Says Defoe: "They ranged the streets and did what they pleased; no magistrate durst show his face to them; they challenged people as they walked the streets with this question, Are you for the union? and no man durst own it but at his extremest hazard." They searched for arms in private houses; and their rudeness, says Defoe, is not to be described. But this rude mob took no life away. "Except that there was no blood shed, they acted the exact part of an enraged, ungoverned multitude." A few of the leaders of these riots were taken, and the Glasgow baillies were soon relieved of their fears.

Vast things were expected from the junction of the true league and covenant men with the Jacobites, Papists, and Episcopalians. They were to march to Hamilton, seven thousand in number. The duke of Athol was to lead his Highlanders through the famous pass where Dundee scattered six thousand veterans. The duke of Hamilton was to head his motley army. The duke was wiser. He sent orders to the Highlanders and Cameronians to disperse and return home. The duke was unstable in his modes of opposition to the union. All parties began to look with suspicion upon his alternations of a hot and cold policy, and upon the blandishments of his mother towards the Presbyterians. "It was suggested," says Burnet, "that she and her son had particular views, as hoping that if Scotland should continue a separated kingdom, the crown might come into their family, they being the next in blood after King James' posterity."

THE ACT OF UNION CONSUMMATED (1707 A.D.)

Despite the jacobites and the Cameronians, the timid Presbyterians and the semi-papist Episcopalians, the act of the Scottish estates for the union