Chapter XXVIII…

Chapter XXVIII

The Revolution and the Union.

ALTHOUGH at the centre of authority, the Revolution, had been accomplished, the principles and the difficulties which had caused it, were not solved. The opposite interests and influences, and the diverse sentiments and convictions in politics and religion, which had characterised parties in Scotland since the Reformation, were not harmonised. On some political ideas and points keener feelings than ever had been generated and aroused. The deposed dynasty had still many adherents in Scotland, so that the new government found itself face to face with embarrassment and a complicated series of obstacles. The Covenanters, or the extreme party of the presbyterians, were dissatisfied with the way in which the Convention had treated the question of Church government, as they disapproved of all compromises, while the bishops and the episcopal party were bitterly offended and disappointed. The leading Jacobites were preparing to assail the new government by force of arms.

King William had a difficult task in nominating ministers for the government of Scotland. The leader of a revolutionary movement, and each subordinate actor in it imagines that he is well entitled to a place in the new arrangement of affairs, or to some important post in the administration; hence, whomsoever the King might appoint, he would offend those who found their own claims ignored. A numerous class of Scotsmen were eager to proffer their advice and their service to King William, recommending him not to govern the kingdom by a faction, or to be led by those who had their own personal interest in view, but to be guided solely by considerations for the public good. The position of the King in Scotland was complicated and perplexing, inasmuch as both the Church and the parliament demanded reform of a radical character. But King William had at least one ♦Scotsman whom he could trust, William Carstairs, a presbyterian minister, and afterwards Principal of the University of Edinburgh. He had suffered persecution under the preceding reigns, and his hand still bore the marks of the thumbscrew. He had been long deep in the secrets and schemes of the Prince of Orange, and no man of that period was more worthy of confidence; William knew him well, and implicitly trusted him. He was appointed chaplain to their Majesties for Scotland; but he continued to be much with the King, and from the first advised him to adopt a moderate policy in Scotland. Carstairs’ own sentiments were liberal, and the severe persecution which he had undergone, had not in the least hardened his nature or clouded the judgment of his remarkable mind. The Duke of Hamilton was appointed royal commissioner when the Convention was turned into a parliament, yet it was reported that he did not consider himself sufficiently rewarded for his services. The Earl of Crawford was nominated a Privy Councillor, and President of Parliament; he was a presbyterian, and warmly supported that party. Lord Melville was appointed Secretary of State, and he also belonged to the presbyterians, and commanded their respect and confidence. Sir James Montgomery had thought himself entitled to the secretaryship, and though he was offered the office of Lord Justice Clerk, he deemed it below his merits, and therefore returned from London to Edinburgh a disappointed man, with feelings of aversion to the King and government, and determined on concerting plans of opposition. Lord Stair was made President of the Court of Session; and his son, John Dalrymple, was appointed Lord Advocate. Both of these had been concerned in the proceedings of the former reigns, so that many who considered themselves free from this blemish were greatly displeased and chagrined at their re-elevation.¹

♦ “Scotsmen” replaced with “Scotsman”

¹ M‘Cormick’s Life of Carstairs; Burnet’s History of His Own Time, Volume IV., pages 42, 43.

A number of the Scotch Whigs, disappointed by the new arrangements, assembled in Edinburgh, and brooded over plans of opposition to the government. Among these angry politicians, the highest in rank were the Earl of Annandale and Lord Ross, who found a leader and a kindred spirit in Montgomery. Under this bold man, they formed themselves into a society called “The Club,” appointed a clerk, and met daily in a public-house to concert modes of opposition. With them Sir Patrick Hume, (who had returned from exile), and Fletcher of Saltoun, became associated, while many others joined them, and appeared on the side of the opposition. In conjunction with these men, Montgomery exerted himself to the utmost to form a party, which might be strong enough to control the proceedings of the Convention.¹

¹ Leven and Melville Papers.

The Convention reassembled on the 5th of June, 1689, and passed an act which converted it into a parliament. Hamilton, the royal commissioner, was instructed to give the King’s assent to acts for reforming the constitution of the committee of the Lords of the Articles, establishing the presbyterian polity, and ♦remedying other grievances. But the members of the Club were intently bent on a teasing opposition to the government. They had determined, if possible, to ruin the Dalrymples, and reiterated that both the father and son had served under the late reigns, and oppressed the people. A form of conflict of a novel character was thus begun in the Scotch parliament. The chief contention was for a free debating parliament, such as England enjoyed, and thus it became necessary to abolish the committee called the Lords of the Articles. This was a very old institution of elective origin,¹ but it had been from time to time modified and transformed to suit the ends of the Crown. Nearly all parliamentary business and action had become concentrated in this committee; it had always been an aim of the recent kings to reduce a session to as few normal sittings as possible, and thus prevent discussions of their measures before the house. A majority of the members clamoured loudly for parliamentary reform, and a long and vehement debate ensued on the abolition of the Committee of the Articles. The King’s proposal to modify the constitution of the Lords of the Articles and still retain them, was repeatedly rejected, and total abolition demanded; but this was not then obtained. In the debate touching the nomination of the judges of the Court of Session, the members of the Club maintained that parliament should have a veto on their appointment.

♦ “remeding” replaced with “remedying”

¹ Mackintosh’s History of Civilisation in Scotland, Volume I., pages 369‒370. In the century under review the mode of forming it was stated at page 130.

Much of the time of the session was spent in fruitless efforts. But on the 22nd of July, an act abolishing episcopacy was passed, which stated that the King, with the consent of parliament, would settle in Scotland the form of Church government most agreeable to the inclinations of the people. The royal commissioner adjourned the session on the 2nd of August.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 98, 104; Appendix, Minutes of Estates.

Thus, when the Estates adjourned, no form of Church polity was legally established; but the Privy Council was empowered to allow the ministers to continue their meetings of kirk-sessions, presbyteries, and synods, till the government of the Church should be further established by an Act of Parliament, and by the authority of the General Assembly.

Meanwhile Viscount Dundee and the Jacobites in the north were struggling to the utmost against the government. Since Dundee left Edinburgh, he had concerted a rising in the Highlands. General Mackay, with the royal army, was making desperate but unavailing efforts to crush the rising. His first campaign in the Highlands was an utter failure. Dundee resolved to muster the chiefs and clansmen in Lochaber, and a force of about two thousand assembled, consisting mainly of the Macdonalds, the Camerons, and Macleans. He marched through Badenoch to Athole, and arrived at Blair Castle on the morning of the 27th of July, 1689, where he received tidings that the royal army under General Mackay had entered the Pass of Killiecrankie. Dundee allowed Mackay to advance through the Pass, and gave him battle on the open ground. He immediately marched from the Castle of Blair along the Water of Tilt, and turned round the Hill of Lude, and took up his position on the brow of the hill which overlooked Mackay’s army. When Mackay perceived the approach of Dundee’s followers, he at once prepared for action. His army consisted of three thousand five hundred men, and two troops of cavalry. After examining the ground, he formed his men into one line three deep. Near the centre of his line was a piece of marshy ground, and behind it he placed his cavalry, which might be ready to attack the enemy in flank, after the fire of the infantry was spent. His line of battle was longer than Dundee’s, hence, when the latter was advancing to the attack, some companies of the clansmen were exposed to a raking flank fire. The two armies had faced each other for several hours, and the Highlanders were becoming impatient. At three quarters of an hour before sunset, they were ordered to prepare for action, and Dundee placed himself at the head of his company of cavalry, and resolved to charge in person. The signal to charge was given, and the Highlanders raised a shout which re-echoed afar from the surrounding hills. They advanced down the hill firing their guns, but the royal line returned the fire briskly, and thinned their ranks. As they came close upon the hostile line, they threw down their guns, drew their broadswords, and, with yells which rent the air, rushed on the royalists before they had time to fix their bayonets. The onset was fierce and irresistible, and at once broke the ranks of the enemy, who had no effective means of defence against the strokes of the broadswords, and the royal troops fled down the valley in utter confusion. In a few minutes the Battle of Killiecrankie was fought and won. Dundee fell mortally wounded by a shot, expiring in the moment of victory; about six hundred of his followers were slain.

In spite of the disaster, the General never lost his coolness and courage. As soon as he saw Dundee’s mode of attack, he ordered his cavalry to charge the Highlanders in flank, and in person he led a troop to charge their right flank, and spurred through the thickest of the enemy, but only one single horseman followed their General. When he turned round to observe the state of matters, his army was out of sight; “in the twinkling of an eye,” he said, “our men were out of sight, having gone down pell mell to the river, where the baggage stood.” After some time, he found that only about four hundred of his army remained; some of his men had fled, and two thousand of them slain or taken prisoners. Having collected the remnants of his army, he placed himself at its head, and retired from the scene of the battle. His officers recommended a retreat through the Pass of Killiecrankie, but he wisely rejected their advice, and proceeded across the hills toward Strath Tay, and thence to Stirling, which he reached on the 29th of July.

News of the defeat of the royal army reached Edinburgh on the 28th of July, the day after the battle, and caused intense consternation. It was reported that Mackay was killed and his army destroyed; that Dundee was already master of the country beyond the Forth, and rapidly advancing to take possession of the capital. A meeting of the Privy Council was immediately held, and orders issued to muster all the fencible men in the west, and to concentrate all the troops at Stirling to defend the passage of the Forth. Some of the members of the Council proposed to transfer the seat of Government to Glasgow, others were for retiring into England. This ferment of excitement continued for two days, but on the third intelligence was received of Dundee’s death――an event which was regarded both in Edinburgh and London as a full compensation for the defeat and destruction of the royal army. The fall of Dundee was a fatal blow to the cause of King James in Scotland. Cannon, who succeeded him in command, mismanaged everything; the war against the Government languished, and soon ceased.

The King found it an extremely difficult task to rule Scotland. He could hardly find any Scottish politicians in whom he had confidence. The Duke of Hamilton had not given satisfaction as royal commissioner; and when Parliament re-assembled at Edinburgh on the 15th of April, 1690, Lord Melville appeared as the King’s representative. On the first vote being taken, the Government obtained a small majority which soon increased, and the power of the opposition Club was completely broken. The King had formed a rather low opinion of the morality and the honour of the Scottish aristocracy. His commissioner was instructed to treat with the leading men inclined to opposition, to promise them posts or money, and thus ward off troublesome opposition; and indeed, to use direct bribery, if necessary, for the ends of the Government.――“Thus you are allowed to deal with the leading men in Parliament, that they may concur for redressing of the grievances, without reflecting upon some votes of Parliament much insisted on last session, which, upon weighty considerations, we thought not fit to pass into laws; and what employment or other gratification you may think fit to promise them in our name, we shall fulfil the same. You are to deal with all other persons as you shall have occasion, whom you judge most capable to be serviceable to us, that they may be employed as instruments of taking these leading men, or for getting intelligence, or for influencing shires, or royal boroughs, that they may instruct their commissioners cordially to comply with our instructions for redressing of the grievances; and what money or other gratification you may promise them shall be made good.”¹ William promised encouragement to the Presbyterians, and advised them to proceed with discretion and moderation; but he was unwilling to abolish patronage. Further, he directed that the acts passed in the last session favourable to them should be ratified, and suggested that a bill for the final settlement of the Church should be passed. He wisely abandoned the chief points of difference touching the forms of parliamentary procedure; and it was settled that henceforth there were to be no standing committees like the Lords of the Articles; the Estates were merely to appoint their committees from time to time, to digest measures submitted to them. The officers of State, however, were still permitted to attend these committees, with a right of moving and debating, but not of voting.²

¹ Leven and Melville Papers, page 417.

² Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., Appendix.

On the 15th of April, the statute of 1669, which so emphatically asserted the King’s supremacy in all cases and over all persons, was repealed. All the Presbyterian ministers ejected since the beginning of the year 1661 were restored, but only about sixty of them were alive; while the Episcopal incumbents in the restored ministers’ parishes were ordered to leave their manses within a few weeks. Parliament approved of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and re-established the Presbyterian polity; while the government and re-organisation of the Church were entrusted to the sixty restored ministers, and to such other ministers and elders as they should think fit to associate with themselves in the work. A General Assembly was authorised to meet at Edinburgh in October, and empowered to appoint visitors to eject all ministers who were inefficient, scandalous in morals, or erroneous in doctrine. All the churches which had been deserted by their ministers, or from which the ministers had been removed before the 13th of April, 1689, or whose ministers had been deprived, since that date, for not praying for the King and the Queen, were declared vacant. There was some opposition to these arrangements in parliament, but they were finally carried by a large majority.¹

¹ Ibid., Volume IX., pages 111, 132‒134.

The King wished to retain patronage, but the opposition against it was too strong, and it was abolished in this way. When a vacancy occurred, the heritors and elders had to nominate a minister for the approval of the congregation; and if the congregation disapproved of the nominee, they were to produce their reasons before the presbytery, by whom the matter was to be finally settled. In royal burghs it was specially provided that the calling of ministers should be vested in the magistrates, town council, and kirk-session.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 196, 197. The act allowed compensation to those who lost their rights of patronage.

It was enacted that all the office-bearers in the universities and schools should sign the Confession of Faith, submit to the Presbyterian form of polity, and take the oath of allegiance to the King and the Queen. A commission was named and authorised to visit all these institutions, and to eject all unsound and scandalous persons, and all who refused to submit to the established government. In a short time all the universities were visited, and purged of obnoxious professors.¹

¹ Ibid.; Fasti Aberdonenses, pages 361, ♦368, 379, 380.

♦ “168” replaced with “368”

This parliament passed an act which deprived the Church of the power of enforcing censures by the infliction of civil penalties. A draft of the Toleration Act was introduced by a private member, but it was coldly received and allowed to drop. But the King had wisely resolved not to permit the dominant party to indulge in persecuting any of those who differed from themselves.

There were, however, two parties almost equally dissatisfied with the new ecclesiastical arrangements――the genuine Episcopalians, and the extreme Presbyterians, or Cameronians. The Cameronians rejected the new settlement on principle, as it ignored the Covenants. But they were not a dangerous party to the new government, for reasons which were then and now pretty obvious. The party who firmly held Episcopal views, on the other hand, were not very numerous, but when they became identified with the Jacobites, the two united politically formed a strong party against the government. The Jacobites were not all Episcopal, but common interests and the same political object induced them to unite with the Episcopalians as one party.

Soon after the parliamentary sanction of Presbyterianism, a preliminary meeting of ministers and elders was held at Edinburgh, to prepare for the ensuing General Assembly. The meeting was rather stormy at the beginning, some opposition to the governing body of sixty being offered, and a protest entered; but peaceful counsels prevailed, and the proceedings went on smoothly. A number of young and active preachers were added to the governing body, and arrangements were made for the coming Assembly. Presbyteries were erected in various districts, and empowered to try and to eject all scandalous and negligent ministers, according to the Act of Parliament. Nearly half of the parish churches were already vacant, and the presbyteries proceeded with remarkable energy to purge the Church and to turn out more of the incumbents.¹

¹ _Historical Relation of the Late General Assembly at Edinburgh in the year 1690_, pages 4‒14.

Thirty-seven years had passed since the last General Assembly was dissolved by Cromwell’s officers, and the prospect of reassembling a body that had sometimes shaken the throne, caused grave thought and much anxiety to the King and his advisers. The Government strove earnestly to secure a peaceful Assembly. Lord Melville wrote to the leading ministers beseeching them to follow moderate measures, to act discreetly and proceed quietly, as the only way to insure the success of their polity. The Earl of Crawford also exerted himself to the utmost amongst his friends, and impressed upon them that much depended on their own tact and conduct. Lord Carmichael was appointed royal commissioner to the Assembly; he was a Presbyterian, and a man of good common sense and mild temper.¹

¹ Leven and Melville Papers.

The Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 16th of October, 1690. About one hundred and eighty ministers and elders attended; but the greater part of the kingdom beyond the Tay was unrepresented. Carmichael presented the King’s letter, which briefly stated:――“We expect that your management shall be such as we shall have no reason to repent of what we have done. A calm and peaceable procedure will be no less pleasing to us than it becometh you. We never could be of the mind that violence was suited to the advancing of true religion, nor do we intend that our authority shall ever be made a tool to the irregular passions of any party. Moderation is what religion enjoins, neighbouring churches expect from you, and we recommend to you.” The Assembly agreed to return an address to the King, and stated:――“If after the violence for conscience’ sake that we have suffered and so much detested, and those grievous abuses of authority in the late reigns, whereby through some men’s irregular passions we have smarted, we ourselves should lapse into the same errors, we should certainly prove the most unjust towards God, foolish towards ourselves, and ungrateful towards your Majesty, of all men on earth.”¹

¹ Acts of the General Assembly.

An interesting matter came before the Assembly in the form of an offer of submission from three of the Cameronian ministers, who had exonerated their consciences by exhibiting their testimony against the corruptions of the Church. The Assembly agreed to receive them into communion, and the moderator exhorted them to walk orderly and to oppose all divisions in the Church. An act was passed which required all ministers and elders to sign the Westminster Confession of Faith. Another act enjoined the presbyteries to observe all the ministers in their bounds who neglected the fasts appointed by the Church, or administered the sacrament in private, or celebrated clandestine marriages; while private baptism was expressly prohibited. Regulations were adopted touching the union of presbyteries where the number of ministers was incomplete, reclaiming Roman Catholics, and procuring a supply of Bibles and Catechisms for the Highland parishes. The Assembly then annulled all the denunciations proclaimed nearly forty years before by the Protestors and the Resolutioners against each other. Two commissions of visitation were appointed, one for the presbyteries south of the Tay, and the other for those to the north of it; and they were instructed to eject inefficient and erroneous ministers, and to see that those retained in the Church and admitted to share in her government, signed the Confession and submitted to her discipline.

The extreme Covenanting party, who had suffered so much in the two preceding reigns without yielding an inch, and still maintained a consistent view, though a narrow one, were greatly displeased with the form of the settlement of the Church. As indicated, three ministers deserted them, and were received by the Assembly; their names were William Boyd, Alexander Shields, and Thomas Lining. Though the Cameronian ministers had joined the Church and allowed the paper which enumerated the backslidings of the nation to be suppressed, their flocks were not prepared to follow them or to homologate what they considered a wicked compliance. As soon as they knew what had occurred, they framed a paper expressing their ideas, and immediately sent it to Edinburgh, where, however, it was stopped in its progress by the committee of overtures. The Cameronians were naturally angry at this treatment. They assailed their ministers for having betrayed them, while they accused themselves for having recognised the Prince of Orange, for having been induced to assist in protecting the Convention of Estates, and for having owned the Assembly. Meanwhile they were at a loss what to do, as they had no ministers; in a short time, however, this want was supplied, and they became the first body of Scotch dissenters from the Presbyterian Church.

After sitting about a month the Assembly adjourned, and the royal commissioner gave the King a favourable report of its proceedings. The extreme views of the covenanting age were allowed to slumber in silence, no attempt being made to renew the Covenants.¹

¹ Acts of the General Assembly; _Faithful Contendings Displayed_.

The commissioners appointed by the General Assembly entered with energy on their work. In the current Jacobite writings it was reported that the most frivolous pretexts were deemed sufficient to condemn an obnoxious curate. But the commissioners had often to encounter opposition, especially in the north, where their acts of deposition were resisted by the congregations, and the newly-appointed Presbyterian ministers rejected. When they arrived at Aberdeen, in March, 1691, they were assailed by a mob, and forced to return southwards without accomplishing anything. The greater part of the clergy ejected by the commissioners were Jacobites, who persisted in praying for King James. But a number of them who considered themselves unjustly treated by the commissioners, despatched a deputation to present their grievances to the King, and they managed to enlist his sympathy in their cause. Royal letters were sent to the Privy Council and to the commission, in which the King intimated that severity should cease, and that all the Episcopal ministers who were qualified for the ministry, and willingly submitted to the government in Church and State, should be permitted to remain in their parishes. But the Presbyterians deemed these letters an encroachment upon their rights, and paid no attention to them. The commission proceeded boldly with its work of purifying the Church; while a second letter from the King had no more effect than the first.¹

¹ Carstairs’ State Papers, page 146; Cunningham’s _Church History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 295‒297; Dr. Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Volume III., pages 327‒328.

Indeed, the old conflict between the Church and the Crown was threatening to revive. The Assembly had been adjourned to the 1st of November, 1691, but before that date, it was adjourned by the King to the 15th of January, 1692. When this day came, the Assembly met at Edinburgh; the southern Presbyterians were fairly represented, but only five commissioners from the presbyteries north of Dundee appeared. The entire Assembly consisted of one hundred and eleven ministers, and fifty-four ruling elders.¹

¹ Register of the Proceedings of the Assembly.

The Earl of Lothian acted as royal commissioner, and presented a letter from the King. William referred to the letters which he had sent to the commission, and complained that the indications he had received of their readiness to admit their Episcopal brethren into communion with them had not been realised; and said he had been informed that they were not a full General Assembly, as a majority of the ministers of the Church were not allowed to be represented; that he had instructed those ministers who wished to conform to apply to them for admission, according to a form and declaration which he had sent with his commissioner, and he thought it right that the commissioners for arranging these matters should be composed of an equal number of Episcopal and Presbyterian members. The commissioner produced the form proposed by the King for the conforming Episcopal ministers. It required the subscriber to declare and promise to submit to and concur with the Presbyterian government of the Church, and sign the Confession of Faith and the Catechism. The Assembly referred the matter to a committee. Meanwhile many of the Episcopal clergy sent in addresses to the Assembly requesting to be admitted into the Church on the conditions proposed, and these were also remitted to a committee. The Presbyterians were not prepared for a union of this character; as they were suspicious of the King’s proposals. After sitting four weeks, the royal commissioner addressed the Assembly in a reproachful style for not having shown any disposition to promote unity with their brethren, and in the King’s name dissolved the Assembly. When he sat down the moderator rose, and asked if the Assembly was dissolved without appointing a day for its next meeting. The commissioner said that his Majesty would appoint another Assembly in due time, and give notice of it. The moderator then asked liberty to speak, but he was told that he could only be heard as a private person, not as representing the Assembly. Yet he delivered his opinion on the point, and stated that though they were under many obligations to the King, and always ready to obey his lawful commands, still in the name of his brethren, he begged to declare “that the office-bearers in the house of God have a spiritual intrinsic power from Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church, to meet in assemblies concerning the affairs thereof, the necessity of the same being first represented to the magistrate; and farther, I humbly crave that the dissolution of this Assembly, without inducting a new one to a certain day, may not be to the prejudice of our yearly General Assemblies, granted to us by the laws of the kingdom.” Touching the state of parties at this time, Burnet says: “The Episcopal party carried it very high; they gave it out that the King was now theirs; and that they were willing to come to a concurrence with Presbytery, on design to bring all about to Episcopacy in a little time. The Presbyterians, who at all times were stiff and peevish, were more than ordinary so at this time: they were jealous of the King; their friends were disgraced, and their bitterest enemies were coming into power: so they were surly, and would not abate one point of their government: and upon that the Assembly was dissolved.”¹

¹ Register of the Proceedings of the Assembly. _History of his Own Time_, Volume IV., page 151. Dr. Grub says: “There is some reason to doubt whether the Episcopal clergy were sincere in their profession of a wish for union on the terms proposed; in any event, it was hardly to be expected that the Presbyterians would voluntarily consent to a plan which if carried out would have given their opponents a majority in the General Assembly.”――Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Volume III., page 330.

This was represented to the King as an insolent invasion of the rights of the Crown, and much angry feeling was evoked on both sides. William had pretty high ideas of his kingly powers, and was jealous of all the prerogatives which he thought belonged to the Crown.

Though open war against the government had ceased, still the exiled King had many adherents in Scotland, especially in the north and among the Highland chiefs. As past and subsequent events had proved, the Celtic portion of the inhabitants could make themselves extremely troublesome to any government. An attempt was therefore made to purchase the friendship of the Highland clans. The King and his government had avowedly adopted a system of bribery and corruption. It should be stated that at this period dishonesty, treachery, and cruelty were not specially limited to the Highlanders of Scotland; and if truth and morality be the standard of estimation, neither the King nor his government had much claim to be regarded as examples of high morality.

The Government engaged the Earl of Breadalbane to corrupt the Highland chiefs――in other words, to purchase their submission, and if possible to secure their allegiance to King William; for this purpose a sum of money, reported to be twenty thousand pounds, was placed at the Earl’s disposal. It was in the month of April, 1690, that the Earl was authorised to execute this business; and the King in his instructions to him directed particular attention to Sir Donald McDonald, Maclean, Clanranald, Glengarry, Lochiel, and the Mackenzies. The King named a sum not exceeding two thousand pounds to be offered, or a dignity under an earldom, to any chief whose allegiance it might be necessary to buy at so high a price;¹ and to give these money operations more effect, a proclamation was emitted in August, 1691, commanding all the chiefs to take the oath of allegiance in the presence of a civil magistrate before the 1st of January, 1692, under the penalties of treason and military execution. The chiefs at first refused to rely on the promises of Breadalbane, and continued for months suspicious, but at length the most of them complied with the terms of the proclamation, and took the oath of allegiance.

¹ Leven and Melville Papers.

But there were some persons, and one man high in office in particular, who was greatly disappointed that the body of the Highland chiefs were yielding to the demands of the government. The individual specially offended at their submission was Sir John Dalrymple of Stair, who had been Lord-Advocate, and was then Secretary of State for Scotland. He was exceedingly anxious that a number of the clans should stand out, and thus afford an excuse for their complete slaughter; indeed, there is ample evidence that he was wildly angry, as his hope of exterminating the Celtic people became day by day less probable. In the end of October, 1691, he wrote: “It must be a strange inadventure if the Highlanders be not convinced of the King’s extraordinary goodness to them, when he is content to be at a charge to accommodate them, and give them the plain prospect of future peace, security, and advantage, when he can gratify many by destroying them with as little charge. And certainly, if there do remain any obstinacy, these advices will be taken. The King, by the offer of mercy, has sufficiently shown his good intentions, and by their ruin he will rid himself of a suspicious crew.” In November, 1691, he intimated to Breadalbane, “I wrote to you formerly, that if the rest were willing to concur, as the crows do, to pull down Glengarry’s nest this winter, so as the King be not hindered to draw four regiments from Scotland,――in that case destroying him and his clan, and garrisoning his house as a middle for communication between Inverlochy and Inverness, will be fully as acceptable as if he had come in. This answers all ends, and satisfies those who complain of the King’s too great gentleness.”¹ On the eve of the massacre, the Secretary wrote――“Just now, my lord, Argyle tells me that Glencoe has not taken the oaths, at which I rejoice; it’s a great work of charity to be exact in rooting out that damnable sept, the worst in all the Highlands.”²

¹ Sir John Dalrymple’s Memoirs, Volume II., page 265; Burton’s History of Scotland, Volume II., pages 525‒528, 1853.

² Graham’s _Annals and Correspondence of the Viscount, and the First and Second Earl of Stair_, Volume I., page 159, 1875.

Macdonald of Glencoe, owing to several untoward circumstances, was a few days behind the prescribed time for taking the oath of allegiance; but he did take it before the Sheriff of Argyle at Inveraray; and the sheriff forwarded it to the Privy Council in Edinburgh, but the clerks refused to take it. The upshot was that the massacre of the Chief of Glencoe, and all his retainers, was ordered by the King, and despatches sent to the commander of the forces in that quarter to execute it. The King’s instructions were issued on the 11th and 16th of January, 1692. The instructions of the later date touching Glencoe, were as follows:――“If Macdonald of Glencoe and that tribe can be well separated from the rest, it will be a proper vindication of public justice to extirpate that sept of thieves.――W. Rex.” On the same day Secretary Stair wrote to Livingstone, the Commander of the Forces: “I send you the King’s instructions, super and subscribed by himself. I am confident you will see there are full powers given you in very plain terms, and yet the method is left very much to your own discretion.” The result of these instructions was, that on the 1st of February, Campbell of Glenlyon, with a company of one hundred and twenty soldiers, entered Glencoe, and were hospitably treated in the homes of Macdonald and his clan for twelve days; but, on the cold stormy night of the 13th of February, 1692, the chief and forty of his clan were ruthlessly murdered by the King’s troops under Glenlyon. A number of the intended victims escaped, owing to the darkness of the night and the severity of the snowstorm, and fled almost naked to the rocks and mountains. The deserted houses of the doomed clan were burned down. The soldiers collected the property of their victims, which consisted of nine hundred cattle, and two hundred ponies, and a number of sheep and goats, and drove the whole to Fort William, where they were divided among the officers of the garrison.

Although the massacre was deliberately planned and treacherously executed, it was not nearly so complete as intended, for the storm prevented four hundred of the troops from reaching the scene till after the appointed hour. Considered politically, it was a hideous blunder, as it tended to render the clansmen more suspicious, and roused in their hearts a bitter hatred of the Government. Indeed the Government was much surprised at the sentiments of the people touching the massacre. Secretary Stair was greatly astonished when he heard the expressions in which he was characterised, and that his services to the King were bitterly assailed; but he openly declared that his only regret was, that every soul of the clan was not slain on that stormy morning. Several attempts have been made to free King William of the responsibility of the massacre, although he not only authorised it, but also by his subsequent action fully condoned it. The deed has left a stain on his character which time can never obliterate.¹

¹ The substance of the original information about the massacre is contained in the report of the commissioners who were appointed to investigate the matter on the 29th of April, 1695.

Parliament met at Edinburgh in April, 1693, with the Duke of Hamilton as royal commissioner. There was a feeling of uneasiness throughout the nation. A Jacobite rising was dreaded, as the massacre of Glencoe had raised the hopes of the Jacobites: it was accordingly enacted that the oath of allegiance should be taken, and a declaration of assurance subscribed, by which William and Mary were acknowledged as King and Queen, as well by right as in fact. All persons in office were commanded to take the oath of allegiance, and to sign the assurance; and in the latter a promise was made to maintain their Majesties’ title and government against the late King James and his adherents, and all other enemies.

Another act enjoined that no one should be admitted or continued as a minister in the Established Church, unless he had first taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance and the assurance, signed the Confession, and owned the established Presbyterian polity of the Church as the only true one, declaring that he would submit to it, and never attempt directly or indirectly to subvert it. The Estates requested the King to call a General Assembly for settling the affairs of the Church, and especially for admitting all the Episcopal ministers holding benefices to a share in her government who should qualify themselves as stated above; at the same time intimating that all who failed to qualify might be deposed, while all who complied would be protected in their livings.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 262‒264, 303.

It might have been expected that the Episcopal clergy would object to the oath of allegiance and assurance, but Parliament seems to have thought that the Presbyterian ministers would have no scruple in taking the oath of assurance――though when it came to be applied, they were found to be opposed to it on various grounds. They canvassed it sharply, and distinctly asked, “Where is there a point that has been more earnestly and obstinately disputed than the doctrine of deposing kings and magistrates? Are there not arguments brought from the Holy Scripture, from the nature of magistracy, from the peace of society, from the dreadful consequences, the vast deluge of blood, the lamentable dissolution of kingdoms, which have followed such undertakings? whereby many learned and pious men have endeavoured, at all times, to overthrow that king-dethroning power, which never can be practised without greater effusion of blood and violation of all rights than the greatest of tyrants have ever occasioned. And why, then, should Parliament at this time of day impose a yoke upon the Church, which neither we nor our fathers were made sensible of before? Amidst all the past struggles about controverted titles to the Crown, the Church was never bound by oath to either of the contending parties, and why should a party oath be imposed now?”¹

¹ M‘Cormick’s Life of Carstairs, pages 52‒56.

The Presbyterian ministers applied to the Privy Council to be relieved from taking the oath of assurance. But it was reported that the Council advised the King to insist that every minister should subscribe the oath before taking his seat in the ensuing General Assembly. The King seems to have been inclined to follow this course, but at last, on the advice of his chaplain, Carstairs, yielded the point; and when the Assembly met on the 29th of March, 1694, no attempt was made to force the oath of assurance on the members. The Assembly appointed a commission to receive into communion the Episcopal ministers who qualified themselves in terms of the recent Act of Parliament; but few of them sought admission into the Church on the prescribed conditions. Many of them, however, still remained in the parish churches; as yet, in the northern quarter of the kingdom, they were hardly touched. In the summer of 1694, the commission of the Assembly visited Aberdeen and Inverness, and attempted to displace the old clergy, but it was found to be impossible to proceed with the intended deprivations; in Aberdeen, and some country parishes, the people were attached to the Episcopal ministers, and would not allow them to be ejected. To meet this, Parliament in 1695 passed several acts. It was provided that a portion of the stipend of each of the vacant churches north of the Forth should be applied to pay temporary missionaries, appointed by the presbyteries to officiate in these churches. It was enacted that any one intruding themselves into a church, manse, or benefice, without a regular call and legal admission by the presbytery of the bounds, should be declared incapable of enjoying any church in the kingdom for a period of seven years after their removal from the church into which they had intruded. The Privy Council was ordered to remove those who had intruded into vacant churches since the establishment of the Presbyterian polity, without a regular call and legal admission. The deprived ministers were prohibited from celebrating marriages and baptisms under the penalty of imprisonment.¹

¹ M‘Cormick’s Life of Carstairs, pages 57‒64; _Acts of the General Assembly_; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 387, 415, 420.

But on the other hand, this session of Parliament passed some Acts more favourable to the Episcopal clergy. They were allowed a longer period for taking the oaths of allegiance and assurance. It was also enacted that all who qualified themselves within the appointed time should be permitted to continue in their manses and churches, and to perform their functions in these parishes, without taking part in ordination or Church government, unless duly assumed by a competent Church court. It was provided that all the Episcopal ministers thus qualified, should be free to apply or not to the Church court for admission to a share in her government, and that these courts should also be free to admit or not admit them, if they did apply. Under this act many of the Episcopal clergy continued in possession of their churches. Within three months, more than a hundred of them took advantage of its provisions, which were not fettered as former acts had been with any promise of conformity to Presbyterianism.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 491‒450; Burnet’s History of His Own Time, Volume IV., page 275.

There still remained a compact body of the Episcopal clergy who refused to make any move towards the King’s government or Presbyterianism, and these were naturally regarded as open enemies to the Revolution settlement, and usually classed amongst the Jacobites. Their religion was closely associated with their politics, and they became the active champions of the Jacobite party and the exiled King. The national records down to the Union are full of complaints against them. Even when the Jacobite incumbent had died, in some places it was found to be impossible, till after the lapse of several years, to plant a Presbyterian successor in his church. At the time of the Union there were one hundred and sixty-five Episcopal ministers within the pale of the Established Church, living in the manses, preaching in the pulpits, and enjoying the stipends, but gradually these died out, and then Presbyterian ministers took their places.¹

¹ Acts of the General Assembly; Skinner’s An Ecclesiastical History Of Scotland.

Since the Reformation the national mind had been pre-occupied with religious struggles, which were mixed up with politics; but its attention now became directed to different enterprises. Directly after the Revolution, the spirit of the nation began to incline more toward industry, to the erection of manufactories, to trade, and to commerce. Dreams of commercial greatness and vast wealth rose before the national imagination and captivated it; and one person appeared with dazzling schemes to satisfy the people and the cravings of the time. William Paterson had a mind overflowing with grand commercial projects, and it was reported that he had given hints which led to the establishment of several banking companies; but his enemies maliciously said that he had acquired his knowledge of foreign countries in his buccaneering adventures. As a part of the Isthmus of Darien was unoccupied by the Spaniards, Paterson formed the idea of founding on it a central emporium for the merchandise of the world. He thought that a link could be formed there to connect the trade of Europe and Asia, so that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans might be ploughed with ships from every quarter of the globe, directing their prows to that narrow neck of land, and thus enriching the Scots, who, by occupying the Isthmus, would hold the keys of the commercial world in their hands. The scheme assumed a definite form in an act of the Scotch parliament passed in June, 1695, which authorised the establishment of a trading company to America, Africa, and the Indies.

This act presented an outline of the scheme, and the powers and privileges of the company, and it was carefully drawn in all its details. In virtue of a former act passed in 1683, for encouraging foreign trade, and granting power to merchants to form companies for carrying on foreign trade, the new act sketched out the constitution of a joint-stock company very minutely, under the name of the Company of Scotland, trading to Africa and the Indies. The act empowered the company to equip, freight, and navigate their own or hired ships, in any manner which they thought fit, and to trade from any of the ports of Scotland, or the ports of other countries not at war with Britain; and to plant colonies, to build forts and towns, in any part of Asia, Africa, or America, in uninhabited places, or in other regions with the consent of the inhabitants, if such countries were not possessed by any European power: and with liberty to employ all lawful means for their own defence and protection, and the advancement of their special objects; and to make and conclude treaties of peace and commerce with kings, princes, or proprietors of lands or countries, in the above quarters of the globe. They were authorised if attacked to make reprisals. The company was to have the free right of their own property of all kinds, in whatever part of the world they might acquire, possess, and establish it; and simply acknowledging their allegiance to the King of Britain by the annual payments of a hogshead of tobacco, in name of blench duty, and that only if demanded. All other Scotsmen were prohibited from trading within the company’s privileges without their license, and they were empowered to seize on all intruders, “by force of arms, at our own hands,” for a period of twenty-one years. The ships, goods, and merchandise of the company were to be free from taxes and dues imposed by the parliament, for twenty-one years. It was arranged that only the half of the subscribed capital of the company could be held by persons non-resident in Scotland. The following are the names of some of the partners of the company recorded in the Act of Parliament:――Lord Belhaven, Adam Cockburn of Ormiston, the Lord Justice-Clerk, Sir John Maxwell of Pollok; George Clark, late bailie of Edinburgh; John Cross, merchant in Glasgow; William Paterson, Esquire, James ♦Foulis, David Nairn, Esquire, Thomas Deans, Esquire, and Walter Stuart, merchants in London; and all others joining with them within one year after the 1st of August, 1695. And these having assembled, were then to be regarded as an incorporate body, “and a free incorporation, with perpetual succession, by the name of the Company of Scotland, trading to Africa and the Indies.”¹

♦ “Fowlis” replaced with “Foulis”

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 377‒381.

Even though this company completely failed in its objects, its origin and formation are interesting and important events in the commercial history and civilisation of the nation: and therefore the following part of the original Act may be quoted:――“And farther, it is enacted that the company, by commission under their seal, may make and constitute all and each of their directors, governors, and commanders-in-chief, and other officers, civil or military, by land or by sea; as also that the company may enlist, enrol, hire, and retain all such persons, subjects of this kingdom, or others who shall be willing to enter into their service or pay, providing always that they uplift or levy none in this kingdom to be soldiers, without warrant from his Majesty or of his Privy Council, over which governors, commanders-in-chief, or other officers, and all in their service and pay, the company shall have the power, command, and disposition, both by sea and by land.... And lastly, all persons concerned in this company are hereby declared to be free denizens of this kingdom; and that they, with all that shall settle, or inhabit, or be born in any of the foresaid plantations, colonies, towns, factories, and other places, that shall be purchased and possessed by the company, shall be reputed as natives of this kingdom, and have the privileges thereof.”

The stock or subscribed capital of the company was to be £600,000. When the books were opened in London, in October, 1695, the £300,000 offered to the English merchants was quickly subscribed. But the enterprise soon aroused the jealousy of the privileged English companies. The English Parliament presented an address to the King against it, and the books and documents of the company were seized by the orders of the House of Commons. At last, they concluded that the directors of the company were guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour, for attempting such a thing, and that Lord Belhaven and the other Scotch nobles, whose names appeared as directors should be impeached. These hostile proceedings alarmed the London subscribers, and they slipped out of the company by failing to pay the instalments of their shares, and thus forfeited their stock. But this action of the English rather irritated than discouraged the promoters of the concern in Scotland; it seemed to have touched the national pride of the Scots, and they pushed on their enterprise. One month after the denunciations of the English Parliament, the books were opened in Edinburgh; and on the first day, the 26th of February, 1696, more than £50,000 was subscribed; and within five months £400,000 was subscribed. It seemed as if nearly all the realised capital of the nation had rushed into the project.

The company proceeded with remarkable energy. A house for conducting their business was erected in Edinburgh; and schemes of trading with Greenland, Archangel, and the Gold Coast, were considered; the possible improvements of machinery, the qualities of goods, and the exportable produce of the country were all under inquiry. Certainly the main points of the scheme presented a grasp of principles, a distinctness of conception, and a liberality of mind, which cast the mass of speculative trading adventures into the shade. The enterprise, as designed by Paterson, was to be conducted on free trade principles. He called on his countrymen to discard the narrow policy of British commerce; he contemplated a system for the good of mankind, and told his countrymen not to try to enrich themselves by making other nations poor, but to embrace such liberal policy as would be beneficial to all. His conduct throughout was that of a man of exceptional grasp of mind, and elevated above sordid considerations.

All the opposition of the English trading companies did not prevent the Scots from proceeding with their undertaking. The company purchased six vessels from the Dutch, and equipped them. On the 26th of July, 1698, three of their ships, with one thousand and two hundred men on board, sailed from Leith, amidst the tears and prayers of a vast concourse of people, all deeply interested in the success of the enterprise. On the 4th of November they landed at a point on the Gulf of Darien. They built a fort to command the Gulf, and marked two sites for towns, which they proposed to call New Edinburgh and New St. Andrews. They purchased the land which they occupied from the natives, and sent friendly messages to all the Spanish governors within their reach. Their first public act was a declaration of freedom of trade and religion to all nations.

But their privations soon began; and the causes of the failure of the undertaking are easily discovered. There was a lack of trading skill and experience among the emigrants; they had not a definite political organisation for the preservation of order, the prime requisite of all probable success. Further, there was no adequate provision made for sending instructions and receiving assistance from home, which was a lamentable want of foresight. From their arrival till June of the following year, they received no communication from Scotland. It was too sanguinely believed that the colony had departed to a country abounding in the good things of life, and it was assumed that they could at least obtain food by the sale of their merchandise; but much of their stuff was damaged, and for the rest there was no market. By and by they began to feel the sad pressure of want, while the unhealthy influences of the climate told severely upon them, and the combined effects of insufficient food and pestilence rapidly reduced their numbers. The disheartening and trying task of burying their dead shortly arrested their energy; and when spring came, nothing but certain death awaited them if they remained. They, therefore, resolved to leave the settlement, and within eight months from the time they landed, they evacuated it. They placed themselves in their ships, which from the number of the sick and the enfeebled state of all, were only imperfectly manned. They sailed in June, 1699, two of their ships reaching New York in August; but two hundred of the men died on the passage, and those alive were almost exhausted, and few survived. The third ship landed in Jamaica.

At the very time when the baffled colonists were preparing to flee from pestilence, and leaving the settlement, the company at home was fitting out another expedition. Two ships sailed in May, 1699, and other four in the month of August, carrying the provisions and stores which should have been despatched sooner. In September, the same year, a third expedition was sent out, consisting of one thousand and three hundred men, with stores of merchandise and provisions. So little anticipation had the directors of the company of the sad tidings then coming to Scotland, that they commissioned a ship to seek out a new site for a second colony on the western coast of Africa. When the unwelcome rumour first reached the country, the news was received with incredulity and treated with scorn, as a weak invention of the enemy; but the disagreeable truth of the failure of the enterprise soon forced itself upon the nation. Then a storm of wrath arose among all classes of the people. The conduct of the English colonial governments, and the long silence of the King himself, who had been repeatedly addressed on the subject, but never had been moved to promise anything, was denounced. Still the company determined to persist in their undertaking, and the third expedition was instructed to join the second, which had sailed in ignorance of the fate of the first, and to retake the colony by force.

But the arrival of the second expedition at its destination quickly dispelled all the dreams which had been formed. They found the fort destroyed and the huts burned down, while the chief indication of their countrymen was their numerous graves. In the winter, their friends who had left Scotland in September joined them, but they were all in a desponding state of mind. Meanwhile the Spaniards were preparing to overthrow the settlement. After one successful military effort, in which a small body of the Colonists attacked and defeated a portion of the Spanish army, they were besieged both by sea and land. In March, 1700, they capitulated to the Spaniards, and left the colony; but only a few of them ever returned to their native country.

The failure of this settlement was the death-blow of the American and African Company of Scotland, and although they continued their trading on a limited scale for some time, almost the whole of their capital was absorbed and lost. This great loss to a poor country added much to the troubles at home, and was widely and severely felt.¹

¹ Darien Papers, printed for Bannatyne Club; A Collection of State Tracts published in the Reign of King William; A Defence of the Scots Settlement at Darien, 1699; Memoirs of Darien, 1714.

When the definite tidings of the final evacuation of the Darien settlement arrived in Scotland, the nation rose to a height of frenzy rarely manifested. The Jacobites were extremely wroth, and exerted themselves to the utmost to fan the national indignation as a weapon of opposition to the King and the Government. The national pride of the Scots was deeply wounded. They were strongly disposed to attribute the failure of the colony to the jealousy and the action of the English and the King, and they had some grounds for this. The Scots could not see that the causes of the failure of their trading company and its colony were mainly within itself, and were to be found in the natural result of a lack of foresight, of defective organisation, and their own mismanagement; but any thoughts of this were drowned amid the torrents of indignation which spread to every home in the kingdom. “When the news of the total abandoning of Darien was brought over, it cannot be well expressed into how bad a temper this cast the body of the people; they had now lost almost two hundred thousand pounds sterling upon this project, besides the imagined treasure that they had promised themselves from it; so that the nation was raised into a sort of fury upon it, and in the first heat of that, a remonstrance was sent about the kingdom for names, representing to the King the necessity of a present sitting of Parliament, which was drawn in so high a strain, as if they had resolved to pursue the effects of it by armed force. It was signed by a great majority of the Members of Parliament; and the ferment in men’s spirits was raised so high, that few thought it could have been long curbed, without breaking forth into great extremities.”¹

¹ Burnet’s History of His Own Time, Volume IV., page 421.

Early in the year 1700 the directors of the company and the representatives of the shareholders resolved to address the King. They selected Lord Hamilton to present their appeal to his Majesty, but he was refused an audience, and reprimanded for his conduct. It was then proposed to present a national address to the King, requesting him to assemble Parliament, and to submit the affairs of the company to it; but this was met by a proclamation against addresses, which still farther roused the spirit of discontent and opposition to the Government. When the Parliament met on the 21st of May, 1700, the Duke of Queensberry, the royal commissioner, and the Earl of Marchmont, delivered speeches, and enlarged upon the good work which the Revolution settlement had accomplished, the gratitude due to the King for this, and his other manifold services to the Protestant religion and to Europe, and the imprudence of insisting on anything that would be likely to weaken his Majesty’s influence and power. This was followed by an address from the directors of the trading company and their Darien settlement, and also by petitions and addresses from many of the counties and the towns, all complaining bitterly about the Darien colony and the great loss which the nation had suffered. It was moved that Parliament should resolve to maintain the new colony as a legal and rightful settlement, but the royal commissioner cut the discussion short by adjourning the Parliament till he should receive new instructions from the King.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume X., pages 183, 195, and Appendix, pages 33‒42.

After this the opposition held a great meeting, and despatched an address to the King. The General Assemblies which met in 1700, and in 1701, proclaimed a national fast, with special reference to the calamity which the failure of the project had brought upon the nation. Another national address to the King was largely signed, but ere it reached him he emitted a proclamation of a vague description, and merely expressed his sympathy for the misfortunes of the Scots.¹

¹ Carstairs’ Papers, pages 514‒523, 525‒531, 533, 538, 543‒547, 551‒580, 582, et seq.

Parliament reassembled in the end of October, 1700, but the members were not satisfied with the King’s letter. It expressed sympathy and regret for the loss sustained by the African Company, and even offered aid, and promised to support any new projects calculated to promote the national prosperity. But the King stated distinctly that he could not agree to the assertion of the right of the company’s colony in Darien, though very willing to assist them in other ways.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume X., pages 196, 201.

Parliament was soon overwhelmed with addresses and petitions from all ranks and every quarter of the kingdom. The majority of the house supported the petitions, and moved and adopted resolutions condemning the interference of the English Parliament, and the proclamations issued against the interest of the Darien settlement by the governors of the English colonies. Several pamphlets which appeared touching and reflecting on the Darien settlement, were denounced in Parliament as scandalous and caluminous libels, and they were ordered to be burned by the hand of the common hangman at the Market Cross of Edinburgh. The indignation in Parliament and outside continued, and after much debate the address to the King concerning the Darien settlement was carried by one hundred and one votes to sixty-one, on the 17th of January, 1701. It is a well-drawn and able paper, and presented a complete vindication of the company, and of the legality and lawfulness of their Darien settlement, a true and fatal impeachment of the proceedings of the King and his English Parliament in the matter. It gave a concise résumé of the whole concern.¹ Besides other points, the address contained four resolutions:――1. The votes and proceedings of the English Parliament touching the company, which were condemned as an undue interference in the affairs of Scotland, “and an invasion upon the sovereignty and independence of our King and parliament.” 2. Declaring that the action of the English Envoy at Luxemburg, which was injurious to the interest of the company, “contrary to the law of nations and an open encroachment upon the sovereignty and independence of this Crown and Kingdom.” 3. Condemning the proceedings and the proclamations emitted by the governors of the English plantations against the Darien Colony. 4. Declaring that though the settlement in Darien was formed in exact conformity with the company’s Act of Parliament, the Spaniards had treated the colonists as enemies and pirates; “that our Indian and African Company’s Colony of Caledonia in Darien, in the Continent of America, was, and is legal and rightful.”

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume X., page 208, 241, 242, 244‒246, 248‒251, and Appendix, pages 73‒92.

The attitude of Scotland was becoming threatening and extremely troublesome to the English government. The plan of a complete union was again attempted, but the difficulties on both sides were great and constantly deepening. The relations between the two kingdoms were strained and pressing, and a bill for appointing commissioners to treat concerning a union was passed in the House of Lords on the 25th of February, 1700, and sent to the House of Commons. But at the second reading in the Lower House it was thrown out. The King saw clearly that the only way of maintaining peace in Scotland was by a union of the two nations; and on the 28th of February, 1701, he reminded the House of Commons of his proposal regarding the union. But the King died on the 8th of March, 1702.

The accession of Queen Anne was hailed with applause both in England and in Scotland. The Revolution Parliament, which had lasted throughout the reign of William, reassembled at Edinburgh on the 19th of June, 1702, passed resolutions touching the Darien concern, and appointed commissioners to treat with England on the proposal of a union between the two kingdoms. The English Parliament passed a bill authorising the appointment of commissioners to treat of the union, and the commissioners of both nations opened their proceedings on the 10th of November, 1702. It soon became manifest that the admission of the Scots to equal trading rights was the chief difficulty on the south side of the Tweed. The first point concerning the succession to the throne was shortly agreed to; and the second, stipulating that there should be only one legislature for the United Kingdom. But when the Scotch commissioners insisted on equal trading advantages the old difficulty reappeared, the Scots insisting on free trade between the two kingdoms, and that this should be considered without reference to existing companies. They held many meetings, but could not agree on the trading privileges; and on the 3rd of February, 1703, they were adjourned by the Queen, and met no more.

In the spring of 1703, Scotland was greatly agitated by the elections for the new Parliament summoned by the Queen. The Jacobites exerted themselves to the utmost, and succeeded in returning a considerable number of their party. The new house met on the 16th of May. The Duke of Queensberry presented himself as royal commissioner, and the business of this memorable parliament began in earnest. All the laws in favour of presbyterianism were ratified, and it was declared to be high treason to speak against the Claim of Right. The Earl of Strathmore proposed a bill for the toleration of all Protestants, but it was rejected.

Parliament then proceeded to deal with the secular affairs which had filled the national mind for several years, and a series of rather alarming acts were passed. One act announced that the sovereign had no right to make war on the part of Scotland without the consent of the Scotch Parliament; and another――at which the Jacobites rejoiced ――removed the restrictions upon the importation of French wines, thus opening up a trade with the enemy of England. Some proposals of a republican character were mooted, Fletcher proposing to take the patronage of offices from the Crown and place it in the hands of Parliament.

On the act for the security of the kingdom there was a long and vehement debate, from the 28th of May to the 16th of September, but at last it was carried by a majority. Its main points enacted that on the demise of the Queen without issue, the Estates were to appoint a successor from the Protestant descendants of the royal line of Scotland; but the recognised successor to the throne of England was directly excluded from their choice, unless such conditions of government was settled as would secure the honour and sovereignty of this kingdom, and free religion and the trade of the nation from English or any other foreign influence. The coronation oath was not to be administered without instructions from Parliament, under the penalty of high treason. Another clause of the act commanded that the nation should be immediately placed in a state of defence, and all the able-bodied men mustered under their usual leaders. The royal assent was refused to this act, which raised another storm of denunciation against the English. Some of the members talked of rather dying like freemen than living as slaves; and when attempts were made to stem their passions, they said, if denied the freedom of expressing their opinions and wishes in Parliament, they would proclaim them with their swords.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI.

This fierce antagonism between the two kingdoms could not endure, and in the face of all obstacles the Union was approaching. Parliament reassembled on the 6th of July, 1704. The Marquis of Tweeddale was royal commissioner; and the Queen’s letter expressed the gravity of the situation. She appealed to Parliament to settle the succession, but they directly passed a resolution not to name a successor to the Crown till a satisfactory treaty with England for the regulation of trade was concluded, and meanwhile adopted measures to secure the independence of the kingdom. The Act of Security was again passed, and now received the royal assent. Under this act the Scots began to arm, and once more prepared in earnest to give battle to their enemy, if he should finally refuse to accede to reasonable demands.¹

¹ Ibid.

The English Parliament in 1705 passed an act authorising a treaty of Union to be negotiated between England and Scotland. The Crown was empowered to appoint commissioners to meet and treat with any body of commissioners authorised by the Scotch Parliament, and to place the result of their proceedings before the Queen and the parliaments of both kingdoms. The last clause of the bill restricted the commissioners from making “any alteration of the liturgy, ceremonies, discipline, or government of the Church, as by law established.”

The Scotch Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 28th of June, 1705, and the proposal of the English Parliament for a Union was to be the great business before it. There was a change in the ministry, and the Duke of Argyle appeared as the royal commissioner. He was deemed the most likely man to promote the important measure which had become necessary for the security, happiness, and civilisation of the people. The task, however, was still surrounded with many difficulties. The Jacobites were a strong and compact party, determined to oppose the Union at every step; and if possible to defeat all attempts to settle the Crown on the Revolution principles. But a majority of the Parliament resolved to hold to the demands for free trade and colonial rights: these were the views of the National party led by Fletcher, and yet some of the chief men of this party were strongly opposed to the incorporating provisions of the Treaty. In the early part of the session various acts were introduced and discussed, touching the currency, the herring fishing, prohibiting the importation of goods, and other matters connected with trade; but the subsequent and more important resolutions regarding the Union rendered these of less importance.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI., pages 205, 213‒219, et seq.; Hume’s Diary, pages 62‒70.

On the 13th of July, a draft of the act and commission for the treaty with England was read in Parliament; and on the 25th of August, it was again brought before the house. A long and hot debate ensued on it, and several amendments were proposed. But on 1st of September the act was carried, authorising the appointment of commissioners; the Duke of Athole, with a considerable number of followers protesting. The same day the question of who should nominate the commissioners was brought up. Were they to be appointed by Parliament, or referred to the discretion of the Queen? The Duke of Hamilton moved that the nomination of the commissioners should be left to the Queen. Fletcher of Saltoun bitterly opposed this, and the Jacobites joined him with all their might; the point was warmly debated, but in vain. Hamilton’s motion was carried by a majority of forty. The Duke of Athole again protested, and the Jacobites adhered to him.¹ The Jacobites were extremely enraged at this vote, as they considered it the key of the position; and one of their leaders who recorded his protest along with Athole, expressed his judgment of the matter in these words:――“From this day we may date the commencement of Scotland’s ruin; and any person that will be at the pains to reflect upon the management of this affair must be the more enraged when he sees how easily it might have been, and yet was not, prevented: for if the first restricting clause (which was lost by the unaccountable neglect of some members) had been carried, we should not have had one word more of the Treaty; or had the nomination been left to the Parliament, those of the commissioners that represented the barons would have been so well chosen that they might easily have obstructed the Treaty from being brought to such a conclusion as afterwards happened.”²

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI., pages 218, 224, 235‒237; also Appendix, pages 83, 86‒87; Hume’s Diary, pages 70‒71.

² Lockhart’s Memoirs, Volume I., pages 133‒134.

The scope of the act indicated the general object of the Treaty. But it contained one special condition, “that the commissioners shall not treat of or concerning any alteration of the worship, discipline, and government of the Church of this kingdom, as now by law established.”¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI., page 295.

The number of the Union Commissioners was thirty-one on each side. On the Scotch side the Queen or her advisers had exercised a marked discretion in naming the list of Commissioners. A well-considered effort was certainly made to represent all the different parties of the nation; even the Jacobites were represented by one of their ablest men, Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath. This Jacobite leader gives a list of the names of all the Commissioners on both sides, and adds the following remarks on them:――“All these were of the Court or Whig interest, except Mr. Lockhart in the Scots, and the Archbishop of York in the English commission. This last, as was reported, was named merely out of respect to the dignity of the office he bore, but would not be present so much as once at the Treaty; the other because being my Lord Warton’s nephew, they expected to carry him off. And as he was surprised at his being named, so he had no inclination for the employment, and was at first resolved not to have accepted it; but his friends and those of his party believed he might be serviceable by giving an account how matters were carried on, and prevailed with him to alter his resolution.... And having communicated to them his difficulties, he desired their advice and direction how he should behave, and particularly whether or not he should protest and enter his dissent against those measures, being resolved to receive instructions from them as a warrant for his procedure, and to justify his conduct; to whom they all unanimously returned this answer, that if he should protest, he could not well continue longer to meet with the other commissioners; and if he entered his dissent, it would render him odious to them, so as he would be utterly incapable to learn anything that might be useful afterwards in opposing their designs; whereas if he sat quiet, concealed his opinions as much as possible, they expecting to persuade him to leave his old friends and party, would not be so shy, and he might make discoveries of their designs, and thereby do a singular service to his country. Therefore they agreed in advising him neither to protest nor dissent, nor do anything that might discover his opinions and design, but to sit silent, making his remarks of everything that passed, and to remain with them as long as he possibly could; and then at last, before signing of the result of the Treaty, to find some excuse or other of absenting himself.”¹

¹ Lockhart’s Memoirs, Volume I., pages 141‒3.

The difficulties of the task before the Commissioners were enormous. Almost every kind of conflicting interest which absorbs the human mind, the opposition springing out of national pride and vanity, a mass of traditional and inherited prejudice, and adverse sentiments and feelings――the growth of ages――all had to be set aside and overcome. Thus it was, that when the Union was concluded, the diverse elements, adverse to its spirit, were so great in Scotland, that a generation or two passed away, ere the blessings and advantages of it to the people of this kingdom began to be fully appreciated and recognised. Indeed the Jacobite party believed and proclaimed that Scotland was utterly ruined by the Union; while many others, not influenced by party feelings, were strongly disposed to take the most gloomy view of what proved to be one of the most beneficial events in the history of the country.

The Commissioners met at Whitehall on the 16th of April, 1706. There had before been many attempts to form a union of the two kingdoms, but this time the Commissioners on both sides really wished to accomplish it; and they were fully impressed with the vast importance of the matter, and prepared to make every reasonable concession for the mutual advantage of both nations. Their proceedings from beginning to end bore the impress of sincerity and earnestness. They proceeded systematically, and approaching the subject before them step by step, acted with great tact and judgment. Their whole proceedings form an admirable specimen of methodical negotiation, and the arduous undertaking was completed on the 23rd of July. Before putting the Treaty into the form of articles, they had to discuss and to deliberate on many subjects and complicated points: such as the relative taxation, the customs, the excise, and the revenue of both kingdoms, the coinage, weights and measures; the number of the Scotch representatives in the united Parliament in both the Upper and in the Lower Houses; and many other difficult questions touching political relations and organisation. According to the terms of the commission, a copy of the Treaty was presented to the Queen, and her Majesty made the following speech:――“My Lords, I give you thanks for the great pains you have taken in this Treaty, and am very well pleased to find that your endeavours and applications have brought it to so good a conclusion. The particulars of it seem so reasonable, that I hope they will meet with approbation in the Parliaments of both kingdoms. I wish, therefore, that my servants of Scotland may lose no time in going down to propose it to my subjects of that kingdom; and I shall always look upon it as a particular happiness, if this Union, which will be so great a security and advantage to both kingdoms, can be accomplished in my reign.”¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI., Appendix, pages 161‒191.

It was agreed to take the first legislative sanction of the Treaty in Scotland, with the aim of soothing the opposition which it was sure to encounter. The Scottish Parliament was therefore assembled at Edinburgh on the 3rd of October, 1706, to hold its fourth and last session. The Earl of Queensberry was appointed Royal Commissioner, and the Earl of Mar, Secretary of State; the latter was well informed about the designs of the Jacobite party. According to Lockhart, “Mar gained the favour of all the Tories, and was by many of them esteemed an honest man, and well inclined to the royal family. Certain it is, he vowed and protested so much many a time; but no sooner was the Marquis of Tweeddale and his party dispossessed, than he returned as the dog to his vomit, and promoted all the Court of England’s measures with the greatest zeal imaginable.... His great talent lay in the cunning management of his designs and projects, in which it was hard to find him out.”¹ A great and sustained effort was made in many parts of the kingdom to arouse popular feeling and passion against the Union, and some strange combinations were attempted; some of the Cameronians were ready to assume a form of opposition which exactly suited the Jacobites, though when they came to act side by side with their old enemies, they began to see their folly.

¹ Lockhart’s Memoirs.

A large number of pamphlets and papers were published against the Union, and circulated throughout the country, which appealed to every prejudice and feeling that was likely to rouse the passions and wrath of the populace. The religious sentiments and convictions of the people were industriously stirred. Those who were proud of the deeds of their ancestors and of national glory, were emphatically told that the ancient renown and independence of the kingdom was to be extinguished for ever. Many past generations of Scotsmen had fought and struggled for their rights, their liberties, and their freedom, endured hardship, persecution and every form of privation; but now the degenerate sons of such a brave and noble race were about to barter away their glorious inheritance. What a disgrace, to be stigmatised by all succeeding ages to the end of time!

Though the outside pressure against the Union was strong and bitter, the government was well prepared to meet it. Many addresses and petitions were presented to Parliament against the Union, but of course there were petitions in favour of it, and the Church threw her influence on the side of the government; still it seemed that the volume of popular feeling was with the opposition, and Parliament began its arduous work amid threatening circumstances.

In the Queen’s speech to the Estates the following sentence occurs: ――“The Union has been long desired by both nations, and we shall esteem it as the greatest glory of our reign to have it now perfected, being fully persuaded that it must prove the greatest happiness of our people.” At the first sitting, the Treaty was read and ordered to be printed, and copies delivered to the Members of Parliament, while the minutes of the Union Commissioners were ordered to be printed. On the 12th of October, the articles of the Treaty were read one by one, and then discussed at the different sittings from the 12th to the 30th of the month, making suggestions as they proceeded, but taking no divisions. A mob had threatened and insulted several of the members on the streets of the capital on the 23rd of October, and a party of the foot-guards had to be called out to quell the disturbance, and to protect Parliament, but no lives were lost.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 300‒311.

The first real effort of the opposition was made on the 4th of November, when it was moved that a vote should be taken on the first article of the Treaty of Union, upon the understanding “that if the other articles of the Union be not adjusted by the Parliament, then the agreeing to the first one shall be of no effect,” and that immediately after settling the first article, Parliament proceed to an act for securing the doctrine and the government of the Established Church. A long debate ensued. The Duke of Hamilton delivered an animated speech on Scottish nationality; Seton of Pitmedden spoke in favour of the Union in a calm and well-reasoned speech; but the great speech of the night was Lord Belhaven’s. It was a long torrent of denunciatory rhetoric against the Union, delivered with passionate vehemence. It seems to have produced little impression on the members; but it was intended more for the outside public than for them, and was widely circulated amongst the people. A sentence or two may be quoted:――“I see the English constitution remaining firm; the same Houses of Parliament; the same taxes, customs, and excise; the same trading companies, laws, and judicatures; whilst ours are either subjected to new regulations, or are annihilated for ever. And for what? that we may be admitted to the honour of paying their old arrears, and presenting a few witnesses to attest the new debts, which they may be pleased to contract. Good God! is this an entire surrender? My heart bursts with indignation and grief, at the triumph which the English will obtain to-day, over a fierce and warlike nation that has struggled to maintain its independence so long!” An amendment was proposed, declaring that the nation was averse to an incorporating union; that if it was accepted by Parliament in its present form, instead of bringing peace it would cause dismal distractions among the Scots themselves, and fatal breaches and confusion between the two nations; and therefore it was proposed to retain the sovereignty and independence of the monarchy, the fundamental constitution of the government as established by the Claim of Right and the laws of this kingdom. After this amendment was debated, the motion put to the house was, “Approve of the first article of the Union――yes or no.” Before the vote was taken, the Duke of Athole protested for himself and his adherents, that an incorporating union as proposed in this Treaty “is contrary to the honour, the interest, the fundamental laws, and the constitution of this kingdom; the birthright of the peers, the rights and privileges of the barons and the burghs, and the property and the liberty of the subjects.” The motion for approving the article was then put and carried by a majority of thirty-three; and throughout the subsequent proceedings on the Union, the government retained about this majority, in spite of all the efforts of the Jacobites.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI., pages 312‒315.

From this date till near the end of December, at almost every sitting addresses were presented and read against the Union. On the 30th November, a printed paper was laid before parliament, entitled, “An Account of the Burning of the Articles of the Union at Dumfries. Bearing the declaration read and affixed on the Market Cross thereof by the crowd assembled on that occasion. And it being moved, that inquiry should be made as to who had been the printer and the ingiver of this scurrilous paper, and that it be burned by the hands of the hangman, it was left to the committee to call for the magistrates of Edinburgh, and to make inquiry and trial touching the ingiver of this paper;” and “Ordains also, that this scurrilous print be burned at the Market Cross of Edinburgh, on Monday next, between eleven and twelve in the forenoon. And the magistrates of Edinburgh appointed to see the orders punctually executed.”¹ But the Treaty was pressed forward, and on the last day of November they had reached the eighth article, and remitted it with some of the preceding ones to a committee. Amendments and additions were made to some of the articles, and a clause was inserted in the Treaty definitely stating that the Presbyterian Church should continue unalterable in her worship, doctrine, and government, “to the people of this land in all succeeding generations.”²

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI., page 344.

² Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI., pages 316‒344, 413.

The parts of the Treaty relating to trade and commerce were generally satisfactory to the Scots, and were adopted with slight modifications. The nineteenth article of the Union sanctioned the retention of the judicial organisation of Scotland. The weakest point of the Treaty was the twentieth article, which affirmed “that all heritable offices, superiorities, heritable jurisdictions, offices for life, and jurisdictions for life, be reserved to the owners thereof, as rights of property, in the same manner as they are now enjoyed by the laws of Scotland, notwithstanding of this Treaty.” Probably the Scotch nobles would not have submitted to the curtailment of these rights which had descended to them from remote ages, for they were very proud, and placed a high value on their privileges.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI., pages 345‒385. A good illustration of the peculiar pride of the Scotch nobles may be seen in the records of parliament. At the opening of almost every session a number of them protested regarding the precedence of their names on the rolls of parliament.

The Jacobites resolved to make their last grand effort to defeat the Union on the twenty-second article, which apportioned the share of representation from Scotland in the Imperial Parliament. This article was read on the 7th of January, 1707, and the debate continued through four sittings. It was vehemently discussed point by point, and six protests were entered against the first paragraph, which were followed by more menacing counter-protests as each clause of the article was carried. The fierce and noisy proceedings of the Jacobites were unavailing, as the article was finally carried on the 10th of January. The same day an address from the citizens of Perth against the Union was presented and read in the House.¹ The remaining articles of the Union were passed on the 14th of January; and on the 16th an act was passed approving and ratifying the Treaty of Union by a majority of forty-one.²

¹ Ibid., Volume XI., pages 386‒387; Lockhart’s Memoirs, Volume I., pages 206‒220. It is now curious and amusing to read the sentiments of the Jacobites on the Union which was to bring certain ruin upon the nation. “It is not to be expressed what a rage all those that had been upon the concert, nay, I may say, the whole nation, were in, to see the Duke of Hamilton thus three times, one after another, break the designs and measures that were laid down for opposing the designed slavery of the nation.... The courtiers were resolved not to swallow a cow and stick at the tail; and as they had begun, carried on, and finished their projects, contrary to all the ties of justice and honour, and the welfare of the country, so they continued the same well-pathed road, and commenced the Union with as great an invasion upon the rights of the subject, by depriving them of the powers of naming their own representatives, as ever was done to a free people.”――Ibid., pages 214‒221.

² Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI., pages 399‒406.

The twenty-second article of the Union limited the representation of Scotland to forty-five members in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and to sixteen peers in the House of Lords. Parliament next proceeded to frame regulations for returning their representatives to the British Parliament, should the Union be carried in England. After some debate, it was agreed that the representative Peers from Scotland in the United Parliament should be chosen by election, in the form still followed. At every general election, when the new Parliament is returned, the body of the Scottish Peerage meet at Holyrood, and elect sixteen of their own number to represent them in the House of Lords. The forty-five Scotch members to be sent to the House of Commons were divided between the counties and the burghs thus――fifteen were given to the burghs and thirty to the counties; Edinburgh got one representative to itself, and the other burghs were classed into fourteen groups. The body of electors in Scotland after the Union was not numerous; but the election of the representatives from Scotland to the first United Parliament was not left with them. By an act of the Estates, the members of the Union Parliament themselves elected the representatives to the first Imperial Parliament, in the same way as committees were usually chosen. Some other matters were arranged; and on the 25th of March, the Royal Commissioner having addressed a few words to the members, parliament was adjourned and met no more.¹

¹ Ibid., pages 415‒421, 491, 431, 485, 491.

On the 28th of January, 1707, the Queen intimated to the English Parliament that the Union had been ratified in Scotland, and she directed it to be put before the House. The Treaty passed through both Houses without encountering much opposition, and on the 6th of March it received the royal assent, and henceforth became a part of the Constitution of the United Kingdom.

Viewing the Union as a mean to an end, and excepting the Battle of Bannockburn, and the Reformation, there is scarcely an event in the history of Scotland, which has had more effect on the welfare of the people than it. From an industrial and commercial standpoint, it exceeded in importance any other event in the preceding history of the nation. In short, the Union rendered the future development of civilisation in Scotland more easy, more rapid, and more complete, as it immensely widened the field of trading and commercial enterprise to the Scots, and directly tended to afford greater security to them at home and abroad. The Scots had always a fund of energy and power of endurance, but external obstacles and surrounding circumstances had long retarded their progress; hence when the nation was placed under more favourable external conditions by the Union, and the people once fairly began to embrace these advantages, they advanced in wealth and in civilisation with remarkable speed.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter XXIX

Causes of Disaffection: Risings of 1715 and 1745.

NO reasonable historian of the present age would maintain that the Union was not a wise and beneficial measure; yet such were the circumstances of the Scots, that nearly half a century passed ere they were able to take the full advantage of it. So vast a change could not be effected without rousing passions and bitter feelings in the hearts of many, which nothing but time could efface. To give a brief exposition of the causes of this will be the aim of the present chapter.

It was the earnest desire of the Scots to obtain equal commercial rights which made the Union possible and endurable. Prior to the Union the Scots were permitted to trade only where the English Government thought fit; while after it there was no limitation――their ships might trade with the remotest quarters of the world. Another very important arrangement was the coinage. In 1708 the Scottish coins were finally called in, and preparations were made for a coinage exactly on the method of the English mint. Thus one of the good results of the Union was soon obtained; as the convenience and advantage of only one coinage and standard of money for the Island is obvious.

Although the Scots relinquished their separate legislative power, they gained a position and share in the government of a larger nation, and in the honour and glory of the British Empire. As they retained their own laws and legal organisations, and their religious and educational institutions, the great change implied in the Union embraced many elements of moral advantage. Scottish nationality and patriotism have continued essentially unimpaired, but much of its prejudice and narrowness, which the strife of preceding ages had generated, has been slowly thrown off. It is always true that a people’s own country and affairs are of prime importance to them; yet a people which limited all their faculties and energies to the internal affairs of their own country, would be emphatically characterised as a narrow-minded and unsympathetic community. If all our political institutions and social organisations were expressly framed and exclusively directed to this one end, it would manifest a weak and contemptible ideal of humanity. From these and many other considerations, it appears that the Union afforded inestimable moral benefits.

The Union conferred many advantages, but it also entailed disadvantages, in political and legislative relations. It might be assumed that the united deliberation and counsel of the British Parliament would be more competent to frame wise and useful legislative measures than a Scottish Parliament. This would depend on the accuracy of the information which the British Parliament possessed concerning the opinions and convictions of the Scottish people and of their institutions, as, from a lack of this, it has occasionally inflicted pain and injustice on the people. An instructive instance occurred after the rising of 1715, touching the disposal of the forfeited estates. Parliament placed the control of the matter in the hands of a Commission, which proceeded to sell the estates. A number of creditors, however, who had claims on the estates applied to the Court of Session, and sequestration was granted. The Commissioners entirely failed to understand this proceeding, and complained to the Government that they were prevented from discharging their duty by a body calling itself the Court of Session; and therefore they asked the Government to increase their powers. The British Parliament passed an act which ignored the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, in direct violation of the stipulations of the Union, and in spite of the protest of the Scotch judges.

In finance and fiscal arrangements the British Parliament has not generally treated Scotland worse than England. Although, for a generation or two after the Union much irritation was caused by changes and rearrangements in this branch of government, of which a few examples may be narrated. Ale was a staple necessary in the domestic economy and trade of the nation. At the time of the Union there was no malt tax in Scotland, but there was a duty on liquor. In 1713 a malt tax of 6 pence per bushel was imposed upon Scotland, though the Scotch members in both Houses of Parliament determinedly opposed it. At this date there were upwards of five thousand maltsters in Scotland; and in June the tax was ordered to be enforced. “But such was the general and determined resolution of the inhabitants not to submit, that the officers of excise for several years were everywhere refused access to survey and charge the duty; and that when charged it was never paid, nor could it be recovered by proceedings at law, as the justices of peace in all the counties refused to act. The consequence was that, during the twelve years after the 24th of June 1713, while the tax continued at 6 pence per bushel, the duty actually levied amounted to a mere trifle, and fell considerably short of the necessary expense attending this branch of the revenue.”

In 1724, the Government wished to raise £20,000 by a tax on Scotch ale. Parliament passed an Act proposing to levy 6 pence per barrel on ale instead of the malt tax, and to exclude the Scots from the bounty on exported grain, which was to be continued in England. The nation vehemently resented the proposal, and protested against it. The Jacobites used every means to fan the wrath of the people against the Government, and there were signs of an outburst of violence. It was relinquished, and a malt tax of 3 pence per bushel imposed. As £20,000 had to be drawn from the Scots, it was enacted that, if the tax of 3 pence failed to produce the amount, it must be made up by a surcharge on maltsters.

The Act came into operation in June, 1725, and the citizens of Glasgow manifested a sullen attitude when the excisemen were preparing to enforce it. The following day they appeared in crowds on the streets; and the magistrates having failed to disperse them, a party of soldiers were called into the city. Shouts were raised against Campbell of Shawfield, their member of parliament, who was suspected of having assisted the Government. They said, as he had already betrayed them, now he was to enslave them beneath a military yoke, and slay them if they resisted. At night they attacked his house and laid it in ruins. Next morning the mob appeared and jeered at the soldiers on guard; and their Commander ordered them to turn out and form square, and, without the authority of the Provost, commanded them to fire on the crowd. Eight of the citizens were killed and many wounded. The crisis was reached. The people ran to an old armoury, and having armed themselves, at once presented so threatening a front that it was feared all the soldiers would be massacred, but the officer marched them to Dumbarton. A regiment of infantry, seven troops of dragoons, and a company of Highlanders, from General Wade’s force, were sent into Glasgow, and quietness was restored. Criminal proceedings were instituted, and the magistrates of Glasgow were seized and imprisoned in Edinburgh. The charges against them were abandoned; but a few of the rioters were punished. The captain in command of the party who fired upon the crowd, was tried and condemned, but received a royal pardon. The citizens of Glasgow were deeply offended; while the Jacobites were jubilant.

In Edinburgh the opposition to the malt tax assumed a determined form. All the brewers resolved to cease brewing. The Lord Advocate lodged a complaint against them in the Court of Session, and the Court ordered them to proceed with their work as usual. They refused, and some of them were imprisoned; but at last they yielded. These proceedings were only the first of a series of excise difficulties which continued for more than a hundred years. In some parts in the north and west the practice of smuggling whisky was quite common till well into the first quarter of the present century. The smuggling brew houses were often beside a fresh spring or stream of water, in out of the way glens and hill sides, where no one could find them without searching carefully; but in general they were small and rudely constructed. The whisky smuggler usually stored his malt in a square pit on a hill among long heather and at some distance from his brewing house.

From the date of the malt tax riots, till about the end of the eighteenth century, smuggling in various kinds of goods was rather common in Scotland, although the burgesses of the trading burghs generally protested against it. “In place of pursuing fair trade, they universally, with the exception of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and a few other places, took to smuggling; their small stock they invested in goods that bore high duties, and under the favour of running these secretly on our wide and ill-guarded coasts, they flattered themselves that they should soon grow rich, profiting at least off the high duty, which by running they were to save.... The smuggler was the favourite. His prohibited high duty goods were run ashore by the boats on whatever part of the coast he came near; when ashore, they were guarded by the countrymen from the custom-house officers; if seized, they were rescued, and if any seizure was retained and tried, the juries seldom failed to find for the defendant.”¹

¹ Lockhart’s Papers, Volume II., pages 162‒168: Some Considerations on the Present State of Scotland; Clelland’s Annals of Glasgow.

The chief aim of the Jacobite party was to encourage the discontent of the people, and to frustrate the policy of the Whig government. In Scotland they were still a strong party, numbering among their adherents some of the nobles and many of the gentry, and the body of the episcopal clergy, who in the northern parts of the country commanded considerable influence. Their plots and schemes to restore the exiled house of Stuart were incessant; while other occasions of irritating the Scots naturally arose in connection with the new revenue system. The English introduced their own modes of collecting duties and customs, and what was far more offensive, the taxes were greatly increased. The Jacobites loudly proclaimed that what they had predicted――the ruin of the nation――was coming to pass.

Shortly after the Union some disputes arose between the Established Church and the episcopal clergy, which strengthened the Jacobite party. In 1710, the Whig government fell, and was succeeded by the Tories, and this change had some influence upon the affairs of the nation. Reports had been spread that Englishmen living in Scotland could not have the English service read to them, or their children baptised, without going to a presbyterian minister and signing the Confession of Faith. In 1712, the Imperial Parliament passed an act of toleration for the episcopal denomination in Scotland, in the exercise of their worship; and also repealed an act of the Scotch parliament against irregular marriages and baptisms. The act was carried in both Houses of Parliament by a large majority. But one clause of it required that the episcopal and presbyterian clergy both, should take the oath of adjuration, and pray for the Queen by name. By another clause of the act, the authority of the Established Church was limited to her own members, the power of summoning dissenters before her courts under penalties was taken from her.

The Government directly passed another bill which restored the right of patronage. This point, as we have seen, had been repeatedly considered by the Church since the Reformation; and from the date of the act of Queen Anne’s government to a recent period, patronage has been a source of the bitterest disputes and divisions in the Church of Scotland. It was introduced and passed by the influence of the Jacobite party, and it succeeded admirably in augmenting the disturbing elements in Scotland. Burnet expressly states that clauses were put into the toleration act with the intention of provoking the Scotch presbyterians. “One clause put into it occasioned great complaints; the magistrates, who by the laws were obliged to execute the sentences of the judicatories of their Church, were by this act required to execute none of them. It was reasonable to require them to execute no sentences that might be passed on any for doing what was tolerated by this act, but the carrying this to a general clause took away the civil sanction, which in most places is looked on as the chief, if not the only strength of Church power. Those who were to be thus tolerated were required, by a day limited in the act, to take the oath of adjuration; it was well known that few, if any of them, would take that oath; so, to cover them from it, a clause was put in this act requiring all the presbyterian ministers to take it, since it seemed reasonable that those of the legal establishment should be required to take that which was now to be imposed on those who were only to be tolerated. It was well understood that there were words in the oath of adjuration to which the presbyterians excepted.” Regarding the patronage act, he says: “By these steps the presbyterians were alarmed, when they saw the success of every motion that was made on design to weaken and undermine their establishment.”¹

¹ Parliamentary History of England, Volume VI., pages 1126‒1129; Lockhart’s Memoirs, Volume I., pages 378‒387; History of His Own Time, Volume VI., page 98.

As many of the patrons were Episcopalians, it was feared that they might use their right of presentation to advance the interest of their own party; and the vaunting tone of the Jacobites gave colour to this suspicion. The most obnoxious part of the Toleration Act was the adjuration oath, imposed upon all the ministers; and those who took it abjured the Pretender, but promised to support the succession to the Crown as settled by specified acts of the English Parliament. According to these acts, the occupant of the throne must belong to the communion of the Church of England; and this was an obstacle to the presbyterians, because if they took it, they implicitly sanctioned a form of church polity which they repudiated. As the law required that the oath should be taken, many of the ministers were greatly annoyed. At last it was concluded to give an explanation of the sense in which they understood it, and then take it under protest; but a number of them declined to take it under any conditions, and in the end the government ceased to enforce it. A few years later, the oath was altered and a new form adopted, containing a plain declaration of allegiance to the Hanover settlement, and a renunciation of the title of the banished dynasty, thus freeing it from the objectionable features of the former oath.¹

¹ Acts of the General Assembly.

In the latter years of Queen Anne’s reign, the Jacobites had been gaining ground in Scotland, but they had very little hold upon England; hence they made the northern part of the United Kingdom the field of their subsequent attempts to restore the exiled family. The Queen died on the 1st of August, 1714; thereupon the Elector of Hanover ascended the throne, under the title of George I. The accession of the new king was received with general satisfaction among the Presbyterians of Scotland, and he endeavoured to deserve their support. When the General Assembly met in May, 1715, he thanked them for the expression of their loyalty, and explicitly stated that he would maintain the Church of Scotland in all her rights and privileges.¹

¹ Ibid.

Though the Jacobites were not prepared for active operations themselves, they had hopes of external aid. The Earl of Mar, as we have seen, was on the Whig side at the Union proceedings, but he was a shifty politician, and was Secretary of State for Scotland in the Tory Government of Bolingbroke. While in this office, he was entrusted with the distribution of sums of money among the Highland clans, voted by the government, for keeping them quiet; this gave him some influence over the chiefs, and partly explains their readiness to enter into his scheme of restoring the Pretender. If Mar himself had obtained full recognition from George I., and a post in his government, which he anxiously desired, he would not have headed a rising of the Jacobites; but on finding himself neglected, he then determined to be revenged. Mar left the Court of George I. in the beginning of August 1715, landed in Fifeshire, and proceeded to Braemar, whence he issued invitations to the chiefs to join him in a hunting party in his forest of Mar. He reached Invercauld Castle on the 22nd of August; and on the 26th he met his followers and friends in Braemar. He was joined by the Marquis of Huntly, the Marquis of Tullibardine, and the Earls of Seaforth, Southesk, Nithsdale, Stormont, Earl Marischal, and other nobles, and a number of the Highland chiefs. As the rising spread some of the nobles in the North of England joined it, Mar himself assuming the chief command.

Mar unfurled the standard of revolt on the 6th of September, at Castletown of Braemar, and marched by Dunkeld. He entered Perth on the 28th with an army of five thousand men, which was soon increased. In November there were fourteen thousand men in arms for the Stuart cause. But Mar had little military skill, and remained too long inactive in Perth. The body of the insurgents who were operating in England under the command of Forster, encountered the royal troops at Preston, on the 12th of November, and were completely defeated, and many of the Scots and their leaders were taken prisoners. The following day, the insurgents under Mar, and the royal army under the Duke of Argyle, fought the battle of Sheriffmuir near Dunblane, which was indecisive; as the loss was nearly equal on each side, both claimed the victory. The result, however, was that Mar drew back his army to Perth, where his force soon melted away to a few thousands. James VIII., the Pretender, landed at Peterhead on the 22nd of December, and was proclaimed King at Aberdeen, Montrose, Dundee, and other places. He suffered from attacks of ague in his progress southward, and reached Perth on the 6th of January, 1716. His presence inspired no new hope; as this representative of the Stuart line had not the mien of a man likely to lead an army to victory and glory. Preparations were made, however, for his coronation at the historic burgh of Scone, on the 23rd of January; but when that day came, the royal army under Argyle had begun their march on Perth, and James was thinking seriously of flight.¹

¹ Historical Memoirs of the House and Clan of Mackintosh, by Alexander Mackintosh Shaw, pages 413‒414; Mar Papers.

The hapless prince and his army commenced their retreat on the 30th of January, 1716, and marched by Dundee to Montrose, where on the 4th of February, James and the Earl of Mar went aboard a French vessel, and sailed for France. The insurgent army was rapidly diminishing as it proceeded northward, and on reaching Aberdeen, it was disbanded on the 7th of February. Thus ended a project begun without requisite preparation, conducted without energy or skill, and leading to nothing but suffering and ruin to a portion of the people.

Lenient counsel towards the insurgents prevailed in Scotland, and few of them were judicially punished. But the English took the punishment of the prisoners and those implicated in the rising into their own hands. A large number of all ranks of men were executed, while hundreds were sent to the plantations to drag out a wretched life in slavery. Several of the higher prisoners escaped from prison, and fled for their lives, amongst whom were Forster, Lord Nithsdale, and Mackintosh of Borlum. The estates of upwards of forty families in Scotland were forfeited, and justice and revenge were at last appeased.¹

¹ Culloden Papers, Number 69; Lancaster Memorials; _A Faithful Register of the Late Rebellion_; Rae’s _History of the Rebellion_; _Historical Memoirs of the House and Clan of Mackintosh_, by Alexander Mackintosh Shaw, page 433, 1880.

Naturally, the episcopal clergy in Scotland had always leaned to the side of the exiled house, and when the temporary restoration came, they could not resist the temptation, and openly sided with the Pretender, and prayed for his success. The government therefore proceeded to prosecute them; and those who occupied chapels were summoned in groups before the magistrates, and tried under the Toleration Act: their chapels were shut, and some of them imprisoned, until they complied with the provisions of the act. Any of the old episcopal ministers who still occupied parish churches, were summoned before their presbyteries, and, if found guilty were deposed. In the diocese of Aberdeen alone, upwards of thirty of these ministers were deprived. Indeed, they were prosecuted with great and unnecessary severity.¹

¹ Dr. Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Volume III., pages 373‒377.

But the Jacobites were not daunted by the failure of the rising. On the contrary, they continued to plot and scheme for the restoration of those whom they regarded as the right and lawful line of kings. Although after the accession of George I., the Jacobites had little voice in the British Parliament, yet beyond the walls of St. Stephens they commanded a local influence in several quarters of the country.

Soon after the suppression of the insurrection, the government adopted measures to secure the peace of the Island. An act was passed for disarming the Highlanders, embracing the counties to the north of the Forth, and the Highland districts of the West. But the act did not attain its object; as it merely imposed penalties, rising to transportation, against those found guilty of appearing in arms; and as no means were provided for enforcing disarmament, the act was inoperative. In 1725, another disarming act was passed, which ordered each clan to be summoned to appear at a fixed place and deliver up their arms. The execution of the act was entrusted to General Wade, who imagined that he had performed the task effectively; and informed the King that the Highlander had now become a simple peasant with his staff in his hand. He also stated that if the system of roads and fortresses proposed by him were made, any future rising of the Highlanders would be impossible; but subsequent events proved that the General’s sanguine anticipations were false.¹

¹ Burt’s Letters; Miscellany of the Spalding Club, Volume III.

He erected two forts, one at Inverness, and the other at the western end of loch Ness, called Fort-Augustus; while among the remote glens square towers were built, in which small garrisons were placed. But the great work of General Wade was the system of military roads which he made in the Highlands; ten years being occupied in constructing these. The main line of the system proceeded from Perth north-westward by Dunkeld and Blair-Athol, thence through Drumnouchter and other mountainous moorlands, onward to Inverness; while a subsidiary road started from Stirling through Crieff, thence through Glen Almond, past Loch Tay, and joined the main road at Dalnacardoch. Another great road passed from shore to shore, through the valleys in which the Caledonian Canal was afterwards formed, and connected Inverness with Fort-Augustus and Fort-William. A branch road connected Fort-Augustus with the main Highland road. Afterwards the system was extended, by branches passing by Loch Lomond and Callander to the main Highland road; and other branches were made in the district to the north-west of Inverness, and the chain of lakes between the east and west coasts. These roads were constructed ‘for military purposes’.

The clan form of polity, with some of the feudal elements superposed upon it, was continued in the Highlands till after the rising of 1745; but it has to be remembered that the Lowland nobles also formally retained their hereditary jurisdiction over their vassals up to the same date. A lord of regality in any quarter of Scotland possessed a despotic power. The regality was a little kingdom in itself, within the larger one which the King was supposed to rule; and it is mainly in these hereditary customs and habits, in some parts of the Lowlands as in the Highlands, that the causes of the rising of 1745 should be sought. In the seventeenth century and the early part of the eighteenth, the Scots were extremely poor, and it was only after the abolition of hereditary jurisdictions, and other feudal usages of a lawless age, that the people had a fair chance of obtaining wealth from their industry. While these local powers, spread throughout the country, could disturb the peace of the kingdom, and render the executive authority of the government uncertain and fluctuating, the progress of industry, the accumulation of wealth, and the advance of civilisation, were very slow; but in a comparatively short time the Union enabled the Scots to surmount the greater part of these obstacles.

Yet these great changes could not be effected in a day or a year. Hence among the social causes of the rising may be enumerated the prejudices still existing against the Union; the poverty of the nobles and the people; the power of the Highland chiefs and of the nobles over many of the people; and a general disaffection towards England――the residue of a mass of animosities and antipathies――the natural growth of centuries of war and strife between the two nations. A kind of half-romantic and indescribable leaning towards the ancient line of kings undoubtedly existed, and still exists in the nation. There were other special causes, but those mentioned were the chief, which made rebellion possible; while, on the other side, the unprepared condition and culpable neglect of government, allowed the Prince and his followers for a time to appear in a career of success.

When Prince Charles landed in the western islands in the middle of July, 1745, his prospects of success were indeed dreary, as it was some time before he could find a single man to give him the least hope that a rising was possible. The Highland chiefs whom he first met and consulted all spoke against the enterprise. But the young Prince was naturally full of hope and faith in his destiny, and determined to recover the throne of his ancestors. After repeated efforts he induced a number of the chiefs to promise him support, and Lochiel, the chief of the Camerons, the Macdonalds of Boisdale, Glengarry, Keppoch, and many others joined him. On the 19th of August he unfurled his standard in Glenfinnan, with upwards of a thousand men around him. Next morning they commenced their march, and were soon joined by other chiefs and their followers. As the only regular army in the kingdom, under General Cope, was moved from Edinburgh to Inverness, Prince Charles resolved to advance on the capital. He entered Perth on the 4th of September, and there his army was largely reinforced. Parties were sent into the neighbouring counties of Forfar and Fife to proclaim the Pretender, levy money, and enlist men. At Perth Lord George Murray joined the Prince, and was appointed a lieutenant-general of the army. On the 11th Charles recommenced his march southward, crossed the Forth, and continuing his advance, on the 17th he took possession of Edinburgh, and proclaimed King James.

By this time Cope had returned from Inverness, and was landing his troops at Dunbar. But the insurgents anticipated his action and advanced to meet him. The Highland army, numbering about two thousand men, marched from Edinburgh; and on the 21st of September attacked the royal army at Preston, completely defeated it, and Cope fled in haste to Berwick. Many prisoners and much booty fell into the hands of the victors. Charles with his army re-entered Edinburgh in triumph; and he assumed all the functions of sovereignty. He held his Court at Holyrood Palace and acted as King of Scotland. His Council consisted of Lord George Murray, lieutenant-general; James Drummond (called Duke of Perth), lieutenant-general; Sullivan, quartermaster-general; Mungo Murray, secretary; Lord Pitsligo; Lord Elcho; and all the Highland chiefs. But Charles’s difficulties were only beginning. He had failed to take the Castle of Edinburgh, and comparatively few of the Lowland people supported his cause.

Full of confidence in his destiny, Charles assembled his troops at Dalkeith on 2nd of November, and, with an army of about six thousand men, commenced to march on London. They entered England on the 8th, and took possession of Carlisle on the 15th, and levied a large contribution from the citizens. Leaving a garrison in the castle, they resumed the march on the 22nd, but few recruits joined the Prince in his progress southwards. They reached Manchester on the 27th, where about two hundred recruits joined his standard. Thence the army pushed forward to Derby, within one hundred and twenty miles of London; but at this point, the leaders of the army received intelligence which convinced them of the hopelessness of attempting to continue the march on London, as there was no indication of a great movement on Charles’s side in England. The position of the insurgents was extremely critical; as there were three armies in the field against them, two between them and Scotland, and one posted for the defence of London. Immediate retreat seemed to be their only chance of saving themselves from destruction. But Prince Charles was exceedingly unwilling to turn back, and bitterly protested against such a proposal; he had great confidence in the divine right and the justice of his cause, and persisted in advancing to the culmination of his destiny. The retreat was ordered, however, and on 6th of December the army turned towards Scotland,――Lord George Murray undertaking the charge of the rear. The rank and file of the army rent the air with cries of indignation; they could have endured to be defeated by superior numbers, but to retreat without striking a blow, was an insufferable disgrace.¹

¹ Lockhart’s Papers, Volume II., page 468; et seq.; Homes’ History of the Rebellion of 1745, Chapter VII., 1802.

When the insurgents returned to Scotland, they found that Edinburgh was in the possession of the government, and defended by a strong force, and that in other parts of the country bodies of troops were organised and prepared to act against them. But they retreated successfully, passing through Dumfries, and entered Glasgow on the 24th of December, wearied and tattered with their long march. They exacted a large contribution of clothing and shoes from the city, and, after staying a week, proceeded to Stirling. On the 17th of January, 1746, they attacked and defeated a royal force commanded by General Hawley, at Falkirk. The Duke of Cumberland was commissioned to extinguish the rising; the work was congenial to him, and he executed it thoroughly. He arrived at Edinburgh in the end of January, with an army of ten thousand men, and a train of artillery, and proceeded northward.

While Charles’s army was attempting to reduce Stirling, they received tidings of Cumberland’s advance. The insurgents then commenced a retreat, and reached Crieff on the 2nd of February. There they separated into two divisions――one, under the Prince himself, moved by Blair-Athol, and the other, under Lord George Murray, proceeded by Montrose and Aberdeen. It was arranged that they should meet at Inverness. Cumberland proceeded to Aberdeen, and rested his army till the spring. On the 8th of April, he began his march northwards along the coast, in connection with a victualling fleet which sailed parallel with his army; and on the 14th he reached Nairn.

By this time Prince Charles’ army was suffering severely from constant exposure and want of food. The men were much exhausted, and at the utmost did not number more than five thousand, and one hundred and fifty horse. They formed on a moor beyond the enclosures of Culloden House; but the most experienced chiefs earnestly entreated Charles to avoid a battle or remove to a better position, yet he was deaf to all reason and insisted on an immediate action.

The Duke continued his march, and came in sight of the insurgents. On the 16th of April, 1746, he began the battle by a cannonade which committed much havoc in the insurgents’ ranks. The Highlanders became impatient and advanced to the attack; and after an heroic charge and a severe but brief combat, the clansmen were defeated by the weight of superior numbers, and many of them were mercilessly massacred in the pursuit. The victors then began an indiscriminate slaughter of all those supposed to be disaffected to the Government, or in any way connected with the rising. The Duke of Cumberland and General Hawley have entailed on themselves eternal infamy by the extreme cruelties which they inflicted upon the defenceless and innocent inhabitants of the Highlands.

There was great rejoicing in London over the victory at Culloden; but many people who were not Jacobites, were much shocked by the details of the cruelties and sufferings inflicted on the Celtic population. After the battle the feeling of the Highlanders was expressed in ballads such as these:――

“Fair lady, mourn the memory O’ all our Scottish fame; Fair lady, mourn the memory Ev’n of the Scottish name; How proud were we of our young prince, And of his native sway; But all our hopes are past and gone, Upon Culloden day. There was no lack of bravery there, No spare of blood or breath, For, one to two, our foes we dar’d, For freedom or for death.

“The bitterness of death is past, Of terror and dismay; The die was risked, and foully cast, Upon Culloden day.

* * * * *

What is there now in thee, Scotland, To us can pleasure give? What is there now in thee, Scotland, For which we ought to live? Since we have stood, and stood in vain, For all that we hold dear; Still have we left a sacrifice, To offer on our bier. But there is naught for us or ours, In which to hope or trust, But hide us in our father’s graves, Amid our father’s dust.”¹

¹ Mackay’s Jacobite Songs, pages 209‒211. This song is translated from the Gaelic one, entitled “Culloden Day,” and sung to a tune of the same name.

A few lines of another ballad may be quoted:――

“Ochon! ochon! the fatal day, The day of dark despair.

* * * * *

The flower o’ a’ the Highland clans―― Their like we’ll never see―― Lay strecket in their bloody plaids, Cauld on Culloden lee.”

This was the last of the risings of the Celts against the Government. Henceforth they had to seek other fields for the exercise of their energy and powers. A considerable number of the Highlanders found an honourable career in the British army, in which they have never disgraced their standard in the hour of danger. They have contributed much to the power and glory of the United Kingdom; for upwards of a hundred years the Highland regiments have been characterised by obedience and fidelity to their commanders, loyalty to the throne, and faithful service to the Empire. Let us simply mention their service on the battlefields of the Vimiera, Corunna, Badajos, Salamanca, Vittoria, Toulouse, and Waterloo; their memorable action and heroic endurance under the scorching sun on the blinding sands of Africa; their services in the East and West, at Alma, Balaklava, Sebastopol, and Lucknow. For courage and bravery in the hour of peril and battle they have never been surpassed.

The subsequent social changes in the Highlands will be treated in the next volume; but it may be observed that, despite the injustice, the oppression and suffering inflicted upon the Celtic people during a period of six centuries, they have shown a readiness to appreciate the benefits and blessings of civilisation. They have contributed important elements to art and literature. In every quarter of the world they have distinguished themselves in the fields of enterprise and industry.

Politically, it was best that the Island should be under one supreme Government; as this enhanced the strength, the confidence, and the security of the people. After many ages of internal war, this blessing of political union and peace was at last obtained. Thus a position and a career was opened to the people of the United Kingdom, such as few nations have ever enjoyed. It is much to be desired that the people of Ireland would recognise the great utility of the Imperial Parliament of Britain. If I might venture a word for the whole Celtic inhabitants of Britain and Ireland, I would earnestly urge the necessity of recognising the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament; for on this the welfare and progress of the people ♦depends. When the Irish have become as reconciled to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament as the Welsh and the Scots have long been, we may look forward with reasonable hope to a time of greater prosperity, of happiness and higher civilisation for the Irish people. Let us all endeavour in a spirit of honesty and justice to contribute to this result.

♦ “dedepends” replaced with “depends”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us