CHAPTER XXVII.

THE REVOLUTION AND THE UNION.

ALTHOUGH the Revolution at the centre of authority had passed the turning point, the principles and the difficulties which had caused it were far from being subdued. The opposite influences and interests, the diverse sentiments and opinions, in politics and in religion, which in varying degrees had characterised parties in Scotland since the Reformation, were not completely settled or satisfied. On some political ideas and points keener feelings than ever had been generated and aroused. The deposed dynasty had still many adherents in Scotland; and the new government found itself face to face with embarrassment, and had a complicated series of obstacles to surmount. The Covenanters, or the extreme party of the presbyterians, were dissatisfied with the mode in which the convention had treated the question of Church government, for they disapproved of all compromises. The bishops and all the episcopal party, on the other hand, were bitterly offended and disappointed. Indeed, there were irreconcilable parties and opinions in the nation.

It was necessary that the King should nominate ministers for the government of Scotland, but the task of choosing was extremely difficult. The leaders of a revolutionary movement, and even subordinate actors in it, are always apt to imagine that each of them is well entitled to a place in the new arrangement of affairs, or to some important post in the administration; hence, whoever the King might appoint, he was certain to offend

many 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 by general 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, and his hand still bore the marks of the thumbscrew. He had been for long deep in the secrets of the schemes of the Prince of Orange, and no man of that period was more worthy of confidence. He was now appointed chaplain to their majesties for Scotland; but he continued to be much about the King's person, and from the first he 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 think himself properly rewarded in the distribution of offices. 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 this post, and though he was offered the place of Lord Justice-Clerk, he deemed it below his merits, and therefore returned from London to Edinburgh a disappointed man, full of feelings of aversion to the King and the 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

A number of the Scotch Whigs, disappointed by the new arrangements, gathered 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 publichouse 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. Out of these elements, Montgomery exerted himself to the utmost to form a party which might be strong enough to control the proceedings of the convention.2

The convention reassembled on the 5th of June, 1689, and passed an act which turned 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, and establishing the presbyterian polity, and 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 kind of conflict was thus begun of a novel character in a 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

1 M'Cormick's Life of Carstairs; Burnet's History of His Own Time, Vol. IV., pp. 42, 43.

2 Leven and Melville Papers.

of elective origin, but it had been from time to time modified and transformed to suit the ends of the Crown. Nearly all parliamentary action had become concentrated in this committee; it had always been an aim of the recent kings to reduce a session to as few formal sittings as possible, and thus prevent discussion 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.

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.*

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 kirksessions, 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, the battle of Killiecrankie had been fought and won by Dundee, the leader of the Jacobite army. When the first tidings of the battle reached Edinburgh, there was great consternation; but on the 1st of August, when it became really known that Dundee had fallen in the moment of victory, the

3 Mackintosh's History of Civilisation in Scotland, Vol. I., pp. 415-417. In the century under review the mode of forming it is stated in this volume, page 121. Acts Parl. Scot., Vol. IX., pp. 98, 104; App. Minutes of Estates.

excitement soon abated. It was chiefly in the north and in the Highlands that the Jacobites found support, and there they annoyed the government and disturbed the peace of the kingdom; but at length the irregular warfare with the Highland clans came to an end, and the details of it are not called for here.

The King found it an extremely hard task to rule Scotland. He could hardly find any Scotch politicians in whom he had confidence. The Duke of Hamilton had not given satisfaction as royal commissioner; and when parliament reassembled 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 broken and dwindled. The King had formed a rather low opinion of the morality and the honour of the Scotch 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.5 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

5 "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 shall promise them shall be made good.”Leven and Melville Papers, p. 417, quoted in Dr. Burton's History of Scotland, Vol. I., p. 89, 1853.