Articles 1700-1750

   “Resolved, That the former Acts made in England and Scotland, relating to the Post-Office, be repealed; and that in lieu thereof, one General Act be made for Establishing a General-Post-Office for Great Britain, and other Her Majesty’s Dominions, and for Foreign Parts.” 

– Dublin Intelligence, Tuesday 20th March, 1711.

 

   “This Day the L–ds heard D. Hamilton by his Council, Sir Thomas Powis and Serjeant Prat, who argued, That the objecting against his Graces Sitting in the House as D. of Brandon, was a Restraint upon Her Majesty’s Prerogative, who had Power to create any Subject of France or Holland a Peer of England, as had been done in late Reigns, and much more one of her own Subjects. That several English Peers were Peers of Scotland, and several Irish Peers of England, That the Duke of Queensberry has sat in the House as D. of Dover uninterrupted, which is the same Case with this now in dispute, That if this be not allow’d it might be of ill Consequence, and even shock the Union, which (say they) is as yet Tender, tho’ hitherto happily preserved, That by the Articles of the Union, the Subjects of both Kingdoms, were to have equal Priviledges, and that consequently, the Peers of Scotland would never have parted with their Parliament, had they been rendred incapable of being Created Peers of Great Britain, &c. 

   Many Speeches were made the House upon this Occasion (the Q. present) which lasted so late that I could not give the result.” 

– Newcastle Courant, Saturday 22nd December, 1711.

 

   “Last Night the House of Lords took into Consideration that part of her Majesty’s Message Relating to the Peers of Scotland, and after reading the D. of Brandon’s Patent, and considering the Articles of Union relating to the Elect. of the 16 Scotch Peers, agreed that the D. of Brandon’s Case is alterable, if the Parliament thinks fit; and referr’d the further Consideration thereof to Tuesday next. 

   Read a Second time the Malt Bill, and the Bill to prevent disturbing the Episcopal Congregations in Scotland; in which is a Clause to oblige the Presbiterian Ministers in Scotland, to renounce the Solemn League and Covenant, and to own the Queen’s Supremacy. 

   Great Numbers of Quakers daily attend the House to Sollicite the taking off the Affirmation, or at least the leaving the Name of God out of it, which they say makes it amount to an Oath.” 

– Newcastle Courant, Monday 28th January, 1712.

 

   “HER Majesty not having yet recovered Strength enough, since the Return of the Gout, to be present this Day in Person, and being unwilling that the Publick Business should receive any Delay, thinks fit to Communicate to this House the Substance of what She intended to have spoke. 

   There is One thing in which Her Majesties Subjects of the North Part of this Kingdom are extreamly concerned, The Distinction such of them who were Peers of Scotland before the Union must lie under, if the Prerogative of the Crown is strictly Barr’d against them alone. This is a Matter which Sensibly Affects Her Majesty, and She therefore lays it before this House, earnestly desiring their Advice and Concurrence in finding out the best Method of Settling this Affair to the Satisfaction of the whole Kingdom.” 

– Dublin Intelligence, Saturday 2nd February, 1712.

 

   “Yesterday the Lords heard Mr. Dod, as Council against the Scotch Episcopal Bill, and afterwards Read the same a second time and Committed it, and went through it in a Committee, making an Amendment that as well the Episcopal as Presbyterian Ministers shall be obliged to take the Abjuration Oath. The Judges are to be Consulted to see that nothing in it be against the Act of Union.” 

– Newcastle Courant, Saturday 16th February, 1712.

 

   “Unto the QUEEN’s most Excellent Majesty. 

   The Humble Address and Representation of the Commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, met by Appointment of the said Assembly at Edinburgh, the Fifth Day of March, 1712. 

   May it please your Majesty, 

   UPON Notice we had of a Bill depending in Parliament, entitul’d, A Bill to prevent the disturbing of those of the Episcopal Communion in Scotland, in the Exercise of their Religious Worship, and in the Use of the Liturgy of the Church of Your Majesty for the Preservation of our present Establishment, as secured to us by Law, and for preventing the Inconveniences that might ensue on the aforesaid Toleration; at the passing whereof thereafter, in both Houses of Parliament, we cannot but be deeply affected. 

   But now, that by the foresaid Bill, the Oath of Abjuration enacted for the better Security of Your Majesty’s Person and Government, and the Establishment of the Succession to the Crown in the Protestant Line, is appointed to be taken by all Ministers, we do in most humble Duty, truly and sincerely own and acknowledge, that Your Majesty is Lawful and Rightful Queen of this Realm, and of all Your other Dominions and Countries thereunto belonging; and do solemnly and sincerely declare, that we do believe the Person pretended to be the Prince of Wales during the Life of the late King James, and since his Decease pretending to be, and taking upon himself the Stile and Title of King of England, by the Name of James the Third; or of Scotland, by the Name of James the Eighth, or the Stile and Title of King of Great Britain, hath not any Right or Title whatever to the Crown of this Realm, or any other of the Dominions thereunto belonging; and we do most heartily renonce and refuse and Allegiance and Obedience to him: And we withal solemnly and sincerely profess, that we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to Your Majesty in all Duties and Occasions whatsoever, that can be incumbent on us. And further, we do faithfully promise, to the utmost of our Power to support, maintain and defend the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line, against the said Pretender, and all other Persons whatsoever; Understanding the aforesaid Oath of Abjuration in the fullest Sense wherein it can be understood, to renounce and disclaim any Right that the said Pretender can claim to your aforesaid Dominions; and in the plain Sense of the Words, in so far as the said Oath, and Acts to which it refers settles and entails the Succession of the Crown of those Dominions, for Default of Issue of Your Majesty, on the Princess Sophia, Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants. 

   But seeing, we cannot dissemble with Your Majesty, that there remains a Scruple with many, as if the Conditions mention’d in the Acts of Parliament, establishing the Succession, referr’d to by the said Oath, were to be understood as a Part thereof; and that to swear to some things in those Conditions, seems not consistent with our known Principles: And that it is expressly declared and statuted by the Treaty an Articles of Union, and the Acts of Parliament of both Kingdoms ratifying the same, that none of the Subjects of Scotland shall be liable to, but all and every one of them for ever free, of any Oath, test or Subscription, within Scotland, contrary to, or inconsistent with, our present Presbyterian Church Establishment: We, in the most humble and dutiful manner, most earnestly beseech and obtest, that this our Address and Representation, and most sincere Declarations therein contained, may be graciously accepted by Your Majesty, without respect to the aforesaid Conditions scrupled at, as the Just and True Signification of our Allegiance and Duty, and our Sense of the aforesaid Oath and Engagement, to prevent all Mistakes and Misrepresentations that possibly we may be liable to in this matter. 

   That the Lord may eminently bless Your Majesty; and after a long and happy Reign upon Earth, receive You into Everlasting Glory, is, and shall be the Earnest Prayer of, 

May it Please Your Majesty,

Your Majesty’s most Faithful, most

Obedient, and most humble Subjects,

The Ministers and Elders, Commissioners of the late Gen. Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Signed in our Presence, in our Name and at our Appointment, by

William Mitchell, Moderator.

– Dublin Intelligence, Saturday 26th April, 1712.

 

   “This Day a Bill of Indictment was preferr’d and found against Brigadier Campbell, and the following Persons were arraign’d and pleaded Guilty, viz. Mr. Carstairs, Mr. Alexander Mackenzie of Frazerdale, James Carnegie, Surgeon, James Rollo, Alexander Forbes, Walter Graham, and Mr. Thomas Drummond. Mr. Tho. Tulloch was arraign’d and pleaded Not Guilty, and upon Motion by his Council that he had some Witnesses, which he daily expected from Scotland, his Tryal is put off till Friday next. Mr. William Hay appear’d, and put in a Demurrer to the Jurisdiction of the Court, and the King’s Council joining in Demurrer, the Council for the Prisoner, two Scotch Advocates, viz. Mr. Graham and Mr. Hay, made long Arguments, assigning for Cause of Demurrer, That by the Articles of Union, the Courts of Justiciary in Scotland were to remain as formerly, and that no Scotchman for Treason committed in Scotland, could be carried out of Scotland and be try’d in England; but the Demurrer was over-ruled by the Judges, upon which the Council for the Prisoner moved for Time to consult with the Prisoner, whether or not he would withdraw his Plea to the Jurisdiction, upon which the Court granted them Time till to Morrow.” 

– Stamford Mercury, Thursday 27th December, 1716.

 

   “The Lords after reading the Peerage Bill a 2d time, Read the Petitions presented by the Lord Cowper, of the Lords Dundonald, Faulkland and Abercorne of Scotland, complaining of the Peerage Bill taking away their Rights and Priviledges, and of its being a breach of the Union, and praying to be heard by their Council. 

   There was a Considerable debate for and against Committing the said Petition, but at last, it was resolved, that it should be laid before the King.” 

– Pue’s Occurrences, Tuesday 24th March, 1719.

 

   “Yesterday (July 1st) an Express came from Scotland. 

   One Clifton is taken into Custody for Printing a scandalous Libel, called a Hymn, to the Victory in Scotland, and several of the Hawkers have been taken up and sent to Bridewell for Crying them about the Streets.” 

– Pue’s Occurrences, Tuesday 7th July, 1719.

 

   “Whereas Numbers of eminent Merchants, Burgesses and Freemen have represented to the Committee of the Royal Brroughs that contrary to many Acts of Parliament, and other Rights and Privileges particularly belonging to them, ascertain’d by the Treaty of Union, sundry Societies and Copartneries are a forming and some actually formed with Large Capital Stocks for carrying on the Fishing and other Branches of Trade in Scotland; Also that certain Freemen Burgesses, under the Title to Trade, pretend to cover and protect Unfreemen in Carrying on the said Branches of Trade, which by many Laws is condemn’d under certain Penalties and Forfeitures, Praying for Redress; Therefore, the said Committee of Royal Burroughs Do hereby certierate, that whoever shall have any Accession to the said unlawful Practices, that they will be prosecute conform to Law.” 

– Caledonian Mercury, Tuesday 6th September, 1720.

 

   “London, July 18. There is erected in Scotland, according to Acts of Parliament confirm’d by the Union, a Society call’d the Union Company, for carrying on Fishing and Manufactures. That Society has according to Law assum’d several Gentlemen, Merchants and others in England, who desired to join with them in an Undertaking, so necessary for retrieving and advancing the Commerce of the Island now under general Decay; and the Society having a fair Prospect of great Advantage by that Fishery, from which the Dutch, &c. annually reap vast Profit, they agreed to raise a Stock for carrying it on. That every one shall pay in one Per Cent. on what they sign, and that no one Person shall be admitted to sign above 5000 lib. Sterling. 

   They have also provided Cask and Salt, and made Contracts with Gentlemen, on the Scots fishing Coasts, for their Men and Vessels, which are now actually employed in the Company’s Service. 

   Such as have already paid in one per Cent. and not got their Receipts, may have them from Messieurs Shales and Smithin, Bankiers at the Vine in Lombart Street; and others who have a mind to sign, may also sign, may also have receipts there, with a printed Abstract of the Acts of Parliament, on which the Company is founded, and a Brief Account of its Constitution.” 

– Caledonian Mercury, Monday 24th July, 1721.

 

   “London, Decem. 1. Yesterday being St. Andrew’s Day (the Titular Saint of Scotland) the Natives of that Part of Great Britain wore the Cross of that Saint; and the Nobility of the Order of St. Andrew, or the Thistle, made their Appearance at Court in their Green Ribbans. We hear that his Majesty, who together with his Royal Highness the Prince, wore the Cross, is to create four new Knights of that Order. The Society of Scots Gentlemen, who meet here annually on this Day, had a Feast, as usually, and chose Mr. George Middleton their Master for the Year ensuing. The Knights of this Order used to meet, before the Union, at St. Andrew’s Town and Kirk. History is not certain when this Order began; but only, that the Scots have received St. Andrew for their Guardian ever since the 810, in the Reign of Hungus the Pict; when the said Hungus making War with Athlanstan King of England, saw in the Sky, the Night before the Battle, a bright Cross, like that on which St. Andrew suffered Martyrdom, and the Day proving successful to Hungus, he and his Confederate Achaius went bare-footed to the Kirk of St. Andrew’s, to return Thanks to GOD and his Apostle for their Victory; vowing, for themselves and their Posterity, always to use the said Cross in their Ensigns and Banners: Which has accordingly been observed by the Scots and Picts ever since; and hence, tis believed, the Order took its Rise.” 

– Caledonian Mercury, Tuesday 8th December, 1724.

 

   “ACT settling the Manner of Electing the Sixteen Peers and Forty-five Commoners, to represent Scotland in the Parliament of Great Britain. 

February, 5, 1707.

   OUR SOVEREIGN LADY, Considering, That by the twenty second Article of the Treaty of Union, as the same is ratified by an Act past in this Session of Parliament upon the sixteenth of January last; It is provided, that by virtue of the said Treaty, of the Peers of Scotland at the Time of the Union, Sixteen shall be the Number of the Representatives of Scotland in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain; and that the said sixteen Peers, and fourty five Members in the House of Commons be named and chosen in such Manner, as by subsequent Act in this present Session of Parliament in Scotland shall be settled; Which Act is thereby declared to be as valid, as if it were a Part of, and ingrossed in the said Treaty…” 

– Caledonian Mercury, Monday 22nd February, 1725.

 

   “Yesterday the Co–––ns took into Consideration the Report touching the Petition of Daniel Campbell, Esq; and resolved it appears there was a violent and out-ragious Tumult at Glasgow, to prevent the Execution of the Acts for the Malt Duty in Scotland: That during the same Riot, Mr. Campbell’s House was broke into and ransacked: And that Satisfaction ought to be made to him for his Damages and Losses. Ordered that it be an Instruction to the Committee for the Malt, that they receive a Clause for applying towards the Incouragement of Trade and Manufactures of Scotland, such Sums as shall be raised on the Duties of Malt, after 20000l. shall be raised and paid into the Exchequer: As also a Clause for explaining a Doubt that has arisen on the 7th Article of the Treaty of Union, concerning the Price of Ale, call’d a penny Ale: As also a Clause of Credit.” 

– Newcastle Courant, Saturday 26th March, 1726.

 

   “Yesterday the Commons in a Committee went thro’ the Malt Bill, wherein the Clause allowing the Overplus of the 20,000l. raised by the Malt Tax in Scotland, for Encouraging their Trade and Manufactures, was receiv’d after a long Debate. Those against the Clause argued the Advantages the Scots have by the Union, and those for it (which were the Court Party) insisted on the Poverty of the Country, and the want of encouraging their Fishery in particular, and were for trying one Year to see what use they will make of his Indulgence. 

   This Day the Commons order’d in a Bill for more effectual Transportation of Felons, and preventing their return’” 

– Ipswich Journal, Saturday 2nd April, 1726.

 

Bear in mind, after the ’45 Rebellion, it was enacted [26 George II., c. 39, section 17.], that a second time caught wearing Highland garb, i.e., the clothing the Highland Scots had worn their whole life, would guarantee them a sentence of seven years transportation to one of the colonies, usually to work on plantations.

 

From the London Gazette, July 16.

   Whitehall, July 16. The Convention of the Royal Burrows of Scotland met at Edinburgh the 5th Instant, and made Choice of George Drummond, Esq; Lord Provost of Edinburgh, to be their President. The next Day his Majesty’s most Gracious Letter to them (which follows) having been transmitted by the Duke of Newcastle, one of his Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, was read in a very full Meeting. 

   GEORGE R. 

   Trusty and Well beloved, We greet you well. We having observed, that the several Sums of Money, reserved and provided by the Treaty of Union, and by divers Acts of Parliament, to be employed for the Improvement of Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland, have not hitherto been applied to the Uses for which they were intended; principally because no particular Plan or Method hath been concerted, directing the Manner in which those Sums should be applied for the said Purposes: And being desirous to remove those Hindrances as speedily as may be; We have thought good to recommend it to you, that at your first general Meeting in the Month of July next, you do take into your Consideration, the State of the said Fisheries and Manufactures, and of the Moneys provided for encouraging the same, and that by your selves or by Committees of your Number, you devise and propose the particular Methods, Rules and Regulations, which to you shall seem the most proper, for the Application of the said Sums towards the encouraging and promoting of Fisheries, and such other Manufactures and Improvements in Scotland, as shall most conduce to the general good of the United Kingdom; and that you do return to Us the Propositions, in which you shall have agreed, to the End that upon Consideration thereof, a certain Method may be settled for the Application and Management of those Sums for the future. The Welfare of our loving People of Scotland, and the Prosperity of the Royal Burrows, is so much concerned in what We now recommend to you, that we doubt not you will go on in the Execution of what is expected from you, with the utmost Diligence, Unanimity, and Impartiality; and on Our Part, We assure you of Our Countenance and Encouragement, in what you shall propose for the real Good of your Country, consistent with the general Interest of Our United Kingdom. And so we bid you heartily farewel. Given at Our Court at Kensington the 7th Day of June 1726. In the Twelfth Year of our Reign. 

   By his Majesty’s Command. 

Holles Newcastle.”

– Caledonian Mercury, Monday 25th July, 1726.

 

   “The Bill for improving the Fishery, and such other Manufactories in Scotland, as might conduce to the general Good of the United Kingdoms, Enacts, That his Majesty establish a particular Plan, and fix proper Rules, whereof the Funds already provided may be distributed according to the 15th Article of the Treaty of Union, which allows 2000L. per Annum for 7 Years, towards promoting the foresaid Manufactures.” 

Caledonian Mercury, Thursday 4th May, 1727.

 

From WYE’S LETTER, April 11.

Remainder of the Protest (beforemention’d) entered against passing the Salt Bill, viz.

   Because as this Excise is proposed, without apparent Necessity or Conveniency to the Publick, or even any real Advantage (as is suggested) to the Landed Interest, it must necessarily create a Jealousy in the People, that it is a Step and Introduction to a more general one; than which nothing can be more odious and dreaded, but a standing Army, that must necessarily attend the Execution of it. Because Scotland being charged only with One Shilling per Bushel on Salt, which is not a third Part of the Duty, introduceth an inequality in Trade, contrary to that which seems established by the Articles of the Union, and tends to keep up invidious Distinctions between the two Parts of the United Kingdom. It may justly be doubted, if the Exemptions from the Duty of the Time of the Union is a sufficient Reason for the like now; since the Duty was appropriated to the Debts of England, contracted before, and is now revived for the current Service of this Year, yet under the Appearance of Favour; the People of Scotland will at least, pay in three Years, the full Sum of 24,672 l. for the saving of One Shilling in the Land Tax in the current Year, amounting to less than 12000 l…” 

– Derby Mercury, Thursday 13th April, 1732.

 

From a private Letter, London, March 1.

   Since my last the House of Commons resolved, That towards raising the Supply to be granted to his Majesty, the Sum of L.500,000 be applied out of the Overplus-money of the Sinking Fund, over and above what has been applied towards Payment of one Million of the National Debt. 

   That towards raising the Supply, one Shilling in the Pound for the current Year be laid upon all Lands, Tenements, &c. in England, and a proportional Cess (according to Art. 9 of the Treaty of Union) in Scotland.” 

– Caledonian Mercury, Tuesday 6th March, 1733.

 

“NEWS from the REPUBLICK of LETTERS.

JUST PUBLISHED,

   The late Lord Belhaven’s Memorable Speeches in the last Parliament of Scotland holden at Edinburgh in 1706, on the Subject Matter of the then projected Union: Wherein the slavish Homage and Respect that the People of Scotland should in Time pay to every petty English Excisemen, is predicted. Price One Shilling.” 

– Derby Mercury, Thursday 10th May, 1733.

 

Dublin, Jan. 5.

   Four plain and unanswerable Reasons, shewing that no Time can be proper for repealing the Test humbly offered to the serious Consideration of all true Lovers of our Constitution, and present Establishment in Church and State. 

   Because it is demonstratively evident, that the Repeal of the Test, or the divesting the Church by Law established, of any Right or Privilege, which by Act of Parliament it enjoys, would ipso facto dissolve the happy Union between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland; it being by the Act of the Union between the two said Kingdoms, ordained and enacted as follows; ‘That all and singular Acts of Parliament, now in force, for the Establishment and Preservation of the Church of England, and the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government thereof, shall remain and be in full Force for ever. And it is after enacted and declared, That this Act, and all and every the Matters and Things therein contained, be, and shall be for ever holden and adjudged, to be a fundamental and essential Part of the Union between the two Kingdoms.’ ” 

– Caledonian Mercury, Monday 21st January, 1734.

 

From a private Letter, London, April 12.

   Yesterday a Petition of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was presented to the Commons, and read; representing that Patronages have since the Reformation been deemed by the said Church a very great Grievance, and not warranted by the Word of God, and have at all Times been struggled against; That soon after the Revolution an Act of Parliament was made in Scotland abolishing the Patron’s Power to present Ministers to vacant Churches, and at the Union of the two Kingdoms, the Establishment of the Church of Scotland in all its Rights and Privileges by that and other Acts of Parliament made or ratified after the Revolution, was declared to be a fundamental and essential Article of that Union; and at that Time it was the Right and Privilege of the Church to be free from Patronages; but that by an Act decimo Annae, intituled An Act to restore the Patrons to their ancient Rights of presenting Ministers to vacant Churches in Scotland, the aforesaid Act of King William was rescinded in so far as concerned the Patron’s Power to present, and other Advantages which had been the chief Things bestowed on Patrons in Lieu of their former Right of Presentation, were nevertheless continued with them: and therefore praying, &c. 

   And the said Act of the Tenth of the Queen being read, a Bill was ordered in, for repealing so much thereof as relates to the Power of Patrons to present to vacant Churches; and for explaining a Scots Act 1690 concerning Patronages, and for ascertaining the Method of calling Ministers to vacant Churches in Scotland: And Mess. Plumer, Erskine, Forbes, Areskine, Sir James Fergusson, and Mr. Hume Campbel, are to bring in the same.” 

– Caledonian Mercury, Thursday 17th April, 1735.

 

   “This Morning the Rev. Mr. Willison and Mr. Macintosh set out for Scotland, being two of the Commissioners sent by that Church to petition the Parliament for the repealing the Act of Patronages made about the End of Queen Anne’s Reign; and the Bill being delayed, there is no Hopes of its passing this Session. But it is supposed the General Assembly will renew their Application next Session, Patronages being reputed by the People of Scotland to be a grievous and insupportable Burden, and the Continuance of it is what they are unwilling to bear, especially seeing it is their Right to be without Patronages, being contrary to the Articles of Union.” 

– Caledonian Mercury, Tuesday 13th May, 1735.

 

   “Last Thursday night the Rt. Hon. JOHN (Elphinstone) Lord BALMERINO departed this Life at his House in Leith, in the 84th Year of his Age. He was esteem’d a wise and good Man, a Lover of Mankind, and more particularly of his Country. In the last Parliament of Scotland he opposed the Union of the Two Kingdoms, as thinking it prejudicial to the Honour and Interest of Scotland. He had the Honour to sit in the 3rd and 4th Parliaments of Great Britain under the late Queen Anne of Glorious Memory, and was by her Majesty appointed High Sheriff f the County of Edinburgh, and one of the Lords Commissioners of Police…” 

– Caledonian Mercury, Monday 17th May, 1736.

 

   “… To our misfortune, our ministers, in some of our former reigns, got the better in this contest, and got such punishments inflicted upon what the lawyers called treason, as must be allowed to be both unjust and cruel. Cruel they certainly are; so cruel that, I believe, the punishment is now seldom, if ever, inflicted according to the express words of the sentence; and it must be allowed to be unjust, to punish the innocent child for the sake of a guilty father. Nay, our laws against treason fo farther: they punish, as far as within the reach of human power, even those that are dead and in their graves; for if it be a reward to a man who has deserved well of the publick, as it certainly is, to ennoble his posterity as well as himself, to degrade his posterity must be looked on as a punishment upon him. 

   These cruel and unjust punishments have long been complained of, and frequent attempts have been made to get them altered; but, my Lords, the revengeful and avaritious influence of ministers, which at first got them established, has hitherto, and I am afraid will for ever, prevent their being abolished. It was this, my Lords, and not the danger we were in either from a republican or a Jacobitish spirit, that prevented any law being made for this purpose in the reigns of K. Charles, K. James, K. William, and the first six years of Q. Anne; and it was an extraordinary concurrence of causes that enabled us to get some little conquest over that influence in the 7th year of Q. Anne. In that year, our ministers wanted to have the English laws of treason introduced into Scotland. The Scots had in the year 1690 so far got the better of their ministers and men in power, as to get a law then passed for preventing innocent childrens being punished for the crimes of their fathers. This valuable law the Scots, who were then members of the British Parliament, would not part with; and the English members who were friends to the people, took advantage of this contest, in order to get some such law introduced in England. Our ministers found, they could not gain their favourite point, without yielding something; but they were resolved to yield as little as possible. They agreed to the introducing this law in England; but with this proviso, That it should not take place till after the decease of the pretender, and three years after the immediate succession to the crown, upon the demise of the then Queen, should take effect; which proviso they pretended was necessary, because of the danger that might ensue upon the demise of the Queen, and the introduction of a new family to the throne. This, I say, was their pretence; but their true reason, I am convinced, was, because they thought, if such a proviso enlarged from time to time, so as to prevent the law from ever taking effect: and I wish it may not now appear, that they were not mistaken in their judgment; for if what is now offered, be agreed to, I shall despair of ever seeing this salutary law begin to take effect. 

   From this account of the law now under our consideration, your Lordships must see, that it was a sort of compact between the two nations, and that the very clause which is now to be suspended, or rather repealed, was what chiefly induced the Scots to give up for a time their law of the year 1690. Therefore, what is now proposed may be looked on as a breach of that compact, and, consequently, as a breach of the articles of the union: for, by the 18th article of the union, it is expressly provided, That, even by the parliament of G. Britain, no alteration, shall be made as to laws concerning private right, except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland. I am very sure, it cannot be said, that the suspension of their law of the year 1690, if it had been but for one day, could ever be said to be for the utility of the subjects of Scotland; consequently it must be allowed, that this proviso was at first an incroachment upon the articles of the union, which the parliament of G. Britain had no right to make: and, if the Scots were induced to agree or submit to a temporary suspension of the force of their law of the year 1690, in hopes that the time of that suspension would never be prolonged; from what is now proposed, they will conclude, if it should be agreed to, that they have been deluded, and that they must never expect to have that beneficial law restored to them. What their members of this or the other house may do upon this occasion, I shall not pretend to determine; but I am convinced, the Scottish nation in general will never agree to what is now proposed; especially when they consider, how much they have suffered, and how many of their ancient Noble families have been destroyed by the temporary suspension they submitted to in the 7th year of the late Q. Anne. 

   When I say this, my Lords, I hope no one will think that I approve of, or that I intend to justify the rebellion that broke out in Scotland soon after his late Majesty’s accession. No, my Lords; I condemn that rebellion as much as any Lord in this house. I think, those that were guilty and suffered, met with nothing but what they deserved. But why should their innocent children have been made to suffer? why should the merit of their ancestors be forgot, their memories buried in the dust, and their families annihilated, on account of one of their posterity’s having been guilty of a crime against the state?..” 

– The Scots Magazine, Monday 1st October, 1744.

 

   “Newcastle, Aug. 31. On Sunday last General Blakeney and Col. Leighton went through this Town for the Camp at Sterling. 

   A Letter dated the 24th Instant from a Person of Distinction in the North West of Scotland, to a Gentleman in this Town, says, Two Companies of St. Clair’s and Murray’s, going between Fort Augustus and Fort William, were attack’d by a Body of Highlanders. It was a bloody Battle; but the Soldiers having spent all their Ammunition, which was nine Charges, were attack’d in Front, Flank and Rear, and oblig’d to surrender Prisoners, after the Loss of a good Number on each Side. Capt. Scott was wounded in the Action, and since dead. 

   Several private Letters from Edinburgh last Post to Gentlemen in Newcastle say, That several Copies of the Pretender’s Manifestoes have been seen there; one dated in 1743, when the last Invasion was intended; and the other in 1745, both sign’d by the Pretender; in which he declares his Son Regent for Scotland, disannuls the Union, takes off the Malt Tax, and promise to secure the Rights and Liberties of the People: That several Persons have sent Copies of the Manifestoes to the Magistrates of that City, not daring to keep them: That a Nobleman’s Brother is Standard Bearer to the Rebels: That, except the Macdonalds of Clanronald, of Knappoch, of Glengarry, and of Kinlochmoidart, the Camerons of Lochyell, and the Stuarts of Appin, there are none of the Clans in Person with the young Chevalier, but about 2500 of their Men, not all arm’d: And that General Cope would be up with the Rebels on the 27th or 28th Instant.” 

– Stamford Mercury, Thursday 12th September, 1745.

 

   “… Under the British government since the revolution, for a long tract of years, (longer than any former period of British liberty), we have had the free exercise of our religion, and the secure enjoyment of property. – Husbandry, trade and manufacture, (particularly in the linen in this little place of late) since the union of the two nations, which the pretender condemns as illegal, and promises to destroy, these arts of industry and labour have been in Scotland in a more flourishing way than ever. Shall Britons then, at any rate, part with these valuable privileges?..” 

– The Scots Magazine, Friday 4th October, 1745.

 

   “Of opposition and rebellion, and an apology for Scotland. 

   There is the same difference betwixt opposition and rebellion, as there is betwixt wholsome medicine and deadly poison. The pen which has been often drawn against the corruption, the mismanagement, and influence of office, is now resumed against the madness, the impiety, and danger of civil rage; consistent in both characters; both duties willingly performed; their occasions sincerely lamented. 

   The Romans never appeared so truly Roman by acquiring victory, as they did by resenting defeat. Two eminent instances of that kind are met with in their history. Their disgrace of the Furcae Candinae was wiped away by the almost utter extinction of their enemies; and tho’ they lost the battle of Cannae by the mismanagement of their General, yet did they scorn to shew any resentment, but against the foes who had given them the defeat. 

   There is in a brave people, such as the Romans once were, and such as I hope the English now are, a solidity, by which, instead of Breaking, they rebound by a fall. The spirit which our countrymen has shewn since a recent disgrace does them more honour than ever they could have acquired by a partial success against a naked, needy, desperate crew. We are told of certain little noxious animals, whom it is not at all difficult to destroy one you catch hold of them, but ‘tis ten to one that they don’t bite you while you are endeavouring to seize them. Our highland enemies are somewhat of this kind: they have had their snap, and, it must be owned, we have been confoundedly bit; but it is now more than probable their success will be fatal to themselves alone. To the immortal honour of Englishmen, all animosities are now buried in a generous resolution of preserving, in  his Majesty’s person and family, whatever can be dear to Protestants, to Britons, and to men: the noble infection of publick spirit now flies from breast to breast, and he is not an Englishman who feels not its influence. Where, O Faction, is now thy fling! and where, O Party, is now thy rage! The one plucked out, the other subsided: may the first never recover its venom, nor the latter resume its force.” 

– The Scots Magazine, Friday 4th October, 1745.

 

   “CHARLES Prince of Wales, &c. Regent of Scotland, England, France and Ireland, and the Dominions thereunto belonging. 

   CHARLES P. R

   WHEREAS We are certainly informed, That the Elector of Hanover has taken upon him to summon a Parliament to meet at Westminster on Thursday the Seventeenth of this instant October; We hereby warn and command all His Majesty’s Liege Subjects, whether Peers or Commoners, to pay no Obedience to any such Summons. and not to presume to meet or act as a Parliament at the Time and Place appointed, or any other; the so doing by any Authority but that of the King our Royal Father, since the setting up of His Standard, and His Majesty’s gracious Pardon offered for all that is past, being an ouvert Act of Treason and Rebellion: But if notwithstanding this Our Declaration, any Number of Persons shall presume to meet in either House, and act there as Members of a lawful Parliament, they cannot but be sensible that no Right or Privilege of Parliament can avail to justify what they shall say or do, in such an unlawful Assembly. And for those of His Majesty’s Subjects of this His ancient Kingdom of Scotland, whether Peers or Commoners, who shall, contrary to these Our express Commands, presume to sit or vote as aforesaid, as soon as the same shall be verified unto Us, the Transgressors shall be proceeded against as Traitors and Rebels to their King and Country, and their Estates shall be confiscated for His Majesty’s Use, according to the Laws of the Land; the pretended Union of these Kingdoms being now at an End. Lastly, We hereby strictly enjoin and command all His Majesty’s faithful Subjects, of what Rank or Degree soever, to pay no Obedience or Regard to any Act, Vote, Order or Resolution, that may be published in the Name of both Houses, or of either of them respectively, as they shall answer the contrary at their peril. Given at our Palace of Holy-rood-house, the Ninth Day of October, One thousand seven hundred and forty five. 

C. P. R.   

By His Highness’s Command.  

JO. MURRAY.”   

– Caledonian Mercury, Wednesday 9th October, 1745.

 

   “We hear the following Inscriptions were upon the Sword taken from the Earl of Cromarty, (one of the Rebel Lords in the Tower) and presented to Gen. St. Clair just before he set out for Portsmouth, viz. G-d preserve King J—-s the VIIIth of S——d, on one Side; and Prosperity to Scotland, and no Union, on the other: But these being eraz’d out, the following Words were put in their Place, God preserve King George the IId, King of Great Britain, &c. on one Side; and on the other, Prosperity to England and Scotland.” 

– Newcastle Courant, Saturday 19th July, 1746.

 

   “Tuesday the Court sat at St. Margaret’s Hill, Southwark, for trying the Rebel Prisoners: The Right Hon. the Lord Chief Justice Willes, the Hon. Mr. Justice Foster, and the Hon. Mr. Baron Clive, were present; when James Lindsay (who was a Shoemaker at Perth) a Lifeguard-man in Lord Strathallan’s Regiment of Horse, and taken at the Battle of Culloden, was tried, and found guilty of High Treason. Then Alexander Kinlock and James Kinlock were bro’t to the Bar; but the Prisoners Council starting a Point of Law relating to the Union between England and Scotland, the Court adjourn’d till Yesterday. 

   Yesterday the Court sat again, when the Right Hon. the Lord Chief Justice Willes, Mr. Justice Foster, and Mr. Baron Clive, were present: When the Point of Law mov’d on Tuesday by the Council for the Prisoners, which was, whether those who are Natives of Scotland, Resident in Scotland, had committed Acts of Treason in Scotland, and were taken in Scotland, could, without a Breach of the Union, be tried in England? This was argu’d by Mr. Attorney-General on the Behalf of the Crown; and Mr. Gordon and Mr. Joddrell for the Prisoners; but the late Act of Parliament for the Trial of Rebels being very plain, the motion was over-rul’d by the Court. Then Alexander Kinlock and Charles Kinlock, Brothers of Sir James Kinlock, Bart. and both Captains in Lord Ogilvie’s second Battalion; and Andrew Wood, a Capt. in Roy Stuart’s Regiment, were tried, and found guilty of High Treason. Then the Court adjourn’d till to-morrow morning 9 o’Clock. 

   A double Guard of Soldiers do Duty every Night in the New Jail, Southwark. After the Rebels are lock’d up, Centinels are placed in their Rooms with their Bayonets fix’d, and Centinels at the Doors of those Rooms, and both are reliev’d every two Hours; and the Keeper’s Servants attend all Night to open the Rooms of the Prison.” 

– Derby Mercury, Friday 31st October, 1746.

 

   “A Bill is ordered into Parliament for taking away or abolishing the heritable Jurisdiction in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, and for reserving such Jurisdiction to the Crown; and for making more effectual Provision for the Administration of Justice throughout that Part of the united Kingdom by the King’s Courts and Judges there, and for rendering the Union more compleat.” 

– Ipswich Journal, Saturday 28th February, 1747.

 

   “An abstract of some observations made upon the bill for abolishing the heritable jurisdictions in Scotland, &c. 

   THE abolishing heritable jurisdictions, and offices of inheritance, instead of completing the union, would tend to dissolve it; and the restoring them to the crown, is against our constitution

   The 20th article of union reserves all heritable offices, superiorities, heritable jurisdictions, offices for life, and jurisdictions for life, to the owners thereof, as rights of property, in the same manner as they were enjoyed by the laws of Scotland at the time of the union, notwithstanding that treaty. How then can the union be rendered more compleat, by the abolishing jurisdictions which are expressly secured to us by the union, when at the same time jurisdictions of a higher kind in England, tho’ nor expressly reserved by it, are to be left entire? For the powers and privileges of counties-palatine in England, tho’ higher than those of our justiciaries or regalities, and of lords of manours there, tho’ higher than those of our barons, are still to be preserved. Of old, lords of manours had the franchise of infang thief and outfang thief, to be heard and determined in their courts-baron, and our barons had powers of pit and gallows. Both these are now in disuse, and therefore the subjects in both parts of the united kingdom are on an equal footing in this respect. But still the lords of manours have a jurisdiction, not only in punishing offences and misdemeanors, but likewise in deciding controversies about the title of copyhold lands, within their own bounds, where they may redress matters as a chancellor in equity. This last never belonged to our barons, nor even to lords of regalities, all competitions about rights of inheritance belonging peculiarly to the court of session. These and other privileges belong to lords of manours in England, and many more to those vested in counties-palatine. 

   All jurisdiction proceeded, no doubt, originally from the crown; but after a subject is vested in a jurisdiction as a part of his inheritance, he can no more be outed of it, than of any other right of property. – Those against which this bill strikes, were granted some ages ago…” 

– The Scots Magazine, Friday 6th March, 1747.

 

Extract of a private Letter from London, April 8.

   Yesterday Mr. Attorney General presented to the House of Common, according to Order, a Bill for taking away and abolishing the heritable Jurisdictions in Scotland, and for making Satisfaction to the Proprietors thereof, and for restoring them to the Crown, which was received. And it being moved, that the Bill be read the first Time, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, by Order of his Majesty, acquainted the House that his Majesty having been informed of the Purport of the Bill, recommends it to the Consideration of the House. And the Bill being read a first Time, and it being proposed that it be read a second Time, a Motion was made, that the 18th Act of King Charles II. made in Scotland September 16 1681, entituled An Act for asserting his Majesty’s Prerogative in Point of Jurisdiction; and that so much of the Articles of Grievances represented by the Estates of that Kingdom, to be redressed in Parliament, 13 April 1680, as represents, that the said Act of Parliament 1681, declaring a cumulative Jurisdiction, is a Grievance; and also that the 18th and 20th Articles of the Union, might be all read: Which being read accordingly, the House appointed the Bill to be printed, and to be read a second Time upon the 14th inst.” 

– Caledonian Mercury, 14th April, 1747.

 

   “The lion entered into partnership with the pointer, greyhound, fox, and the rest of the beasts, to go a-hunting. When the prey was caught, the lion claimed the first part, because he was their King; the next, because he was the strongest; and, for one reason or other, all the rest; because he found it was in his power to have it so. 

   When the Scots entered into that contract, they, no doubt, perfectly well knew, that, even in a legal parliament, their sixteen Peers and forty five Commoners could never make a majority, either for protecting them in what they had, or for getting any thing new for their advantage. So res ipsa loquitur, that their whole dependence must have been on the immutability of the things they had stipulated for, at that time; as being the very conditions of the contract, on which they were to part with all their separate power of protecting themselves, at any time to come: and as the articles then agreed on, made the sole consideration of their parting with the power of themselves, and becoming members of a new state; these being the pillars on which the new fabrick was raised, they are fundamentals, in the most natural and fullest meaning of the word; and therefore not to be altered, (as I observed before), but where the express words of the treaty give such a power, or where the parties concerned are consenting. 

   In the year 1713, the Scots members of both houses having seen and considered some infringements that they conceived to have been made on these articles, to the prejudice of Scotland; as particularly by the statute extending the laws concerning treason in England, to have place in Scotland; secondly, by the construction of the articles, to be a bar against any of the Peers of Scotland being made Peers of Great Britain, and thirdly, for the weight and inequality of the malt-tax, as being laid on that of Scotland, which in many places is not worth a shilling a bushel, the same as on that of England, worth three or four shillings a bushel, &c. they attended the then Queen, for leave to bring in a bill for an act to dissolve the union, as not having had the good effects that had been expected. And a motion was made by the late Earl of Findlater, in name of himself and all the Peers of Scotland, for leave to bring in the bill: which was seconded; and, on a division, was rejected; and, I think, only by a majority of one. 

   In the debate, as I well remember, the late Earl of Peterborough compared the union to marriage: and, taking England for the husband, and Scotland for the wife, he said, merrily, ‘That if the husband did prove unkind now and then, the Lady must not think, for that, to get free, and be her own mistress again.’ And (to carry the allegory a little further) I cannot help observing, that she had no trustees in her settlement; so that if she should be heartily drubbed, I know not to whom she can make her complaint; or, as Job said in his distress, where to find a daysman to lay his hand upon both; but the great and just God, and our most gracious sovereign… 

   Whether the grievances which I have mentioned, and others that some may think to be so, had any influence in raising such a spirit of rebellion in the year 1715, or another of a later date, I leave to others to ruminate upon: but I confess, that, with respect to both, it was matter of wonder to me, even to astonishment, that so many Protestants, even some of them zealous Revolutioners, could take part in measures so destructive; if it was not to glut themselves with revenge for wrongs conceived to have been done, and, Samson-like, help to pull down the house, and pride themselves in perishing with their enemies, and lying buried with them in the ruins.” 

– Scots Magazine, 1st May, 1747.

 

   “The Bill for taking away and abolishing the Heretable Jurisdictions in Scotland, and for making satisfaction to the Proprietors thereof; and for restoring such Jurisdictions to the Crown, and for making more effectual provision for the Administration of Justice throughout that part of the United Kingdom, by the King’s Court, and Judges there, and for rendering the Union of the two Kingdoms more compleat, has passed both Houses of Parliament, and lies ready for the Royal Assent.” 

– Derby Mercury, 5th June, 1747.

 

The LORD’s Protest on the SCOTS Jurisdiction-Bill.

May 21, 1747.

   THE Order of the Day being read for resuming the further Consideration of the above Bill, it was moved to commit the same; which being objected to, and a long Debate thereupon, the Question was put, Whether this Bill shall be committed? It was resolv’d in the Affirmative: Content 79, Not Content 16. 

   Dissentient, 1st, Because changing the Civil Constitution of Scotland, which the Act of Union reserved, and taking from the great Families in that Part of the Kingdom, without their Consent, and against their Will, their ancient Rights and Inheritances, to be purchased by the Publick, in this Time of Distress, at a great but uncertain Expence, appears to us to be so extraordinary an Exertion of the Power of Parliament, as could only be justified by Necessity of State, or some general, manifest, or urgent Utility to the Publick. 

   2dly, Because we apprehend this Bill not to be justified by any Necessity of State, since it is manifestly and avowedly ineffectual, if calculated for adding further Security to his Majesty’s Government; because it is not so much as pretended that this Bill can have any Effect upon the influence upon Clans, which arises from no legal Authority; and since from these legal Jurisdictions, subject to the Controul, and necessarily under the Direction of the King’s Court in Scotland, Danger to Government is no more likely to arise, than from the Influence which Rank and Property may acquire in any other Part of his Majesty’s Dominions. 

   3dly, Because Utility to the Subjects in that Part of the Kingdom, from this Bill is not apparent to us; since it is not imagined, that a real, a great and extensive Benefit should not be desired by the People of Scotland, when tender’d to them; but on the contrary, should meet with strong Opposition, cold Acquiescence, or silent Disgust: and since no single Instance of Grievance has been alledged, but on the contrary, has been acknowledged that no bad Use has been made of this Part of the ancient Civil Constitution of Scotland, which is intended by this Bill to abolish at once and for ever. 

   4thly, Because we do not conceive the Policy of making, without Necessity, at this Time by a permanent Law, so considerable an Alteration in Government; nor do we apprehend the Wisdom of purchasing an ineffectual and problematical Plan, by a certain but unknown Expence; neither do we understand how it is consistent with Justice, to abolish the Right of the Parties concern’d, without previously adjusting their Compensation; nor can we reconcile with our Duty to the Publick, the delegating to the Court of Session in Scotland the Power of fixing the Sums to be raised upon the People: A new Method of creating a new Load of Expence, in no Degree ascertained, or even suggested to Parliament. 

   5thly, Because we apprehend, by the Maxims of the Constitution of this Country, Influence in the Hands of the Crown is more to be feared from the Abuse of ministerial Power, especially in the Election of Members of Parliament, than when in the Hands of Nobility and Gentry, whose Rank and Property are naturally the Supports of a free Government; and we cannot conceive how the Liberty of Scotland will be preserved by this Bill, (which in our Opinions) manifestly tends to constitute, at this Juncture, a new Influence over all the Counties of North Britain, by throwing a great and dangerous Power into the Hands of Ministers; especially when it is avowed, that such an Alteration of Government may necessitate the Introduction of a military Force. A fatal Symptom! when it can be mentioned in a British Parliament, that a Measure avowedly ineffectual for the Safety of the Government, and evidently unnecessary for the Publick Utility, most probably be carried into Execution by military Force; which if allowed and not exerted, must produce an Influence of the most pernicious Kind; and if exerted, establishes a Military Government of the most dangerous Nature, because masked under the Form of Civil Government; a Practice tending, in either Case, to subvert the Constitution of this Country, and to which therefore we never can consent. 

   Oxford and Mortimer,          Shaftsbury,          Stanhope, 

   Westmorland,                         Denbigh,              Ward, 

   Ferrers,                                    Litchfield,           Talbot,                   Beaufort.” 

– Newcastle Courant, 11th July, 1747.

 

“A collection of TREASONABLE PAPERS published in 1745.

   [As a great many of the essays, extracts, &c. inserted in our Magazine during the time of the rebellion, were intended to prevent any bad impressions that might be made by the publick papers emitted by the pretender and his son; and as these papers shew the pretexts used nu his Majesty’s enemies for overturning the government, we presume that a collection of them will be acceptable.] 

   I. The pretender’s declaration for Scotland, JAMES R.

   JAMES VIII. by the grace of God, King of Scotland, England, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all our loving subjects, of what degree or quality soever, greeting. 

   Having always borne the most constant affection to our ancient kingdom of Scotland, from whence we derive our Royal origin, and where our progenitors have swayed the sceptre with glory through a longer succession of Kings, than any monarchy upon earth can at this day boast of; we cannot but behold with the deepest concern the miseries they suffer under a foreign usurpation, and the intolerable burdens daily added to their yoke; which become yet more sensible to us, when we consider the constant zeal and affection the generality of our subjects of that our ancient kingdom have expressed for us on all occasions, and particularly when we had the satisfaction of being ourselves amongst them. 

   We see a nation always famous for valour, and highly esteemed by the greatest of foreign potentates, reduced to the condition of a province, under the specious pretence of an union with a more powerful neighbour. In consequence of this pretended union, grievous and unprecedented taxes have been laid on, and levied with severity, in spite of all the representations that could be made to the contrary; and these have not failed to produce that poverty, and decay of trade, which were easily foreseen to be the necessary consequences of such oppressive measures. 

   To prevent the just resentment which could not but arise from such usage, our faithful highlanders, a people always trained up and inured to arms, have been deprived of them: forts and citadels have been built and garrisoned, where no foreign invasion could be apprehended; and a military government has been effectually introduced, as into a conquered country. It is easy to foresee, what must be the consequences of such violent and unprecedented proceedings, if a timely remedy be not put to them: neither is it less manifest, that such a remedy can never be obtained, but by our restoration to the throne of our ancestors, into whose Royal hearts such destructive maxims could never find admittance…” 

– Scots Magazine, 5th December, 1747.

 

   “The substance of the speeches made by way of reply in the debate upon the bill for abolishing the hereditary jurisdictions in Scotland, &c. 

   Whilst Scotland remained a separate kingdom, I do not at all wonder, that these jurisdictions were always so numerous, and had such an influence in their parliaments, that no man could hope for the success of any motion tending to such a purpose: but this was a difficulty no man could apprehend in a British parliament; and therefore I must suppose, Sir, that the continuance of these hereditary jurisdictions is more owing to our inattention to the affairs of Scotland than to any man’s being in doubt as to the bad consequences of these jurisdictions, both with respect to the people subject to them, and with respect to the publick tranquillity. The danger we were lately in from Scotland has raised our attention; and, now it is raised, whatever was the cause of the late rebellion, I hope, that for our own sakes, as well as for the sake of the poor people in Scotland, we shall take care not to leave it in the power of any great lord in Scotland, to compel the whole people of a county or other district to follow him into a rebellion, tho’ most of them be neither disaffected tom nor dissatisfied with the supreme government of their country; which, I am afraid, was not the case at the time the late rebellion was begun…” 

– Scots Magazine, 1st January, 1748.

 

   PROPOSAL for improving the Scotch Highlands, and for recovering the HERRING FISHERY from the Dutch. 

   AS his Majesty in his Speech from the Throne, has most graciously recommended to his Parliament, that if any farther Provisions should be found expedient, to render more effectual the good Laws lately made for the Security of the present Establishment, extinguishing the Spirit of Rebellion, and for better civilizing, improving, or reducing into Order any Part of the united Kingdom, they would seriously and early set about so good a Work; the following Extract from a Pamphlet, entitled An Enquiry into the Causes of the late Rebellion, &c. we doubt not may be agreeable to our Readers. 

   The Author, after proposing several Methods for extinguishing the Spirit of Rebellion in Scotland, and civilizing the Highlands and Western Islands of that Country, goes on thus: 

   ‘To this let me add, that in order to produce the desir’d Effect more early, we ought to endeavour to put the People of that Country into the Hot-bed of Trade and Manufactures, which might be done at a very small publick Expence, by improving some of the many natural Harbours they have in the West and North Highlands, and giving encouragement to Merchants and others to build Houses, and to set up a foreign Trade at those Ports. This would furnish the People with a convenient and ready Vend for any Manufactures they might set up; and the Increase of our Fisheries and Seamen would soon be a Compensation to the Publick for the Expence it had been put to. 

   Surely, the Fishing Trade upon our own Coasts deserves as much our Attention, as that upon the Coasts of North America. – Neither ought to be neglected; but if any Difference be made, it should be in favour of that upon our own Coasts;.. our Care of the American Fishery ought not to make us neglect that upon our own Coasts, particularly that of Herrings, which our neighbours the Dutch make such an Advantage of, and by which they maintain such a Number of Seamen. This Trade we can never recover but by erecting Ports upon the Northern and Western Coasts of Scotland, where the Herring Fishery Season first begins;.. 

   Besides these and many other Advantages, it is evident, that a flourishing Trade upon the Western Coasts and Islands of Scotland would produce such a Resort of Strangers to that Country, and such a frequent Intercourse between the Inhabitants and those of the other Parts of the Island, as would in a few Years put an End to that Clannish Disposition which at present prevails among the People; and as the landed Gentlemen would then be all engaged in the Fishing Trade, and in a Way of improving their fortunes daily, it would not be easy to persuade them to join in any Plot or Rebellion; especially if proper Care was taken to have them educated in right Principles, and the Discontents of the People removed by repealing those disarming Laws, which have established such an invidious and galling Distinction between them and the rest of his Majesty’s Subjects. I mean only those Laws which seem to impress the Character of Disaffection upon the Soil, the Air, or Climate of certain Counties, as if every Man born in that Soil, Air, or Climate must necessarily be a Jacobite; for as to those Laws by which Papists and Nonjurors are to be disarmed, none of them ought to be repealed, but farther enforced, if possible.’ 

   What is recommended by this Author is so reasonable, so necessary, and so apparent for the publick Good of the whole British Dominions, that it is surprising no Measures have been taken ever since the Union for making Ports or Harbours in the Western Islands, or upon the North West Coasts of Scotland, and for erecting Corporations or free Boroughs in that Part of the Country; especially as Mr Martin has long since, in his Description of the Western Islands of Scotland, so fully explain’d the many Advantages that might be reaped from making proper Improvements there. 

   If proper Care had been taken, and a little of the publick Money applied towards this End, presently after the Rebellion in 1715, certainly no second Rebellion would have happened in that Country; and the Expence, besides the Danger, which the Nation was brought into by the last Rebellion, must convince us, that a little of the publick Money would have been most profitably applied towards erecting some Harbours and free Towns in that Country. 

   But Safety and Saving are not the only Advantages we should have had from such an Improvement; From what this Author says, it is more than probable, that before this Time we should have had several Thousands of Men, and several Hundreds of Ships employed in the Fishing Trade upon those Coasts; and what an Addition this would have brought to our general Balance of Trade, what a Supply for our Navy, it is easy to imagine, but not easy to set Bounds to; because Trade would before now have been carried on at so cheap a Rate, that we might have engrossed the Fishing Trade of Europe. 

   When the Wisdom of a Nation happens to be guilty of such a palpable Neglect of national Interest as this must appear to be, one is apt to endeavour to find out the Cause; which may be suggested to be one of these two: Either that the Noblemen and Gentlemen of that Country choose rather that the People should be kept in Poverty, Ignorance, and a slavish Subjection to their Superiors, than that they should be put in a Way of enriching themselves, and being useful to their Country; or that some foreign Interests, or foreign Regards prevented our making a proper Use of those Advantages with which bountiful Nature has blessed this happy Island. Which of these two has hitherto been the Cause of this Neglect, is left to the Reader to determine; but if either of them should any longer prevail, it is evident, from what his Majesty has now recommended to his Parliament, that the Continuance of it will not lie at his Door.” 

– Newcastle Courant, 30th January, 1748.

 

“EDINBURGH, April 21st.

   Private Letters from London say, That the Commons have passed the Bill for the Trial of High Treason in Scotland.” 

– Aberdeen Press and Journal, 26th April, 1748.

 

Westminster, May 13.

   His Majesty came this Day to the House of Peers, and being in his Royal Robes, seated on the Throne with the usual Solemnity, the Hon. Mr. Bellenden, Gentleman-Usher of the Black Rod, was sent with a Message from his Majesty to the House of Commons, commanding their Attendance in the House of Peers; The Commons being come thither accordingly, his Majesty was pleased to give the Royal Assent to, 

   An Act for the more effectual Trial and Punishment of High Treason and Misprision of High Treason in the Highlands of Scotland; and for abrogating the Practice of taking down the Evidence in Writing in certain criminal Prosecutions; and for making some further Regulations relating to Sheriffs Depute and Stewarts Depute, and their Substitutes; and for other Purposes therein mentioned. 

   An Act to amend and enforce so much of an Act made in the Nineteenth Year of his Majesty’s Reign, as relates to the more effectual disarming the Highlands in Scotland, and restraining the Use of the Highland Dress, and to Masters and Teachers of private Schools and Chaplains; and to explain a Clause in another Act made in the same Year relating to Letters of Orders of Episcopal Ministers in Scotland; and to oblige Persons allowed to carry Arms, and the Directors of the Banks there, and certain Persons belonging to or practising in the Courts of Session and Justiciary, to take the Oaths; and to repeal some Clauses in an Act made in the First Year of the Reign of his late Majesty King George the First, whereby certain Encouragements are given to Landlords and Tenants in Scotland, who should continue in their Duty and Loyalty to his said late Majesty; and for other Purposes therein mentioned.*

   An Act to render more effectual an Act made in the Twentieth Year of his Majesty’s Reign, intituled, An Act for Relief of such of his Majesty’s loyal Subjects in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, whose Title Deeds and Writings were destroyed or carried off by the Rebels in the late Rebellion.” 

– Derby Mercury, 13th May, 1748.
* A disbound original printing of this Act of Parliament has been scanned in and transcribed in full.

 

“Edinr. 10th Sept. 1748.

By Order of the Lords of Council and Session,

   THESE are to give Notice to the CLAIMANTS of HERITABLE JURISDICTIONS in SCOTLAND, whose Claims were sustained by the Lords of Session, and their Opinions as to the Value thereof reported to his Majesty in Council, in pursuance of the Act of Parliament made in that Behalf, That the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty’s Treasury have been pleased to signify to the Lords of Council and Session in SCOTLAND, and desire them to cause Notification to be given, that they shall be ready to issue the Money to such original Claimants as shall apply for the same any Time after Michaelmas next, unless proper Application be made in the mean Time to their Lordships of the Treasury, from any other Persons claiming any Right or Title; which Claim or Claims, if any such be entred, their Lordships have been pleased to declare they will refer to the Lords of Session: Or unless any Claimants, whose Claims have been allowed already, knowing that their heritable Jurisdictions are settled in such Tailzies, or subjected to such Mortgages or Incumbrances as are in the said Act mentioned, shall desire that their Lordships of the Treasury would direct their Money to be deposited in one of the Banks in SCOTLAND, for the Purposes intended by the said Act; in which Cases they will cause the same to be so deposited. And as to the eight Claims mentioned in the Lords of Session’s Report to be strictly entailed, that the Value thereof, according as they are severally rated, shall be lodged in one of the Banks of SCOTLAND, in consequence of the Directions given by the Act of Parliament; and ordain this Order to be insert in the Sederunt-Books, and affixed upon the Walls of the Inner and Outer-house; also to be printed in both the News Papers thrice successively. Extracted from the Books of Sederunt by 

THO. GIBSONE.”

– Caledonian Mercury, 13th September, 1748.

 

  “The present expence of living, the rates of provisions, furniture, and cloathing, will be better learned from the markets, the boarding-school, the shops of artificers and merchants, than from Fleetwood, Spelman, or any other author; tho’ it is highly probable, were these Gentlemen alive, they would differ from him in his opinion, that things are by no means dearer now than they were a hundred years ago. It is appealed to the inhabitants of Scotland, whether or not the difference betwixt the expence of family-living, boarding, and education of children, be so considerable now, in comparison of what it was some time ago, as makes an augmentation highly reasonable, considering that their livings remain generally the same that they were a hundred years ago? It is submitted to the slightest observer, if a cow, a sheep, a fowl, &c. are not double of what we are certainly informed they were bought for even at the union? If it were true, that corn has been cheaper of late, than any time these hundred years, it is so much the worse for them, as much of their stipend is paid in victual. For it is by no means true, that the price of all other things depends upon the price of corn. For instance, servants wages are always highest, when the victual is cheapest. The augmentations and new creations are so far from balancing the advanced rent and entry-money for a hundred years bygone, that the whole stipends of Scotland will not balance it, speaking only of the muir-grounds, and those where there has been no improvement; yea, I am authorised by some of the oldest masters and tenants in Scotland to advance it as a fact, that from a comparison of the present and former tacks of the muirs and muir-edges, the rent, excepting some parts of the highlands, is more than doubled; and that even very much of the carse and dale ground, where nothing has been expended, is greatly advanced, either in rent or grassum. These truths are so obvious, and universally acknowledged, that the most sanguine opposers will not get them refused. If their livings had been given them in lands, then the improvement of their grounds would balance their growing expence, and cut off any argument for augmentation. – It is now full time for the Ministers of Scotland to address the legislature, when we not only know that the court of session have thrown out their applications, but when we are also told, in a printed paper, that the reason of their doing so is, because they think they have enough.” 

– Scots Magazine, 1st December, 1748.

 

   ”A Speech made in the House of Commons of England, upon the Question, whether a sum not exceeding 10,000l. should be granted to his Majesty, to reimburse the Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow, the sums extorted from them by the Rebels, upon account of their Loyalty during the late unnatural Rebellion, for the raising of which, the said Magistrates and Town Council, were oblig’d to give their Bonds. 

   Mr. President, 

   WHEN I rise up to speak against the motion now under our consideration, I hope I shall not be reckoned one of that party, who, from disaffected views, may rejoice at the motion’s being rejected. I never was suspected of having any such views; At least, I am sure, I never gave any just ground for such suspicion. I oppose the granting of this money, sir, upon a very different principal: I oppose it, because I am very certain, that whatever the Jacobites in Scotland, from their narrow views, may think, every wise Jacobite in this part of the united kingdom will rejoice at its being granted; for there are many private gentlemen, as well as publick societies, in England, who have as good a right as the city of Glasgow, to have their losses, or a part of their losses, by the rebellion, made good by the publick; the consequence of such a grant may probably be a general discontent or disaffection in England… 

   For this reason, I say, sir, that there is not a sensible Jacobite in England that will not rejoice at this money’s being granted; because the consequence must be, that it will either load the publick with an expence it cannot support, or it will load our established government with a popular odium that may prove its overthrow. If then every sensible Jacobite must have reason to rejoice at this money’s being granted, I am sure, every sensible and true friend to his Majesty must have good reason to give his negative to the motion: And what should induce us to agree to a motion which may, I think, certainly will, be of the most dangerous consequence to our present happy establishment, I cannot comprehend; for either the city of Glasgow deserves in a particular manner this relief, or it does not. If that city does not particularly deserve the relief proposed, surely it ought not to be granted; and if it does in a particular manner deserve such relief, I shall shew, that there are several other and less dangerous ways, by which a proper relief may be granted… 

   As to justice, Sir, have not many other places as just a claim for relief as the city of Glasgow? To mention only the town and neighbourhood of Derby: It is very well known that many gentlemen in that town and neighbourhood subscribed and contribut4ed large sums of money for the support of the government soon after the rebellion broke out; when the rebels came there, some treacherous Jacobites furnished them with a list of the subscribers, and they made every subscriber pay to them the money he had subscribed for the use of the government. Besides, Sir, if the people of Glasgow contributed more, or suffered more, than other places, they had stronger reasons for it than any other part of the Kingdom; because they were more than any other interested in having the rebellion defeated. All their riches flow from the union: It was the union that opened a trade for them to the West Indies, and to several other parts of the world, by which they have become a rich and flourishing people. Had the rebels succeeded, this source of riches would have been shut up from them, because every one knows that the dissolution of the union was the principle upon which the rebellion was first founded, and, I believe, the only principle which they openly and sincerely declared. If then the city of Glasgow had stronger reason for assisting in the disappointment of the rebellion, than any other part of the kingdom, the less reason, and consequently the less justice, have they to demand restitution from the publick, either as to what they expended or suffered by that assistance… 

   Now, Sir, with regard to compassion, can it be pretended that the populous, the rich, and the flourishing city of Glasgow, has any claim to the compassion of the publick? But t’other day we were told by a very sensible man at our bar, and a man of great experience in trade, that he believed the city of Glasgow would in a few years run away with the whole trade of England. Can the people of such a city have any claim to compassion; The corporation may, perhaps, be unable to discharge the debt it has contracted; but the citizens, the members of the corporation, are sufficiently able to pay off that debt, were it much larger than it is. Surely, if a corporation runs itself in debt for the benefit of its members, its most natural recourse is to its members. Let us therefore enable the magistrates, by act of parliament, to raise money upon the inhabitants for discharging this debt. This, I say, we ought to do, if there were no other way for enabling the corporation to discharge this debt; but the crown has now in its possession a fund for this purpose. The estates in Scotland, which have become forfeited by the late rebellion, are now in the possession of the crown, and constitute the most proper fund for granting relief to the city of Glasgow. Some of those estates may, perhaps, lie in its neighbourhood, or not far distant. If a sufficient quantity of those estates should be granted to that city for enabling it to discharge the debt it has contracted, this would be a relief to the corporation, and an advantage to the publick; because, is such an industrious people were in possession of those estates, they would soon improve them, by establishing manufactures and fisheries, in those wild places of Scotland, where nothing of the like nature was ever thought of; and this would not only increase the national stock, but would be the best method we could take for preventing any future rebellion in that country…” 

Pue’s Occurrences, 28th October, 1749.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s