THE COMMONS APPROVE OF THE ARTICLES OF THE UNION.

The parliament being assembled after their short recess, the earl of Nottingham moved for an address to the queen, desiring her majesty would order the proceedings of the commissioners for the union, as well as those of the Scottish parliament on the said subject, to be laid before them. He was seconded by the duke of Buckingham and the earl of Rochester; and answered by the earl of Godolphin, who told them they needed not doubt but that her majesty would communicate those proceedings, as soon as the Scottish parliament should have discussed the subject of the union. The lords Wharton, Somers, and Halifax observed, that it was for the honour of the nation that the treaty of union should first come ratified from the parliament of Scotland; and that then and not before, it would be a proper time for the lords to take it into consideration. On the twenty-eighth clay of January, the queen in person told both houses that the treaty of union, with some additions and alterations, was ratified by an act of the Scottish parliament: that she had ordered it to be laid before them; and hoped it would meet with their concurrence and approbation. She desired the commons would provide for the payment of the equivalent, in case the treaty should be approved. She observed to both houses, that now they had an opportunity of putting the last hand to a happy union of the two kingdoms; and that she should look upon it as a particular happiness if this great work, which had been so often attempted without success, could be brought to perfection in her reign. When the commons formed themselves into a committee of the whole house, to deliberate on the articles of the union, and the Scottish act of ratification, the tory party, which was very weak in that assembly, began to start some objections. Sir John Packington disapproved of this incorporating union, which he likened to a marriage with a woman against her consent. He said it was a union carried on by corruption and bribery within doors, by force and violence without; that the promoters of it had basely betrayed their trust, in giving up their independent constitution, and he would leave it to the judgment of the house, to consider whether or not men of such principles were fit to be admitted into their house of representatives. He observed that her majesty, by the coronation oath, was obliged to maintain the church of England as by law established; and likewise bound by the same oath to defend the presbyterian kirk of Scotland in one and the same kingdom. Now, said he, after this union is in force, who shall administer this oath to her majesty? It is not the business of the Scots, who are incapable of it, and no well-wishers to the church of England. It is then only the part of the bishops to do it, and can it be supposed that those reverend persons will, or can act a thing so contrary to their own order and institution, as thus to promote the establishment of the presbyterian church government in the united kingdom? He added, that the church of England being established jure divino, and the Scots pretending that the kirk was also jure divino, he could not tell how two nations that clashed in so essential an article could unite; he therefore thought it proper to consult the convocation about this critical point. A motion was made, that the first article of the treaty, which implies a peremptory agreement to an incorporating union, should be postponed; and that the house should proceed to the consideration of the terms of the intended union, contained in the other articles. This proposal being rejected, some tory members quitted the house; and all the articles were examined and approved without further opposition. The whigs were so eager in the prosecution of this point, that they proceeded in a very superficial manner, and with such precipitation as furnished their enemies with a plausible pretence to affirm, that they had not considered the treaty with the coolness and deliberation which an affair of this importance required.

Before the lords began to investigate the articles of the union, they, at the instance of the archbishop of Canterbury, brought in a bill for the security of the church of England, to be inserted as a fundamental and essential part of that treaty. It passed through both houses without opposition, and received the royal assent. On the fifteenth clay of February, the debates concerning the union began in the house of lords, the queen being present, and the bishop of Sarum chairman of the committee. The earls of Rochester, Anglesea, and Nottingham, argued against the union; as did the bishop of Bath and Wells. Lord Haversham, in a premeditated harangue, said the question was, whether two nations independent in their sovereignties, that had their distinct laws and interests, their different forms of worship, church-government, and order, should be united into one kingdom? He supposed it a union made up of so many mismatched pieces, of such jarring incongruous ingredients, that should it ever take effect, it would carry the necessary consequences of a standing power and force to keep them from falling asunder and breaking in pieces every moment. Pie repeated what had been said by lord Bacon, that an unity pieced up by direct admission of contrarieties in the fundamental points of it, is like the toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s image, which were made of iron and clay—-they may cleave together, but would never incorporate. He dissented from the union for the sake of the good old English constitution, in which he dreaded some alteration from the additional weight of sixty-one Scottish members, and these too returned by a Scottish privy-council. He took notice, that above one hundred Scottish peers, and as many commoners, were excluded from sitting and voting in parliament, though they had as much right of inheritance to sit there as any English peer had of sitting in the parliament of England. He expressed his apprehension of this precedent; and asked what security any peer of England had for this right and privilege of peerage, which those lords had not. He said, If the bishops would weaken their own cause, so far as to give up the two great points of episcopal ordination and confirmation; if they would approve and ratify the act for securing the presbyterian church-government in Scotland, as the true protestant religion and purity of worship; they must give up that which had been contended for between them and the presbyterians for thirty years, and been defended by the greatest and most learned men in the church of England. He objected to the exempting articles, by which heritable offices and superiorities were reserved. He affirmed that the union was contrary to the sense of the Scottish nation; that the murmurs of the people had been so loud as to fill the whole kingdom; and so bold as to reach even to the doors of the parliament; that the parliament itself had suspended their beloved clause in the act of security for arming the people; that the government had issued a proclamation pardoning all slaughter, bloodshed, and maiming committed upon those who should be found in tumults. From these circumstances he concluded, that the Scottish nation was averse to an incorporating union, which he looked upon as one of the most dangerous experiments to both nations. Lord North and Grey complained of the small and unequal proportion of the land-tax imposed upon Scotland. The earl of Nottingham said it was highly unreasonable that the Scots, who were by the treaty let into all the branches of the English trade, and paid so little towards the expense of the government, should moreover have such a round sum by way of equivalent. The same topics were insisted on by the lords North and Grey, Guernsey, Granville, Stawel, and Abingdon. The earl of Nottingham, after having opposed every article separately, concluded with words to this effect; “As sir John Maynard said to the late king at the revolution, that having buried all his contemporaries in Westminster-hall, he was afraid, if his majesty had not come in that very juncture of time, he might have likewise outlived the very laws; so, if this union do pass, as I have no reason to doubt but it will, I may justly affirm I have outlived all the laws, and the very constitution of England: I, therefore, pray to God to avert the dire effects which may probably ensue from such an incorporating union.”

These arguments and objections were answered by the lord-treasurer Godolphin, the earls of Sunderland and Wharton, the lords Townshend, Halifax, and So-mers, the bishops of Oxford, Norwich, and Sarum. They observed that such an important measure could not be effected without some inconveniences; but that these ought to be borne in consideration of the greatness of the advantage: that the chief dangers to which the church was exposed arose from France and popery; and this union would effectually secure it against these evils: that Scotland lay on the weakest side of England, which could not be defended but by an expensive army. Should a war break out between the two nations, and Scotland be conquered, yet even in that case it would be necessary to keep it under with a standing army, which any enterprising prince might model for his ambitious purposes, and joining with the Scots, enslave his English dominion; that any union after a conquest would be compulsive, consequently of short duration; whereas now it was voluntary, it would be lasting; that with regard to ecclesiastical affairs, all heats and animosities might be allayed by soft and gentle management. The cantons of Switzerland, though they professed different religions, were yet united in one general body; and the diet of Germany was composed of princes and states, among whom three different persuasions prevailed; so that two sorts of discipline might very well subsist under one legislature. If there was any danger on either side, it threatened the Scots much more than the English, as five hundred and thirteen members could certainly be too hard for forty-five; and in the house of lords, six-and-twenty bishops would always preponderate against sixteen peers from Scotland. Notwithstanding all the opposition made by the lords of the tory interest, every article was approved by a great majority, though not without a good number of protestations; and a bill of ratification was prepared in the lower house by sir Simon Harcourt, the solicitor-general, in such an artful manner as to prevent all debates. All the articles, as they passed in Scotland, were recited by way of preamble, together with the acts made in both parliaments for the security of the several churches; and, in conclusion, there was one clause by which the whole was ratified and enacted into a law. By this contrivance, those who were desirous of starting new difficulties found themselves disabled from pursuing their design. They could not object to the recital, which was barely matter of fact; and they had not strength sufficient to oppose the general enacting clause. On the other hand, the whigs promoted it with such zeal that it passed by a majority of one hundred and fourteen, before the others had recollected themselves from the surprise which the structure of the bill had occasioned. It made its way through the house of lords with equal despatch; and, when it received the royal sanction, the queen expressed the utmost satisfaction. She said she did not doubt but it would be remembered and spoke of hereafter to the honour of those who had been instrumental in bringing it to such a happy conclusion. She desired that her subjects of both kingdoms should from henceforward behave with all possible respect and kindness towards one another, that so it might appear to all the world they had hearts disposed to become one people.

1707