THE SCOTTISH LORDS MOVE FOR A BILL TO DISSOLVE THE UNION.

The commons having granted an aid of two shillings in the pound, proceeded to renew the duty on malt for another year, and extended this tax to the whole island, notwithstanding the warm remonstrances of the Scottish members, who represented it as a burden which their country could not bear. They insisted upon an express article of the union, stipulating, that no duty should be laid on the malt in Scotland during the war which they affirmed was not yet finished, inasmuch as the peace with Spain had not been proclaimed. During the adjournment of the parliament, on account of the Whit-sun-holidays, the Scots of both houses, laying aside all party distinctions, met and deliberated on this subject. They deputed the duke of Argyle, the earl of Mar, Mr. Lockhart, and Mr. Cockburn, to lay their grievances before the queen. They represented that their countrymen bore with great impatience the violation of some articles of the union; and that the imposition of such an insupportable burden as the malt-tax would in all probability prompt them to declare the union dissolved. The queen, alarmed at this remonstrance, answered, that she wished they might not have cause to repent of such a precipitate resolution; but she would endeavour to make all things easy. On the first day of June, the earl of Findlater, in the house of peers, represented that the Scottish nation was aggrieved in many instances: that they were deprived of a privy-council, and subjected to the English laws in cases of treason: that their nobles were rendered incapable of being created British peers; and that now they were oppressed with the insupportable burden of a malt-tax, when they had reason to expect they should reap the benefit of peace: he therefore moved, that leave might be given to bring in a bill for dissolving the union, and securing the protestant succession to the house of Hanover. Lord North and Grey affirmed, that the complaints of the Scots were groundless; that the dissolution of the union was impracticable; and he made some sarcastic reflections on the poverty of that nation. He was answered by the earl of Eglinton, who admitted the Scots were poor, and therefore unable to pay the malt-tax. The earl of Hay, among other pertinent remarks upon the union, observed, that when the treaty was made, the Scots took it for granted that the parliament of Great Britain would never load them with any imposition that they had reason to believe grievous. The earl of Peterborough compared the union to a marriage. He said that though England, who must be supposed the husband, might in some instances prove unkind to the lady, she ought not immediately to sue for a divorce, the rather because she had very much mended her fortune by the match. Hay replied, that marriage was an ordinance of God, and the union no more than a political expedient. The other affirmed, that the contract could not have been more solemn, unless, like the ten commandments, it had come from heaven: he inveighed against the Scots, as a people that would never be satisfied; that would have all the advantages resulting from the union, but would pay nothing by their good will, although they had received more money from England than the amount of all their estates. To these animadversions the duke of Argyle made a very warm reply. “I have been reflected on by some people,” said he, “as if I was disgusted, and had changed sides; but I despise their persons, as much as I undervalue their judgment.” He urged, that the malt-tax in Scotland was like taxing land by the acre throughout England, because land was worth five pounds an acre in the neighbourhood of London, and would not fetch so many shillings in the remote countries. In like manner, the English malt was valued at four times the price of that which was made in Scotland; therefore, the tax in this country must be levied by a regiment of dragoons. He owned he had a great share in making the union, with a view to secure the protestant succession; but he was now satisfied this end might be answered as effectually if the union was dissolved; and, if this step should not be taken, he did not expect long to have either property left in Scotland, or liberty in England. All the whig members voted for the dissolution of that treaty which they had so eagerly promoted; while the tories strenuously supported the measure against which they had once argued with such vehemence. In the course of the debate, the lord-treasurer observed, that although the malt-tax were imposed, it might be afterwards remitted by the crown. The earl of Sunderland expressed surprise at hearing that noble lord broach a doctrine which tended to establish a despotic dispensing power and arbitrary government. Oxford replied, his family had never been famous, as some others had been, for promoting and advising arbitrary measures. Sunderland, considering this expression as a sarcasm levelled at the memory of his father, took occasion to vindicate his conduct, adding, that in those days the other lord’s family was hardly known. Much violent altercation was discharged At length the motion for the bill was rejected by a small majority, and the malt-bill afterwards passed with great difficulty.

Another bill being brought into the house of commons for rendering the treaty of commerce effectual, such a number of petitions were delivered against it, and so many solid arguments advanced by the merchants who were examined on the subject, that even a great number of tory members were convinced of the bad consequences it would produce to trade, and voted against the ministry on this occasion; so that the bill was rejected by a majority of nine voices. At the same time, however, the house agreed to an address thanking her majesty for the great care she had taken of the security and honour of her kingdoms in the treaty of peace; as also for having laid so good a foundation for the interest of her people in trade. They likewise besought her to appoint commissioners to treat with those of France, for adjusting such matters as should be necessary to be settled on the subject of commerce, that the treaty might be explained and perfected for the good and welfare of her people. The queen interpreted this address into a full approbation of the treaties of peace and commerce, and thanked them accordingly in the warmest terms of satisfaction and acknowledgment. The commons afterwards desired to know what equivalent should be given for the demolition of Dunkirk; and she gave them to understand that this was already in the hands of his most christian majesty: then they besought her that she would not evacuate the towns of Flanders that were in her possession, until those who were entitled to the sovereignty of the Spanish Netherlands should agree to such articles for regulating trade as might place the subjects of Great Britain upon an equal footing with those of any other nation. The queen made a favourable answer to all their remonstrances. Such were the steps taken by the parliament during this session with relation to the famous treaty of Utrecht, against which the whigs exclaimed so violently, that many well-meaning people believed it would be attended with the immediate ruin of the kingdom; yet under the shadow of this very treaty, Great Britain enjoyed a long term of peace and tranquillity. Bishop Burnet was heated with an enthusiastic terror of the house of Bourbon. He declared to the queen in private, that any treaty by which Spain and the West Indies were left in the hands of king Philip, must in a little time deliver all Europe into the hands of France: that, if any such peace was made, the queen was betrayed, and the people ruined: that in less than three years she would be murdered, and the fires would blaze again in Smithfield. This prelate lived to see his prognostic disappointed; therefore he might have suppressed this anecdote of his own conduct.