XI. 1706. the four of the contending parties, the nation appeared to be rapidly verging to arms. Numerous addresses against an union, were daily presented, from all parts of the kingdom, and disregarded by parliament. But when the parliament proceeded, on Debates on the four first articles, to determine whether the first articles two kingdoms should be united into one, with the same privileges, and under the same legislature, and line of succession as established in England; not only the arguments of each party, but that daring eloquence, and those fierce animosities and passions, were exhibited in its debates, which, whenever the constitution is lodged in a single assembly, may procure or may prevent the most important resolves, by contagious sympathy, or clamorous importunity, by rage and terror, by surprise or force 6o. for an The court party that began the debate, repre- Arguments sented the necessity and the importance of an union. union, between two kindred and contiguous nations, seated in the same island, sprung from the same original, of the same language, religion, institutions, and manners; placed already under the same sovereign, and adapted by nature to form the same undivided state. On the first accession Go Sir Jolin Clerk hesitates whether to detail the debates, " nam strepitum non linguarum, sed quasi armorum audire videor; ex iris et odiis, jurgiis, motibusque animorum, belli civilis potius quam senatoriæ transactionis, narratio mihi con stituenda videtur." Hist. MS. XI. 1706. BOOK of their monarchs to the throne of England, every national and domestic blessing was expected from an event that gave a common sovereign to the two kingdoms, formerly harassed and exhausted by mutual wars and incessant bloodshed. If Scotland has since declined, or continued stationary, miserable, and dependent on England, to what can it be imputed but to the unavoidable ascendency acquired by a jealous, and more powerful nation over the sovereign, for which there is no cure but an incorporating union? No friend to his country could desire the renewal of former hostilities; or if it were possible to resist the victorious progress of the English arms, no communication nor benefit of trade could be expected from a commercial alliance with the French or Dutch. The necessity of a more intimate alliance is acknowledged, when an imperfect union, under the same sovereign, has proved insufficient to prevent mutual discontent. Ever since the union of the crowns, the independence of the country has been overruled, it is said, by the predominating influence of the English cabinet. The experience of a whole century demonstrates, therefore, that without an incorporating union, the interests of Scotland will still continue to be rendered subservient to England. A federal alliance, under different parliaments, may be dissolved by either, on some dangerous novelty, suggested by selfish or ambitious individuals prone to innovation; or may be inter rupted on every question of public right, respect- XI. 1706. BOOK are unable to preserve? Let us rather associate our XI. 1706. independence with that of England, for the preservation of both; like a chaste and prudent virgin, apprehensive of her own weakness, who accepts an illustrious alliance, and preserves the honour and identity of her person under another name. Thus the glory and trade of England becomes equally ours; and the industry-of the country will increase and flourish with the arts of peace. Are we apprehensive of additional taxes? An equivalent is offered, to enable us to sustain whatever duties are imposed in England. Is our representation diminished? The English constitution is also impaired; for the master who admits a new inmate to a share in the management and the command of his household, retains no longer the entire administration of his domestic affairs. But a British parliament can have no object distinct from the common interest; and the twò nations may repose for ever, secure and happy, under the same legislature, while religion, liberty, and the protestant succession, together with the protestant interest through Europe, will be preserved by their union. Arguments The country party, resuming their former aragainst it. gument, maintained that there were certain fundamentals in government which the legislature had no authority to subvert or to infringe. Whatever were the tenure by which their seats were held, whether created by the crown or by their XI. 1706 constituents, they possessed nothing more than a BOOK delegated power that originated from the people; a discretionary and a sacred trust, strictly limited to the exercise and the preservation of the constitution which the people had established, or to which they consented to submit. Without their express consent, the parliament could neither annihilate, nor transfer its legislative power to another, much less in opposition to their declared will. That the voice and sense of the people were adverse to an incorporating union, could admit of no dispute. Innumerable petitions were presented against it; not a single address had appeared in its favour: but if the parliament, whose dignity it was treason to diminish, should alienate a trust which it was created to execute, what result could be expected from an union to which the whole nation appeared irreconcileable? Instead of peace, repose, and prosperity, what but mutual animosity, distraction, discord, future rebellion, and eternal discontent! Will the supposed benefits of commercial intercourse, sooth or console the nation for the legislative power of which it is thus defrauded and despoiled? Stock, credit, and skill, are neither created nor transplanted by treaties, but are the slow and laborious acquisition of time. The exportation of rude produce must procure the first capital for the improvement of industry and skill. But the produce of the country will be diverted from the European, and restrained en |