[1] “De Regnis Angliæ et Scotiæ conjunctis. Quia Regna Angliæ
et Scotiæ, ratione Superioris Dominii, quod in eodem Regno optinemus
benedicto altissimo, sunt conjuncta, Mandatum est Justiciariis
de Banco, quod Brevia Regis, coram eis porrecta vel retornata, de
data dierum et locorum, infra idem Regnum Scotiæ, mentionem
facientia, de cætero admittant; exceptiones, si quas, de hujusmodi
datis et locis, proponi contigerit coram eis, nullatenus allocantes,
Teste Rege apud Berewicum super Twedam, 3 die Julii.” (Fœdera,
ii. 533.)
[2] These were the Bishops of St. Andrews and Dunkeld, the
Abbots of Cupar and Melrose, the Earls of Buchan and March,
Sir John de Mowbray, Sir Robert de Kethe, Sir Adam de Gurdon,
and Sir John de Inchmartyn.
[3] The name, so hated in Scotland, of “Mons. Joh. de Meneteth”
appears as one of the Council appointed to assist John de Bretaigne.
[4] Ordonnance faite par Edouard Roi d’Angleterre sur le Gouvernement
de la terre d’Escosse, Act. Parl. Scot. i. 119; Sir Francis
Palgrave’s Documents and Records illustrating the History of
Scotland, 292, 295; Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,
ii. 457.
[5] Mr. Patrick Fraser Tytler very justly remarks how absurd was
the idea “that a free country was to be compelled into a pacific
matrimonial alliance, amid the groans of its dying citizens and the
flames of its seaports” (History of Scotland, vi. 42). See also, on
the Scottish policy of Henry VIII., the instructions given to the army
in Scotland in April 1544 (vol. v. p. 473, and the Hamilton Papers,
vol. ii. p. 325). They were to “burn Edinburgh town, and to rase
and deface it when you have sacked it”; and all over the country
“man, woman, and child” were to be put to the sword “without
exception.”
[9] “Notwithstanding the ancient alliance of France and Scotland,
and the long intercourse of good offices between the two nations, an
aversion for the French took its rise, at this time, among the Scots;
the effects whereof were deeply felt, and operated powerfully through
the subsequent period” (Robertson, i. 110).
[10] The Queen of Scots was to “aggre and obleis hir self and hir
successouris, that scho, hir Airis and Successouris, sall observe and
keip the Fredomes, Liberteis, and Privelegeis of this Realme, and
Lawis of the samyn, sicklike and in the samyn maner as hes bene
keipit and observit in all Kingis Tymes of Scotland of before” (Keith,
App. 14; Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 504).
[11] “Le servir, obeyr et honnorer, durant et constant ledit mariage,
ensemble l’hoir issu et procréé d’iceluy mariage auquel adviendra le
Royaume d’Escosse, tout ainsy comme nous et nos Predecesseurs
aut loyauement servy et honnore les nobles progeniteurs et antecesseurs
de la ditte Dame Reyne d’Escosse nostre Souveraine”
(Keith, App. 20). On the occasion of the marriage, Henry of France
issued letters of naturalisation conferring all the privileges of French
citizenship on Scotsmen living in his dominions; and the Scottish
Parliament returned the compliment by passing an Act which
naturalised Frenchmen in Scotland. (Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 507, 515.)
[12] Address to the Council, in Mr. Froude’s History of England,
vol. vi. p. 111 (ed. 1870).
[13] The plenipotentiaries for Scotland at Cambray were the Cardinal
of Lorraine; the Duke of Montmorency; Jacques d’Albon, Marshal
of France; Morvillier, Bishop of Orleans; and Claude de l’Aubespine,
Secretary of State.
[14] “A pleasant country village on the north side of the river
Tweed, within the borders of Scotland, five miles west from
Berwick” (Keith, 108).
[15] “This treaty was finished and drawn up at the Church of Our
Lady of Upsalinton the 31st of May (1559), and duplicates thereof
were delivered and exchanged in the Parish Church of Norham,
just opposite, on the English side of the Tweed, that same day”
(Ibid.).
[16] They told her, “That, by her tolerance, their religion had
taken such a root, and the number of the Protestants so increased,
that it was a vain hope to believe that they could be put from their
religion, seeing they were resolved as soon to part with their lives
as to recant” (Sir James Melvil’s Memoirs, p. 25).
[17] His father, the second Earl of Arran, and first Duke of
Chatelherault, was, it will be remembered, Regent of Scotland
from the death of James the Fifth, in 1542, until 1554, when he was
succeeded by Mary of Guise. He was a Lord of the Congregation.
[18] Mr. Froude’s History of England, vol. vi. pp. 236, 237:
“You,” said an emissary of the Congregation at Paris to Sir
Nicholas Throgmorton, “have a queen, and we our prince the Earl
of Arran, marriageable both, and chief upholders of God’s religion.
This may be the means to unite England and Scotland together,
and there is no foundation nor league durable nor available but
in God’s cause.”
[19] “If the Queen shall be unwilling to this, as it is likely she
will, in respect of the greedy and tyrannous Affliction of France;
then is it apparent that Almighty God is pleased to transfer from
her the Rule of the Kingdom for the weal of it; and in this time
great Circumspection is to be used, to avoid the deceits and
trumperies of the French. And then may the Realm of Scotland
consider, being once made free, what means may be devised through
God’s goodness to accord the two Realms, to endure for time to
come at the Pleasure of Almighty God, in whose Hands the Hearts
of all Princes be” (Memorial of Certain Points meet for the
Restoring of the Realm of Scotland to the Ancient Weale, written
by my Lord Treasurer, with his own Hand, 5 August 1559,
Cotton MSS., Keith, App. 23).
[20] A Short Discussion of the Weighty Matter of Scotland, August
1559. Cotton MSS., Keith, App. 24.
[21] “But now hes God’s providence sa altered the case, zea, changed
it to the plat contrary, that now hes the Frensche taken zour place,
and we, off very jugement, becum disyrous to have zow in theyr
rowme. Our eyes are opened, we espy how uncareful they have
been of our weile at all tymes, how they made ws ever to serve
theyr turne, drew ws in maist dangerous weys for theyr commodite,
and, nevertheless, wad not styck, ofttymes, against the natowr of
the ligue, to contrak peace, leaving ws in weyr. We see that their
support, off late zeres, wes not grantit for any affection they bare
to ws, for pytie they had of our estate, for recompense of the lyke
friendship schawin to theym in tyme of theyr afflictiones, but for
ambition, and insatiable cupidite to reygne, and to mak Scotland
ane accessory to the Crown of France.”
[22] “I wald ze should not esteme ws sa barayne of jugement, that
we cannot forese our awne perril; nor sa foolische, that we will
not study by all gude means to entertayne that thing may be our
safetye; quhilk consistes all in the relaying of zour friendships.”
[23] “Tak hede ze say not hereafter, ‘Had I wist’; ane uncomely
sentence to procede off a wyse man’s mouth.”
[24] “We seke nathing but that Scotland may remane, as of before,
a fre realme, rewlit by hir hyenes and hir ministeres borne men of
the sam; and that the succession of the Crowne may remane with
the lawful blode.”
[25] Letter of Maitland of Lethington, “from the original in his
own hand” (Cotton MSS., Roberston, App. No. II.).
[26] Spotswood, 146. It is needless to say that though Elizabeth
may have used these words, she was bent on recovering Calais.
[27] “A Convenient Ayd of Men of Warre, on Horse and Foot, to
joyne with the power of the Scottishmen, with Artailzie Munition,
and all others Instrumentis of Warre mete for the Purpose, as weall
by Sea as by Land.”
[28] Conventiones Scotorum contra Reginam Unionem Franciæ et
Scotiæ designantem, et pro defensione contra Francos (Fœdera, xv.
569). Maitland of Lethington, in the letter in favour of an alliance
between England and Scotland, from which quotations have just
been given, proposes that Scotland should help to maintain order in
Ireland. “The realme of Ireland,” he says, “being of natour a
gode and fertill countrey, by reason of the continewalld unquietnes
and lak of policy, ze knaw to be rather a burthen to zow then great
advantage; and giff it were peaceable may be very commodious.
For pacification quhayroff, it is not unknown to zow quhat service
we ar abill to do.”
[29] They numbered between seven and eight thousand men. The
expedition seems to have cost about £230,000 (Calendar of State
Papers, Foreign, 1560, Preface, p. ix.).
[32] Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 534. The following memorandum, endorsed
“the manner how the Scottis be divided, 1560,” was recently
found among the MSS. at Longleat, and is now printed in the
Hamilton Papers, vol. ii. p. 748. “The names of all the noblemen
temporall and spirituall of the congregacion of Scotlande:—The
Duke of Chateaurialt; the Erle of Arren his sonne; the Lord
James priour of St. Andros; the Erle of Arguile; the Erle of
Glencarne; the Erle of Rothos; the Erle of Sutherland; the Erle
of Mountithe; the Lorde Riven; the Lorde Boide; the Lorde
Offoltrie; the Master of Lindsoye; the Master of Maxwell. The
lordes and noblemen newters:—The Erle of Huntleye; the Erle of
Catnes; the Erle of Athell; the Erle Marshall; the Erle of Morton
and Angus; the Erle of Arrell; the Erle of Casiles; the Erle of
Eglenton; the Erle of Mountroes; the Lord Erskin; the Lord
Dromond; the Lord Hume; the Lorde Rose; the Lorde Krighton;
the Lord Liveston; the Lord Somervall. Dowptfull to whether parte
they will incline. The lordes of the Quene’s partye:—The Erle of
Bodwell; the Lorde Seton; the Lorde Fleminge; the Lord Semple;
the Bishopp of St. Andros; the Priour of Collingham; the Abbot
of Holly Roode Howse; with all the bisshoppes and spiritualtye
of the realme. The Shires as they be dewided on the one parte and
thother:—The Marshe, Tividale, Annerdale, Lowden, Sterlingeshire,
Galawaye, Caricke, Guile, Cunningham, Cliddesdale; all these and
the people therein are newters, onles a certaine of every shire wich
kepe themselfes close. Fife, Angus, Arguile, Straterne, and the
Mernes; most parte Protestantes. The northe land hath promised
to take parte, but not yet assured; in whose handes standeth litell
helpe, wich side so ever they fall into.” In Mr. Fraser Tytler’s
History of Scotland, vol. ix. p. 425, a paper is printed entitled
“The Present State of the Nobility in Scotland, 1st July 1592.”
It gives a list of the Scottish peers with a note of whether they
were Protestant or Catholic, and is well worth comparing with the
list in the Hamilton Papers. In the original, Mr. Tytler says, the
names of the Catholics are marked in Burleigh’s own handwriting.
[33] Mr. Froude quotes a letter from Jewel to Peter Martyr:—“It
is of the greatest moment that England and Scotland be united;
and I trust only those may not hinder it who wish well neither to
them nor to us” (History of England, vol. vi. p. 406).
[35] The Queene’s Majestie’s Answere, declared to Her Counsell,
concerninge the Requests of the Lords of Scotlande (Keith, 156).
[36] This, however, does not altogether apply to the Darnley
marriage. Darnley, as grandson of Margaret Tudor, was not only
cousin to the Queen of Scots, but first prince of the blood in
England; and Mary’s great object in espousing him was to improve
her chance of succeeding to the Crown of England, to which she
was already heir-presumptive. But in Scotland the marriage of
the queen to a Catholic could not be viewed with indifference;
and the General Assembly of the Church proceeded to declare that
the laws against papacy applied to the royal family as well as to the
subjects: “That the Papisticall and blasphemous masse, with all
Papistrie and idolatrie of Paip’s jurisdictione, be universallie
suppressed and abolished throughout the haill realme, not only in
the subjects, but also in the Q. Majestie’s awn persone” (The Booke
of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, p. 28).
[37] “Naturallie jonit be blude and habitatioun, of ane relligioun and
thairby alike subiect to the malice of the commoun enemy, be quhais
Vnioun na les suretie may be expectit to baith thair esteattis then
dangear be thair divisioun” (Band anent the Trew Religioun,
31st July 1585; Act. Parl. Scot. iii. 423).
[38] Tractatus Fœderis et Arctioris Amititiæ, 5th July 1586
(Fœdera, xv. 803).
[39] Mr. Tytler’s view is that one of the chief objects of Elizabeth
and the English ministers in entering into the League was to make
it easier to deal with the Queen of Scots. “Two months before,”
he says, “her indefatigable minister, Walsingham, had detected
that famous conspiracy known by the name of ‘Babington’s Plot,’
in which Mary was implicated, and for which she afterwards
suffered. It had been resolved by Leicester, Burghley, and
Walsingham, and probably by the queen herself, that this should
be the last plot of the Scottish queen and the Roman Catholic
faction; that the time had come when sufferance was criminal and
weak; that the life of the unfortunate, but still active and formidable,
captive was inconsistent with Elizabeth’s safety and the liberty of
the realm. Hence the importance attached to this League, which
bound the two kingdoms together, in a treaty offensive and defensive,
for the protection of the Protestant faith, and separated the young
king from his mother” (History of Scotland, viii. 288).
[41] This letter, which is very long, will be found in Spotswood,
p. 359. “Because,” the bishop says, “the Letter contained the
very true reasons that in end moved his Majesty to forbear
violence and take a more calm course, I thought meet to set it
down word by word, as it standeth in the original.”
[42]Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, vi. 553.
[47] A brief discourse of the Happy Union of the Kingdoms of
England and Scotland, dedicated in private to His Majesty, 1603;
Certain Articles or Considerations touching the Union, collected
and dispersed for His Majesty’s better service.
[48] A Preparation towards the Union of the Laws of England and
Scotland.
[49]Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, vi. 596.
[52] Act in favour of the liberties of the Kirk, 11th July 1604, Act.
Parl. Scot. iv. 264. Balmerino, in sending to Cecil an account of
the proceedings of the Estates regarding the Union, expresses
the hope that the Scottish people will prove equally tractable
(Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1603-1610, p. 132).
[54] Proclamatio pro Unione Regnorum Angliæ et Scotiæ, 20th
October 1604 (Fœdera, xvi. 603).
[55]Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1603-1610, p. 103.
[56] “Amongst these commissioners there grew a question, whether
there could be made an Union of the Kingdoms by raising a new
Kingdome of Great Britaine, before there was an Union of the
Lawes. Which question, by the King’s commandment, was
referred to all the Judges of England in Trinity Terme, Anno
2 Jac., who unanimously resolved (I being then Attorney General
and present), that Anglia had lawes, and Scotia had lawes, but
this new erected Kingdome of Britannia should have no law.
And, therefore, where all the judiciall proceedings in England are
secundum legem et consuetudinem Angliæ, it could not be altered
secundum legem et consuetudinem Britanniæ, untill there was an
Union of the lawes of both Kingdomes; which could not be done
but by Authority of Parliament in either Kingdome” (Coke’s
Institutes, part iv. cap. 75). On one point connected with the legal
system of Scotland, James displayed greater foresight than even the
Whigs of 1707. “The greatest hinderance,” he says in the
Basilikon Doron, “to the execution of our lawes in this countrie,
are these heritable Sheifdomes and Regalities, which being in the
hands of the great men, doe wracke the whole countrey.” And
then he recommends his son to look forward to a time when he
might be able to abolish them, and introduce the English system;
“Preassing with time, to draw it to the lawdable custome of
England; which ye may the easilier doe, being King of both, as I
hope in God ye shall.” The Heritable Jurisdictions, a curse to Scotland,
were not abolished until after the second Jacobite Rebellion.
[57] Introduction to the Treasury Edition of the Register of the Privy
Council of Scotland, edited by Professor Masson, vol. vii. p. xxxii.
[62] A speech used by Sir Francis Bacon, Knight, in the Honourable
House of Commons, Quinto Jacobi, concerning the Article of the
General Naturalization of the Scottish Nation.
[63] Act for the utter abolition of all memory of hostility, and the
dependents thereof, between England and Scotland, 4 Jac. i. cap. i.
[64] “Thair be amang us not a few of the best sorte who ar als
aliene from it as ony of the lower House, and hes moir just causis
to be discontented with so easie obliterating of begane wrongis.”
(The Privy Council to the King, 3rd March 1607, Register, vii. 513.)
[66] Act anent the Unioun of Scotland and England. Act. Parl.
Scot. iv. 366.
[67]Calvin v. Smith, the case of the Post-nati, or of the Union of
the Realm of Scotland with England; Trin. 6 James I.A.D. 1608,
State Trials, ii. 559; The argument of Sir Francis Bacon, in the
case of the Post-nati of Scotland, in the Exchequer Chamber, before
the Lord Chancellor, and all the Judges of England, Nov. 1608.
[68] Thus the eleventh article of this Confession, which treats of the
Ascension, contains these remarkable words: “The remembrance
of quhilk day, and of the Judgement to be executed in the same, is
not onelie to us ane brydle whereby our carnal lustes are refrained,
bot alswa sik inestimable comfort, that nether may the threatning
of wordly Princes, nether zit the feare of temporal death and
present danger, move us to renounce and forsake that blessed
societie, quhilk we the members have with our head and onelie
Mediator Christ Jesus, whom we confesse and avow to be the
Messias promised, the onelie head of his Kirk, our just Laugiver,
our onelie hie Priest, Advocate and Mediator. In quhilk honoures
and offices, gif Man or Angel presume to intrude themself, we
utterlie detest and abhorre them, as blasphemous to our Soveraine
and supreme Governour Christ Jesus.” The twenty-fifth article is
entitled, “Of the Civil Magistrate”; and these two articles, when
read together, contain the germ of the Scottish idea of an Established
Church. This Confession was ratified by the Estates in
1567, Act. Parl. Scot.
[69] “This power ecclesiasticall flowis immediatlie frome God, and
the Mediator Chryst Jesus, and is spirituall, not having ane
temporall heid on eirth, bot onlie Chryst, the onlie spirituall King
and Gouernour of his Kirk;” “It is ane title falslie usurpit be
Antichrist, to call himself heid of the Kirk, and aucht not to be
attributit to angell or to mane, of what estait soeuir he be, saiffing
to Chryst, the Heid and onelie Monarche in this Kirk;” “As the
ministeris and vtheris of the ecclesiasticall estait, ar subiect to the
magistrat ciuillie, swa aucht the persone of the magistrat be subiect
to the Kirk spirituallie, and in ecclesiasticall gouernment. And
the exercise of bayth thais jurisdictionis can not stande in ane
persone ordinarlie” (Headis and Conclusionis of the Policie of
the Kirk, cap. i.). This statement of principles, usually called the
“Second Book of Discipline,” was promulgated by the Church of
Scotland in 1578.
[86]Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1659-1660, p. 35; Act.
Parl. Scot. VI. ii. 587.
[87]Letters and Journals, iii. 249, 288, 357, 360, 387.
[88] Kirkton’s True and Secret History of the Church of Scotland
(edited from the original MS. by Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe,
1817), pp. 64, 65. In Law’s Memorialls (edited from the MS. by
Mr. Sharpe in 1818) there is a passage which, if it is to be relied
on, shows that during this period the course of religion had been
advanced by the policy of preventing the clergy interfering so
constantly in politics. “It is not to be forgotten,” Law says,
“that, from the year 1652 to the year 1660, there was great good
done by the preaching of the gospell in the West of Scotland,
more than was observed to have been for twenty or thirty yeirs
before; a great many being brought in to Christ Jesus by a saving
work of conversion, which was occasioned through ministers preaching
nothing all that tyme but the gospell, and had left off to preach
up parliaments, armies, leagues, resolutions, and remonstrances,
which was much in use before, from the year 1638 till that time
52, which occasioned a great number of hypocrytes in the Church,
who, out of hope of preferment, honour, riches, and worldly
credit, took on the form of godliness, but wanted the power of
it.”
[89]History of the Union, section ii. p. 10, first edition, published in
1709. Defoe’s History of the Union was reprinted in 1712 and
1786, and again in 1787 “with an introduction, in which the consequences
and probability of a like union with Ireland are considered.”
[90] January 1658, Carlyle’s Cromwell, Speech XVII.
[91] A Discourse upon the Union of England and Scotland,
addressed to King Charles II., March 19th, in the year 1664.
[98] 19 and 20 Car. II. cap. 5, Act for settling Freedom and Intercourse
of Trade between England and Scotland.
[99]The grievances of Scotland in relation to their trade with
England, sent up to the Council, 3 Feb. 1668. See also a paper
given in by the Scots Commissioners for adjusting the differences of
trade between the two kingdoms, Jan. 21, 1667 (1668), printed in
Defoe, App. No. xiii., and in the “Report on the events and
circumstances which produced the union of the kingdoms of
England and Scotland” (App. No. xxxi.). This report, which was
prepared for the private use of the Government, at the request of
the Duke of Portland, in 1799, when the Union with Ireland was
being discussed, contains most of the papers which passed between
the Commissioners on Trade in 1668. The Calendar of State Papers,
Domestic, 1667-1668, published in 1893, throws some light on
these transactions. It appears that the coal merchants of Newcastle
and the North of England had a grievance in the inequality
of the export duties levied on coal in the two countries. English
coal paid eight shillings, and Scottish coal only twenty pence.
The result was said to be that the customs from coal had fallen in
that part of the country, from £20,000 a year to £4000, and that
English merchants were suffering from the importation into
Scotland, in exchange for coal, of foreign goods which the Scots
used to obtain from England. (Memorial of 24th Feb. 1668.
Calendar, p. 247.)
[100] Burnet, i. 513. Lord Dartmouth, in a note on this passage,
states that William the Third told Lord Jersey that it was a
standing maxim in the Stuart family, “Whatever advances they
pretended to make towards it,” never to allow a union. Their
reason, he said, was that it could not take place without admitting
Scotsmen to both Houses of Parliament, who must depend for a
living on the Crown. He further asserts that King William said
he hoped it would never take place during his reign, for “he had
not the good fortune to know what would satisfy a Scotsman.”
[102] “A modern account of Scotland, being an exact description of
the country, and a true character of the people and their manners.
Written from thence by an English gentleman.” Printed in the
year 1670 (Harleian Miscellany, vi. 135). “Scotland characterized:
In a letter written to a young gentleman, to dissuade him from an
intended journey thither” (Harleian Miscellany, vii. 377). “The
False Brother, or A New Map of Scotland, drawn by an English
Pencil, London, 1651.”
[103] Leven and Melville Papers (Bannatyne Club), 7th March 1689.
[106] Address of the Scottish Bishops to James II., 3rd Nov. 1688.
[107] It would appear from a memorandum among the Rawlinson
MSS. in the Bodleian Library that several English bishops, some of
the Scottish peers, and some members of the Scottish Whig party,
had held a private conference and agreed that the Jacobite clergy
should be unmolested. The English bishops represented the case of
the Scottish Episcopal clergy to William about the same time. But
it was doubtless felt that any attempt to pass an Act of Toleration
through the Scottish Parliament would fail. (Rawlinson MSS.
c. 985.)
[108]A Memorial for his Highness the Prince of Orange, by two
persons of quality. London, 1689.
[109]A Vindication of the Government in Scotland during the reign
of King Charles II., by Sir George Mackenzie, late Lord Advocate
there. London, 1691.
[111]Presbyterian Inquisition: as it was lately practised against the
Professors of the College of Edinburgh, August and September 1690.
London, 1691.
[112]An Historical Relation of the late Presbyterian General
Assembly, London, 1691; An Account of the late Establishment of
Presbyterian Government by the Parliament of Scotland, London,
1693.
[113]The Fundamental Charter of Presbytery, examined and disproved,
London, 1695.
[114]An Account of the Present Persecution of the Church in Scotland,
in several Letters, London, 1690; The Case of the Present
Afflicted Clergy in Scotland, By a Lover of the Church and his
Country, London, 1690.
[115]Case of the Afflicted Clergy, Second Collection of Papers, p. 60.
[116]The Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence; or The Foolishness of
their Teaching discovered, London, 1692; An Answer to the Scotch
Presbyterian Eloquence, 1693; Some remarks upon a late pamphlet
entitled “Answer to the Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence,” London,
1694. A second edition of The Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence
was published in 1694, a third in 1719, and there have been other
editions since.
[117]The Assembly, or Scotch Reformation; a Comedy. Done
from the original manuscript, written in the year 1690, by Archibald
Pitcairn, M.D. Edinburgh, 1817.
[118] Act for a Company Trading to Africa and the Indies, 26th
June 1695.
[119] Marchmont to Seafield, 7th October 1699, Marchmont Papers,
iii. 178.
[120] To Pringle, 23rd December 1699, Marchmont Papers, iii. 199.
[128] See the Duke of Queensberry’s letter to Mr. Carstares of 9th
September, and other letters among the Carstares Papers during
the summer and autumn of 1700.
[129] Private Instructions to the Duke of Queensberry, Hampton
Court, 25th April 1700; Add. MSS., British Museum, 24, 064, f.
18. The Estates met in May, but were adjourned until October.
[130] A Sermon preached before his Grace James Duke of Queensberry,
His Majesty’s High Commissioner, and the Honourable
Estates of Parliament, in the Parliament House, the 1st December
1700. Edinburgh, 1701.