LORD BELHAVEN.

THE author of this speech belonged to the Hamilton family. He was one of the old Presbyterian lords, of high education, especially in classical literature; lofty in his demeanor; dauntless in spirit; and wholly devoted to the peculiar interests of his country. The speech owes much of its celebrity to the circumstances under which it was delivered. It embodies the feelings of a proud and jealous people, when called upon to surrender their national independence, and submit to the authority of the British Parliament.

A century had now elapsed since the union of the English and Scottish crowns in the person of James I., and Scotland still remained a distinct kingdom, with its own Parliament, its own judicial system, its own immemorial usages which had all the force of law. This state of things, though gratifying to the pride of the Scottish people, was the source of endless jealousies and contentions between the two countries; and, as commonly happens in such cases, the weaker party suffered most. Scotland was governed by alternate corruption and force. Her nobility and gentry were drawn to England in great numbers by the attractions of the Court, as the seat of fashion, honor, and power. The nation was thus drained of her wealth; and the drain became greater, as her merchants and tradesmen were led to transfer their capital to the sister kingdom, in consequence of the superior facilities for trade which were there enjoyed.

It was now apparent that Scotland could never flourish until she was permitted to share in those commercial advantages, from which she was debarred as a distinct country, by the Navigation Act of England. The Scotch were, therefore, clamorous in their demands for some arrangement to this effect. But the English had always looked with jealousy upon any intermeddling with trade, on the part of Scotland. They had crushed her African and India Company by their selfish opposition, and had left her Darien settlement of twelve hundred souls to perish for want of support and protection; so that few families in the Lowlands had escaped the loss of a relative or friend. Exasperated by these injuries, and by the evident determination of the English to cut them off from all participation in the benefits of trade, the Scotch were hurried into a measure of alarming aspect for the safety of the empire. Noble and burgher, Jacobite and Presbyterian, were for once united. There was one point where England was vulnerable. It was the succession to the crown. This had been settled by the English Parliament on the Protestant line in the house of Hanover, and the fullest expectations were entertained that the Parliament of Scotland would readily unite in the same measure. Instead of this, the Scotch, in 1704, passed their famous Act of Security, in which they threw down the gauntlet to England, and enacted, that "the same person should be incapable of succeeding in both kingdoms, unless a free communication of trade, the benefits of the Navigation Act, and liberty of the Plantations [¿. e., of trading with the British West Indies and North America] was first obtained." They also provided conditionally for a separate successor, and passed laws for arming the whole kingdom in his defense. It was now obvious that concessions must be made on both sides, or the contest be decided by the sword. The ministry of Queen Anne, therefore, proposed that commissioners from the two kingdoms should meet at London, to devise a plan of

Union, which should be mutually advantageous to the two countries. This was accordingly done, in the month of April, 1706; and, after long negotiations, it was agreed, that the two kingdoms should be united into one under the British Parliament, with the addition of sixteen Scottish peers to the House of Lords, and of forty-five Scottish members to the House of Commons; that the Scotch should be entitled to all the privileges of the English in respect to trade, and be subject to the same excise and duties; that Scotland should receive £398,000 as a compensation or "equivalent" for the share of liability she assumed in the English debt of £20,000,000; and that the churches of England and Scotland respectively should be confirmed in all their rights and privileges, as a fundamental condition of the Union.

These arrangements were kept secret until October, 1706, when the Scottish Parliament met to consider and decide on the plan proposed. The moment the Articles were read in that body, and given to the public in print, they were met with a burst of indignant reprobation from every quarter. A federal union which should confer equal advantages for trade, was all that the Scotch in general had ever contemplated: an incorporating union, which should abolish their Parliament and extinguish their national existence, was what most Scotchmen had never dreamed of. Nor is it surprising, aside from all considerations of national honor, that such a union should have been regarded with jealousy and dread. "No past experience of history," says Hallam, "was favorable to the absorption of a lesser state (at least where the government partook so much of a republican form) in one of superior power and ancient rivalry. The representation of Scotland in the united Legislature, was too feeble to give any thing like security against the English prejudices and animosities, if they should continue or revive. The Church of Scotland was exposed to the most apparent perils, brought thus within the power of a Legislature so frequently influenced by one which held her, not as a sister, but rather as a bastard usurper of a sister's inheritance; and though her permanence was guaranteed by the treaty, yet it was hard to say how far the legal competence of Parliament might hereafter be deemed to extend, or, at least, how far she might be abridged of her privileges and impaired in her dignity."

It was with sentiments like these that, when the first article of the treaty was read, Lord Belhaven arose, and addressed the Parliament of Scotland in the following speech. It is obviously reported in a very imperfect manner, and was designed merely to open the discussion which was expected to follow, and not to enter at large into the argument. It was a simple burst of feeling, in which the great leader of the country party, who was equally distinguished for "the mighty sway of his talents and the resoluteness of his temper," poured out his emotions in view of that act of parricide, as he considered it, to which the Parliament was now called. He felt that no regard to consequences, no loss or advancement of trade, manufactures, or national wealth, ought to have the weight of a feather, when the honor and existence of his country were at stake. He felt that Scotland, if only united, was abundantly able to work out her own salvation. These two thoughts, thereforeNATIONAL HONOR and NATIONAL UNION-constitute the burden of his speech.

SPEECH

OF LORD BELHAVEN AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE UNION OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND, DELIV ERED IN THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND, NOV. 2, 1706.

I think I see the noble and honorable peerage of Scotland, whose valiant predecessors led armies against their enemies upon their own prop- I think I see the incurable difficulties of the er charges and expense, now devested of their landed men, fettered under the golden chain of followers and vassalages; and put upon such an "equivalents," their pretty daughters petitionequal foot with their vassals, that I think I seeing for want of husbands, and their sons for want a petty English exciseman receive more hom- of employment. age and respect than what was paid formerly to their quondam Mackalamores.

I think I see the present peers of Scotland, whose noble ancestors conquered provinces, overran countries, reduced and subjected towns and fortified places, exacted tribute through the|cient mother, Caledonia, like Cesar, sitting in greatest part of England, now walking in the Court of Requests, like so many English attorneys; laying aside their walking swords when in company with the English peers, lest their self-defense should be found murder.

Are not these, my Lord, very afflicting thoughts? And yet they are but the least part suggested to me by these dishonorable articles. Should not the consideration of these things vivify these dry bones of ours? Should not the memory of our noble predecessors' valor and constancy rouse up our drooping spirits? Are our noble predecessors' souls got so far into the English cabbage stalk and cauliflowers, that we should show the least inclination that way? Are our eyes so blinded, are our ears so deafened, are our hearts so hardened, are our tongues so faltered, are our hands so fettered, that in this our day—I say, my Lord, in this our daywe should not mind the things that concern the very being, and well-being of our ancient kingdom, before the day be hid from our eyes?

No, my Lord, God forbid! Man's extremity is God's opportunity: he is a present help in time of need—a deliverer, and that right early! | Some unforeseen providence will fall out, that may cast the balance; some Joseph or other will say, "Why do ye strive together, since ye are brethren ?" None can destroy Scotland save Scotland's self. Hold your hands from the pen, and you are secure! There will be a JehovahThere will be a JehovahJireh; and some ram will be caught in the thicket, when the bloody knife is at our mother's throat. Let us, then, my Lord, and let our noble patriots behave themselves like men, and we know not how soon a blessing may come.

I design not at this time to enter into the merits of any one particular article. I intend this discourse as an introduction to what I may afterward say upon the whole debate, as it falls in before this honorable House; and therefore, in the further prosecution of what I have to say, I shall insist upon a few particulars, very necessary to be understood before we enter into the detail of so important a matter.

I shall therefore, in the first place, endeavor to encourage a free and full deliberation, without animosities and heats. In the next place, I shall endeavor to make an inquiry into the nature and source of the unnatural and dangerous divisions that are now on foot within this isle, with some motives showing that it is our interest to lay them aside at this time. And all this with all deference, and under the correction of this honorable House.

My Lord Chancellor, the greatest honor that was done unto a Roman, was to allow him the glory of a triumph; the greatest and most dishonorable punishment was that of parricide. He that was guilty of parricide was beaten with rods upon his naked body, till the blood gushed out of all the veins of his body; then he was sewed up in a leathern sack called a culeus, with a cock, a viper, and an ape, and thrown headlong into the sea.

My Lord, patricide is a greater crime than parricide, all the world over.

was riding in his triumphal chariot, crowned with laurels, adorned with trophies, and applauded with huzzas, there was a monitor appointed to stand behind him, to warn him not to be high-minded, nor puffed up with overweening thoughts of himself; and to his chariot were tied a whip and a bell, to remind him that, notwithstanding all his glory and grandeur, he was accountable to the people for his administration, and would be punished as other men, if found guilty.

The greatest honor among us, my Lord, is to represent the sovereign's sacred person [as High Commissioner] in Parliament; and in one particular it appears to be greater than that of a triumph, because the whole legislative power seems to be intrusted with him. If he give the royal assent to an act of the estates, it becomes a law obligatory upon the subject, though contrary to or without any instructions from the sovereign. If he refuse the royal assent to a vote in Parliament, it can not be a law, though he has the sovereign's particular and positive instructions for it.

His Grace the Duke of Queensbury, who now represents her Majesty in this session of Parliament, hath had the honor of that great trust as often, if not more, than any Scotchman ever had. He hath been the favorite of two successive sovereigns; and I can not but commend his constancy and perseverance, that, notwithstanding his former difficulties and unsuccessful attempts, and maugre some other specialities not yet determined, his Grace has yet had the resolution to undertake the most unpopular measure last. If his Grace succeed in this affair of a union, and that it prove for the happiness and welfare of the nation, then he justly merits to have a statue of gold erected for himself; but if it shall tend to the entire destruction and abolition of our nation, and that we, the nation's trustees, shall go into it, then I must say, that a whip and a bell, a cock, a viper, and an ape, are but too small punishments for any such bold, unnatural undertaking and complaisance.

I. That I may pave the way, my Lord, to a full, calm, and free reasoning upon this affair, which is of the last consequence unto this nation, I shall mind this honorable House, that we are the successors of those noble ancestors who founded our monarchy, framed our laws, amended, altered, and corrected them from time to

3 The High-Commissioner Queensbury, though by birth a Scotchman, had by long employment in the service of the Court, lost all regard for the distinctive interests and honor of his native country. He was conciliating in his manners, cool, enterprising, and resolute, expert in all the arts and intrigues of politics, and lavish of the public money for the accomplishment of his purposes. He had been the agent of the Court for attempting many unpopular measures in the Scottish Parliament; and he had now "the resolution to undertake the most unpopular measure last." He was generally hated and sus

In a triumph, my Lord, when the conqueror words. By many at the present day, "Et tu Bru-pected as a renegade; and hence the bitterness te," has been given as the expression; but for this, it is believed, there is no classical authority.

with which he is here assailed, as seeking "the entire destruction and abolition of the nation."

II. My Lord, I come now to consider our divisions. We are under the happy reign, blessed be God, of the best of queens, who has no evil design against the meanest of her subjects; who loves all her people, and is equally beloved by them again; and yet, that under the happy influence of our most excellent Queen, there should be such divisions and factions, more dangerous and threatening to her dominions than if we were under an arbitrary government, is most strange and unaccountable. Under an arbitrary prince all are willing to serve, because all are under a necessity to obey, whether they will or not. He chooses, therefore, whom he will, without respect to either parties or factions; and if he think fit to take the advice of his councils or Parliaments, every man speaks his mind freely, and the prince receives the faithful advice of his people, without the mixture of self-designs. If he prove a good prince, the government is easy; if bad, either death or a revolution brings a deliverance: whereas here, my Lord, there appears no end of our misery, if not prevented in time. Factions are now become independent, and have

time, as the affairs and circumstances of the nation did require, without the assistance or advice of any foreign power or potentate; and who, during the time of two thousand years, have handed them down to us, a free, independent nation, with the hazard of their lives and fortunes. Shall not we, then, argue for that which our progenitors have purchased for us at so dear a rate, and with so much immortal honor and glory? God forbid. Shall the hazard of a father unbind the ligaments of a dumb son's tongue, and shall we hold our peace when our patria, our country, is in danger ?4 I say this, my Lord, that I may encourage every individ- | ual member of this House to speak his mind freely. There are many wise and prudent men among us, who think it not worth their while to open their mouths; there are others, who can speak very well, and to good purpose, who shelter themselves under the shameful cloak of silence from a fear of the frowns of great men and parties. I have observed, my Lord, by my experience, the greatest number of speakers in the most trivial affairs; and it will always prove so, while we come not to the right understand-got footing in councils, in Parliaments, in treaties, ing of the oath de fideli, whereby we are bound not only to give our vote, but our faithful advice in Parliament, as we should answer to God. And in our ancient laws, the representatives of the honorable barons and the royal boroughs are termed "spokesmen." It lies upon your Lordships, therefore, particularly to take notice of such, whose modesty makes them bashful to speak. Therefore I shall leave it upon you, and conclude this point with a very memorable saying of an honest private gentleman to a great Queen, upon occasion of a state project, contrived by an able statesman, and the favorite to a great King, against a peaceful, obedient peo- | ple, because of the diversity of their laws and constitutions: "If at this time thou hold thy peace, salvation shall come to the people from another place; but thou and thy house shall perish." I leave the application to each particular member of this House.5

4 Allusion is here made to the story of Croesus and his dumb child, as related by Herodotus. At the storming of Sardis, a Persian soldier, through ignorance of the King's person, was about to kill Croesus; when his dumb son, under the impulse of astonishment and terror, broke silence, and exclaimed, "Oh man, do not kill my father Croesus!" There was evidently in the mind of the speaker, and perhaps in the language actually employed, a play on the words pater, father, and patria, country, which gave still greater force to the allusion.

in armies, in incorporations, in families, among kindred; yea, man and wife are not free from their political jars.

It remains, therefore, my Lord, that I inquire into the nature of these things; and since the names give us not the right idea of the thing, I am afraid I shall have difficulty to make myself well understood.

The names generally used to denote the factions are Whig and Tory; as obscure as that of Guelfs and Ghibellines; yea, my Lord, they have different significations, as they are applied to factions in each kingdom. A Whig in England is a heterogeneous creature: in Scotland he is all of a piece. A Tory in England is all of a piece, and a statesman in Scotland he is quite otherwise; an anti-courtier and anti-statesman.

A Whig in England appears to be somewhat like Nebuchadnezzar's image, of different metals, different classes, different principles, and different designs; yet, take them altogether, they are like a piece of some mixed drugget of different threads; some finer, some coarser, which, after all, make a comely appearance and an agreeable suit. Tory is like a piece of loyal home-made English cloth, the true staple of the nation, all of a thread; yet if we look narrowly into it, we shall perceive a diversity of colors, which, according to the various situations and positions, make various appearances. times Tory is like the moon in its full; as appeared in the affair of the Bill of Occasional Conformity. Upon other occasions, it appears to be under a cloud, and as if it were eclipsed by a greater body; as it did in the design of calling over the illustrious Princess Sophia. However, by this we may see their designs are to outshoot Whig in his own bow.

Some

5 An appeal is here made, not merely to those members of Parliament who were at first awed into silence by the authority of the Court, but to the Squadroné Volanté, or Flying Squadron, a party headed by the Marquess of Tweddale, who held the balance of power, and were accustomed to throw themselves, during the progress of a debate, on that side where they could gain most. This party had thus far maintained a cautious silence; and the object of Lord Belhaven was to urge them, under the pressure of a general and indignant public senti- side, before the influence of the Court had time to ment, to declare themselves at once on the popular | operate through patronage or bribery.