Union of England and Scotland – 4

Today’s installment concludes Union of England and Scotland,
our selection by John Hill Burton.

If you have journeyed through all of the installments of this series, just one more to go and you will have completed a selection from the great works of thousand words. Congratulations!

Previously in Union of England and Scotland.

Time: 1707
Place: British Isles

To this end there was an endeavor to give it, as much as in the peculiar conditions could be given, the character of a treaty between two independent powers, each acting through its executive, that executive acknowledging the full power of Parliament to examine, criticize and virtually judge the act done as a whole but not admitting Parliamentary interference with the progress of the details. If there were an illogicality in the essence of a treaty where the executive — the Queen — was the common sovereign of both realms, the difficulty could be discarded as a pedantry, in a constitutional community where the sovereign acts through responsible advisers. Some slight touches of apprehension were felt in England when it was seen that the Scots Estates were not only voting the separate articles but in some measure remodelling them.

The Estates were taking the privilege naturally claimed by the weaker party to a bargain in protecting themselves while it was yet time. When all was adjusted, England, as the vast majority, could correct whatever had been done amiss in the preliminary adjustment of her interests but poor Scotland would be entirely helpless. There was another reason for tolerating the alterations, in their being directed to the safety and completeness of the legal institutions left in the hands of Scotland untouched, as matters of entire indifference to England; still it weakened the hands of those who desired to evade a Parliamentary discussion on the several articles in England that this had been permitted in Scotland and had become effective in the shape of amendments. John Johnston, who had been for some time secretary of state for Scotland — a son of the celebrated covenanting hero Archibald Johnston of Warriston — was then in London carefully looking at the signs of the times. He wrote to Scotland, saying: “You may, I think, depend on it that the alterations you have hitherto made will not break the union; but if you go on altering, it’s like your alterations will be altered here, which will make a new session with you necessary and in that case no man knows what may happen.” All is well as yet (January 4th) and if there be no more serious alterations the English ministers will be able to give effect to their resolution “to pass the union here without making any alterations at all.”

By what had been usually called a message from the throne, the attention of Parliament was directed to the treaty as it had come from Scotland but the matter being of supreme importance the Queen was her own messenger. From the Commons she had to ask for a supply to meet the equivalent. To both Houses she said: “You have now an opportunity before you of putting the last hand to a happy union of the two kingdoms, which I hope will be a lasting blessing to the whole island, a great addition to its wealth and power and a firm security to the Protestant religion. The advantages that will accrue to us all from a union are so apparent that I will add no more but that I shall look upon it as a particular happiness if this great work, which has been so often attempted without success, can be brought to perfection in my reign.”

The opportunity was taken to imitate the Scots in a separate preliminary act “for securing the Church of England as by law established.” There was a desultory discussion in both Houses, with a result showing the overwhelming strength of the supporters of the union. In the House of Lords there were some divisions and among these the largest number of votes mustered by the opposition was twenty-three, bringing out a majority of forty-seven by seventy votes for the ministry. The conclusion of the discussion was a vote of approval by each House.

The opposition, however, did not adopt their defeat. They were preparing to fight the battle over again, clause by clause, when a bill was brought in to convert the Articles of Union into an act of Parliament. The English House of Commons has always been supremely tolerant to troublesome and even mischievous members, so long as they adhere to the forms of the House — forms to be zealously guarded, since they were framed for averting hasty legislation and the possible domination of an intolerant majority. It was determined, however, that the impracticals and impedimenters should not have their swing on this occasion, when the descent of a French army to gather to its center the Jacobitism still lingering in the country darkened the political horizon. Both Houses had a full opportunity for discussing the merits of every word in the treaty and the risk of national ruin was not to be encountered because they had not expended all their loquacity, having expected another opportunity.

The tactic for evading the danger was credited to the ingenuity of Sir Simon Harcourt, the attorney-general. The two acts of ecclesiastical security and the articles of the treaty were all recited in the preamble of the bill under the command of the mighty “Whereas,” the enacting part of the act was dropped into a single sentence, shorter than statutory sentences usually are. The opposition might throw out the measure and the ministry with it, if they had strength to do so; but there had been sufficient discussion on the clauses and there should be no more. In the descriptive words of Burnet: “This put those in great difficulties who had resolved to object to several articles and to insist on demanding several alterations in them, for they could not come at any debate about them; they could not object to the recital, it being mere matter of fact; and they had not strength enough to oppose the general enacting clause; nor was it easy to come at particulars and offer provisos relating to them. The matter was carried on with such zeal that it passed through the House of Commons before those who intended to oppose it had recovered out of the surprise under which the form it was drawn in had put them.”

There was thus but one question, that the bill do pass and the opposition had not reaped encouragement to resist so great an issue. The Lords had, in their usual manner of dignified repose, managed to discuss the clauses but it was rather a conversation, to see that all was in right order and that no accident had happened to a measure of so vital moment, than a debate.

On March 6, 1707, the Queen came to the House of Lords and in a graceful speech gave the royal assent to the act.

This ends our series of passages on Union of England and Scotland by John Hill Burton. This blog features short and lengthy pieces on all aspects of our shared past. Here are selections from the great historians who may be forgotten (and whose work have fallen into public domain) as well as links to the most up-to-date developments in the field of history and of course, original material from yours truly, Jack Le Moine. – A little bit of everything historical is here.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history

Some History Moments selections posted before 2012 need to be updated to meet HM’s quality standards. These relate to: (1) links to outside sources for modern, additional information; (2) graphics; (3) navigation links; and (4) other presentation issues. The reader is assured that the author’s materiel is faithfully reproduced in all History Moments posts.