Click to subscribe to nigel-tranter-books


By Niall McAslen

NOTE for further reading; Nigel wrote about Andrew Fletcher in 'The Patriot'

His finest Hour.

In Part 1 we left Andrew Fletcher picking up the pieces of the Darien Expedition. Meanwhile in London, William of Orange was hatching schemes to bring ths Scottish Parliament into closer union with the English Parliament or failing that, at least more compliant to his demands. Darien had soured his plans for a greater Europe with himself as the supreme king and his carefully laid alliances began to get unravelled and War with France broke out again. William entrusted Lord Bentinck, Earl of Portsmouth to seek out compliant Scottish noblemen and other persons of influence with the view to bribing them with ‘Pensions’ and other forms of patronage to carry out the King's orders in the Scottish Parliament.

He found no shortage of Noblemen and Burgess’s of the ‘Court’ party who were more than willing to fulfill William’s orders in exchange for generous pensions, Titles and tracts of land, even minor positions of power in the English establishment. Fuelled with plentiful cash from the English Merchants and the Exchequer, William went off to the Continent for a few years campaigning. This was cut short in 1702 when a moleheap caused Williams horse to throw him, breaking his collar bone and the resulting pneumonia was too much for his weak lungs and he Died.

Queen Anne then came to the throne, and her first act was to re-instate Sir John Dalrymple, Viscount Stair as her chief Privy Councillor and close confidante. Stair was venal and pliant and in exchange for patronage, wealth and power, would give Her what she desired most, an incorporating Union with Scotland for one reason alone. Security. An Independent Scotland with many ties with France and the Continent was always a brave and formidable potential enemy. Scotland like England was also unstable, split on Religious and political lines between Protestant and Catholic, Supporters of a protestant monarch or Jacobites. Should the jacobites gain the ascendancy, then Scotland could easily become a deadly threat in times of war with France and the Low Countries.

She also had a close advisor in Sir John Churchill the Duke of Marleborough and she was somewhat manipulated by Sir John Churchill’s wife Sarah, who exerted great personal influence over the Queen in the early years of her reign. Anne, influenced by the Marlboroughs and the Lord Treasurer Sidney Earl of Godolphin, set in motion the process that would lead to the annexation of Scotland as a province of England.

In 1703, Queen Anne appointed Robert, Lord Harley the Speaker of the House of Commons and a Tory, to set up the English Secret service on the French and Spanish models, this secret service was the direct forerunner of the Modern day MI5 and MI6. Lord Harley appointed one Daniel DeFoe as his Spymaster,(after springing him from Prison for being a dissenter) who then, furnished with plentiful funds, proceeded to set up a comprehensive spy network throughout England, Wales and Ireland to spy on the Political and Religious beliefs of those in power and also to seek out their hidden peccadilloes with a view to blackmailing them into compliance should it prove necessary.

In 1705 DeFoe was commissioned to set up a Spy network in Scotland as moves were afoot to force a Union of the Parliaments by all and any means including military’ force if that proved necessary. DeFoe was furnished with 1000 Guineas and a Dutch printing press along with 5 tons of type, which was sent to Leith on a Dutch ship from the Netherlands direct.

Defoe was instructed to set up News-sheets, publish tracts, prints and pamphlets favourable to Union, to ‘silence’ the opinions of the opponents of union by blocking access to news-sheets and Printed material. He was to use all means available to influence waverers to accept Union and use any means to blackmail or browbeat the opponents of Union. This also included covert assassination provided the crime could not be traced back to England. Any funds required for Publishing, Bribery and the like would be provided by the Commissioner for Equipment and Supplies for the Scottish Parliament, and in an emergency, from the Vice Admiral commanding the Royal Naval squadron cruising off May Island. This squadron was ostensibly there to prevent any landing by French or Spanish forces, but in reality was enforcing a blockade against Scottish merchants trading with the Continent.

Defoe set to with a will, finding no lack of venal traitors prepared to sell their country and fellow Scots in exchange for gold and in a short time he had a spy network extending from the Highland line down to the Borders. He travelled extensively as a merchant under false names such as Alexander Goldsmith and Claude Guilot He even bought Cattle at the trysts to maintain his cover. In 1707 in one of his weekly unsigned bulletin letters, he wrote to Lord Harley ‘In my management here among pro Catholic Jacobites, I am a perfect emissary. I act the old part of Cardinal Richelieu. I have my spies and my pensioners in every place, and I confess ’’tis the easiest thing in the world to hire people here to betray their friends.’

So effective was His Spy network, there was a joke passing round Queen Anne’s courtiers that the Lord Chancellor of Scotland, could not pass wind without England knowing about it. Defoe Set up no less than FIVE News-sheets including the Titles, ‘The Review’, ‘Dyers News,’ ‘A Voice from the South,’ ‘The Scots answer’ and ‘The Trade of Britain stated.’ Mostly they disseminated half truths and lies, and argued various points between themselves with the reading public completely unaware that the one man was writing the letters and editorials for all five. DeFoe was a brave man, for if his secret life had been revealed, then the Edinburgh mob would have lynched him!

Through his many written articles, Defoe helped persuade the Scots Establishment to join England in its war with France. (A move deeply unpopular with the Scots man in the Street.) Defoe through his Freemasonry contacts maintained prestigious standing among the Edinburgh elite and intelligentsia and was enabled to infiltrate and influence many other groups within the town. Defoe became a key member of society and various community-minded groups. Most importantly, Defoe owned the City's five newspapers outright. He was enabled to enter Scottish society and over a short period of time, began to influence and then gain control over the power groups and cliques. One can only Imagine how much power he had by controlling the newspapers. He was able to circulate propaganda, all the while sending information back to England.

What was Andrew Fletcher doing during this time. He had lost his Haddingtonshire seat after the failure of Darien when his personal popularity nosedived. However he busied himself with Public and written discourses and It was about this time (1698) that he made his mark as a prolific serious political writer. Fletcher wrote Two Discourses on the affairs of Scotland, shortly after the Darien expedition had failed. On the fostering of the new colony, the writer declares, ‘depended the whole future of Scotland, cruelly impoverished partly through her own fault, and partly because of the removal of the seat of her government to London.’

The Speech upon the State of the Nation (1701) —dealt with the second of these treatises, as completing the establishment of Bourbon ascendancy—it ‘is like an alarum bell rung over all Europe. Pray God it may not prove to you a passing-bell.’ Fletcher clearly foresaw the implications of Bourbon imperial policy from which he accurately foretold a century plagued by warfare, culminating in the French Revolution.

A Discourse of Government with relation to Militias, published at Edinburgh in 1698, is typical of Andrew Fletchers thinking, who, plunging into the midst of the war of pamphlets started by the English Whigs and Tories, on the question of standing armies which raged fiercely after the peace of Ryswyk, was ready with a complete plan for rendering unnecessary the dangerous expedient of a standing Army. ‘The people must be trained to the use of arms on a carefully planned system but for the purpose of defence only.’ The full Discourse has been published previously, but to give you an idea of his thinking, please read on:

'But the undertakers must pardon me if I tell them, that no well-constituted government ever suffered any such men in it, whose interest leads them to embroil the state in war, and are a useless and insupportable burden in time of peace. Venice or Holland are neither of them examples to prove the contrary; for had not their situation been different from that of other countries, their liberty had not continued to this time. And they suffer no forces to remain within those inaccessible places, which are the chief seats of their power. Carthage, that had not those advantages of situation, and yet used mercenary forces, was brought to the brink of ruin by them in a time of peace, beaten in three wars, and at last subdued by the Romans. If ever any government stood in need of such a sort of men, it was that of ancient Rome, because they were engaged in perpetual war.

The argument can never be so strong in any other case. But the Romans well knowing such men and liberty to be incompatible, and yet being under a necessity of having armies constantly on foot, made frequent changes of the men that served in them; who, when they had been some time in the army, were permitted to return to their possessions, trades, or other employments. And to show how true a judgment that wise state made of this matter, it is sufficient to observe, that those who subverted that government, the greatest that ever was amongst men, found themselves obliged to continue the same soldiers always in constant pay and service.'

It is probably true to state that Andrew Fletcher became the most influential political writer of his time. His published pamphlets, treatise’s and tracts were read widely in Scotland, England and especially on the Continent amongst the protestant Rulers and their governments therein. The English Whigs and Tories engaged the services of Daniel DeFoe to write a great many counterclaims and rebuttals of Fletchers writings so greatly did the English ruling classes fear the power of Andrew Fletchers thinking expressed through the printed word.

In the summer of 1701, the English Parliament passed the Act of Settlement. Without the basic courtesy of consultation with Scotland it was decided that the heir to the crowns of England and Ireland, after the death of William and Mary's surviving sister Anne, was to be the Protestant grand-daughter of King James 1st (6th), Sophia, (daughter of the Empress Elizabeth of Bohemia) the Electress of Hanover. The succession would then in turn pass to her 40 year old son, Prince George of Hanover. Then on the 5th September 1701: James 2nd (7th) died in France. His claim to the throne and the Jacobite cause passed to his 13 year old son, James Francis Edward Stewart. He was recognised by the French King as King James 3rd (8th) of Great Britain, ipso facto a declaration of war on William of Orange.

In the Scottish Parliamentary elections of 1702, Andrew Fletcher regained his seat of Haddingtonshire. In a series of highly charged rhetorical speeches, he urged the Scottish Parliament to seize the opportunity to liberate Scotland from the dominance of the Administration in England and to ensure Scotland’s continuing Independence under any future shared Sovereign. Here is a verbatim report of part of one of his speeches on this subject: ‘All of our affairs, since the union of crowns, have been managed by the advice of English ministers, and the principal offices of the kingdom filled with such men, as the court of England knew would be subservient to their designs: by which means they had so visible an influence upon our whole administration, that we have, from that time, appeared to the rest of the world more like a conquered province, than a free independent people.’ The Scottish parliament then went on with Fletcher’s driving force to boldly draft a number of Bills which the English found to be highly provocative. An ‘Act anent peace and War’ which ensured that no sovereign of the two countries could declare war or make any alliance without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

The English trading companies were enraged when the Scottish parliament passed the ‘Wine Act’ which formally permitted the import of French wines in direct contravention of the English trade embargo on France. Naturally enough, there was a great deal of smuggling going on over the border with England. Then followed the act that had the English merchants gnashing their teeth in rage, ‘The Wool Act which permitted the export of Scottish wool to the continent and at the same time banning the importation of English wool. Then followed the one Act that had Queen Anne and Her court in Kensington Palace, incandescent with rage, ‘The Act of Security.’

Andrew Fletcher was prominent in drafting the ‘Act of Security’ which was first put forward in 1703. This act declared that if Queen Anne died without an heir, the Scottish Crown was NOT to go to the successor of the crown of England, unless, there was provision made ‘that the terms and conditions of government settled and enacted as may secure the honour and Independence of the Crown of this Kingdom.’ ‘Upon the said death of her Majesty, without heirs of her body, or a successor lawfully designed and appointed, the foresaid Estates of Parliament convened or meeting are hereby authorised and empowered to nominate and declare the successor of the Imperial Crown of this Realm and to settle the succession thereof upon the said successor and the heirs of the successors body being always of the royal line of Scotland and of the true Protestant religion,’

To be Blunt, this Act demanded major concessions. Scotland would no longer be obliged to have the same Sovereign as England unless the English gave the Scots ‘Free communication of trade’ and the liberty of the colonies. Under Fletchers inspiring leadership the Scottish parliament began to assert itself in the most forceful way, which it had never done previously, to the great alarm and Indignation of Queen Anne’s Ministers. Sir Walter Scott in his ‘Tales of a Grandfather, chapter 60, puts it thus:

‘This formidable act, which in fact hurled the gauntlet of defiance at the far stronger kingdom of England, was debated in the Scottish Parliament, clause by clause, and article by article, with the utmost fierceness and tumult. ‘ We were often, ‘ says an eye witness, ‘ in the form of a Polish Diet, with our swords in our hands, or at least our hands on our swords.’ The Act of Security was carried in Parliament by a decided majority, but the Queen’s Commissioner refused the Royal assent to so violent a statute. The Parliament, on their part, would grant no supplies, and when such were requested by the member of administration, the hall rung with the shouts of ‘ liberty before subsidy!’. The Parliament was adjourned amidst the mutual discontent of both ministers and opposition. ‘

The Act raised in the most direct and stark manner the very real prospect of there being once again two Monarchs in a divided island. The following year (1704) the Act came up again and this time the Scots flatly refused to pay the supply (Taxes) to finance the Scottish administration and gave Queen Anne’s administration an ultimatum either accept the Act or Scotland would recall her troops fighting on the Continent and disband them. With great reluctance Queen Anne was forced to accept the Act. The Scottish Parliament which had been a docile wee lapdog for many years, was growling, showing it’s teeth and biting fat English posteriors. Now since the gauntlet had been thrown down the English Government were galvanised into action.

Queen Anne called a meeting of her privy councillors in the orangery of Kensington Palace to formulate policy to deal with these upstart Scots. The Earl of Stair (Lord James Dalrymple) proposed that the English Army should invade Scotland and forcibly annex it as a province of England forthwith. The Duke of Marlborough demurred stating that to do so when nearly half his army were Scottish ran the great risk of mutiny with the Scots going over to the French side. This in his view would lead to a disastrous defeat of English arms and all the gains of the past two years would be lost. Sydney Godolphin then proposed a policy of aggressively brow beating the Scots into submission by means of legal stratagems, trade embargoes, bribery, patronage, preferment and if these failed then the ultimate sanction was to be the very potent and real threat of a military takeover . In his view he believed the combination would make the Scots toe the line within a few short years.

Immediately, some of the finest legal minds set to work and drafted an act which was put before the English Parliament on the 5 February 1705: The Aliens Act was an economic bludgeon against the Scots, designed to secure English interests from what they saw as the subversion of England by the Scottish Parliament. In effect, the Scots were invited to negotiate a full union with England, on pain of seizure of Scottish assets, (Scottish Nobility with English estates were panic stricken at the prospect of losing them), imprisonment of Scottish citizens and the ending of Scottish exports to England if they did not. Scotland was being blackmailed into appointing commissioners to negotiate, within nine months ( by Christmas 1705 at the latest), for an incorporating union between Scotland and England, on pain of severe penalties. This was an iron fist without the benefit of a velvet glove .

The Scots were naturally outraged by this economic blackmail. England had abandoned its traditional opposition to closer political union, now they were demanding it. The Scottish Parliament had no room of manoeuver and began to yield to English Political pressure . The Scots agreed to the establishment of a joint Parliamentary Commission with thirty-one members each from Scotland and England. Once agreement was made the English Parliament repealed the Aliens Act. Queen Anne’s chief minister the Earl of Godolphin chose John Campbell the second Duke of Argyll to mastermind this Scottish Parliamentary negotiations. Argyll was twenty-seven years old, arrogant , venal and highly ambitious. He was serving as a Colonel under the Duke of Marlborough on the Continent . He demurred and refused the position unless he was given lavish rewards including an English Peerage and seat in the House of Lords. These promises were readily made to Argyll’s satisfaction.

During the Debate on the Union in the English House of Lords, Lord Chief Justice William Attwood made a very long speech in which he quoted extracts from his recently written book ‘The Superiority and Direct Dominion of the Imperial Crown of England over the Kingdom and Crown of Scotland.’ It is a kindness to Scotland to set her fixed as a flower in the Imperial Crown of England. I cannot but think it evident that no denial of the Scots, grounded upon any records in histories among themselves can in the least diminish the credit of English Histories.....All our registers preserved in Monasteries of Royal Foundation are to be looked on as Records, in which there was a moral impossibility that there should be material errors in relation to the principal transactions with other Nations.....The Scots can make no colourable objection against the re-annexation of that ancient member of the British now English, Monarchy, since they had no right to have a King of their own. I cannot with impartial judges be thought to entrench upon the liberties of mankind. Such a liberty as is now contended for by those who set up for patriots in Scotland, being contrary to God’s Law, [which requires] submission to that Imperial Crown under which He has placed them, and to their own most valuable interest as men and reformed Christians, they cannot assume it without impiety to God and their Country.’

There are a number of factual mistakes of which I will quote only three of far too many to count, ‘William the Conqueror did not conquer England : It is only the Scots who falsely say he did.’ ‘Bruce was Earl of Carrick in the Bishopric of Durham,’ and lastly: ‘Edward II asserted the rights of His crown over the Kingdom of Scotland as well as he could.’ This long speech was well received by the Lords and reading the minutes today gives one a sense of unreality, that such Outright lies and untruths could be accepted by the other Lords without comment. It should be noted that Lord chief Justice Atwood had recently been sacked from his post as Chief Justice of New York for blatant corruption for which he was never called to account!

Now follows a strange interlude, the Duke of Hamilton Scotland’s leading Peer recognised as the patriotic leader of the anti union opposition ‘ Country Party’ in Parliament. He made the most extraordinary volte face and proposed that the Scottish delegation on the joint commission should be nominated by Queen Anne and her English Ministers. He said ‘ the Parliament is too much in heats and feuds, and can never agree on proper persons but the Queen, who is free from partiality, may doubtless make a good choice, but if she shall make a bad choice, we will be safe, for all must return to us again, and we may send the Act back to the place whence it came.’ [See Appendix A. The Pantheon of Infamy.]

The English establishment were delighted that their covert labours were bearing fruit. A division was hastily rushed through in a matter of hours and was passed. It ensured that the Scottish negotiators would be for the most part pro-union. The joint Parliamentary Commission met in Whitehall in April 1706 to negotiate the Articles of Union. The two sides sat in adjacent rooms and communicated with each other by writing notes. Within ten days they had agreed on the general terms of the Treaty and ten weeks later a set of twenty-five Articles had been agreed. These Articles were now to be debated by each of the two Parliaments.

Prior to the debates on the Articles, a war of words broke out with Andrew Fletcher, Lord Belhaven and other Patriots printing and issuing leaflets, discourses. Pamphlets and the like, all opposed to Union. Defoe was instructed to shut the printers down by bribing them not to print. Nearly all the printers accepted the bribes which was an easily won profit for them except for one printer who refused. His premises were soon mysteriously broken into, his presses smashed and his stocks of paper set on fire which badly damaged the premises. The printers Son and two employees who were made of sterner stuff contacted the ‘Country Party’ and offered to carry on printing their messages of anti unionism.

This offer was taken up with alacrity, The largely Jacobite Country Party adopted Defoe's tactics, and began spreading their own propaganda by way of illegal underground printing presses, imported from Germany. Rapid response to unionist propaganda was easy to respond speedily to, with their own presses. They could move into a town, set up shop in a rented house or stable and begin distributing material immediately. Then, as suddenly as they came in, they would move to another location or town before the Sheriff Officers could arrest them and impound the presses.

There were illegal presses at work within the Old Town area of Edinburgh. This was and is basically the area known as the ‘Royal Mile’ bounded by the castle and hemmed in by the City walls. Then the Old Town consisted of very high Tenements some of which in Robert Louis Stevenson’s words ‘Would put many a crag and precipice to shame.’ Below these tenements was a labyrinth of subterranean dwellings, cellars, caves and tunnels which were inhabited by tens of thousands of Edinburgh’s poverty stricken citizens. Here was to be found four of the presses with no lack of willing couriers, eager to earn a few coppers by delivering bundles of Pamphlets and prints to the distributers. The Town Guard would mount raids on the subterranean dwellings but the inhabitants had good information and the presses would be spirited away before they could be found.

One printing Press was even located in a cellar deep underground below the Parliament House itself! The Lord Chancellor would be presiding over proceedings in the House with it’s intricately carved oak hammerbeam roof and well lit by means of the large stained glass window depicting James V, below his feet was the Laigh Hall where all the Scottish records were kept and unbeknown to him, a press was churning out anti union literature and even an obscene cartoon of himself defecating on Scotland. Large rewards of £100 (English) were offered for information leading to the seizure of an illegal printing press, but it says something about the patriotic character of the ordinary Scots man and woman that the printers were never betrayed. Even the Troglodyte dwellers of the subterranean cellars and caverns to whom £100 was unimaginable riches and a passport to a better life, never succumbed to temptation.

The following poem is perhaps typical of the sort of printed material that was circulating and was recited at public meetings. It is a perfect indicator of the mood of the Scottish people of 1705.

A Scots lancet for an English swelling. Edinburgh 1705.

Curs'd be the day (for then we were betray'd) When first our King, the English sceptre sway'd; Since when such fatal slav'ry we have bore, As never state nor kingdom did before; From neighbouring states we no assistance crav'd; We scorn'd by foreign yokes to be enslaved; Had wealth at home, alliances abroad; Yea, of our friendship France itself was proud; Each Scot was brave, with noble courage fir'd; Our Court polite, and every where admir'd.

Forbid it Heaven! let's boldly claim our right; Let England bully, but let Scotland fight; And let another Bannockburn redress; Too long endur'd affronts and grievances; Our Country, now oppress'd, shall then produce Hero's, like DOUGLASS, WALLACE and the BRUCE, Who England's insolencies dare chastize, When Scotland's liberties shall be the prize. When our best troops are at the border rang'd Then CALEDONIA'S wrongs shall be aveng'd.

During the Spring and Summer, argument and counter argument were hotly debated by both sides and the volume of printed papers became a virtual flood. Discourses and pamphlets were read aloud in Public houses and other public places and it is remarkable how well informed the Scottish people became regarding the articles of union and the arguments against it. Some of these pamphlets caused ructions in the Parliament by ‘Naming’ various noble Lords venality and lack of patriotism. In other cases, grotesque and sometimes obscene cartoons were drawn and printed. In one memorable case, three ‘scurrilous’ prints (Cartoons) were publicly burned outside the Parliament building by order of the House. Fletcher Himself travelled round the Country, addressing crowds and thus became a well ken’t and popular figure for his opposition to the union. Likewise his close friend, Lord Belhaven did the same and had a great following amongst the Jacobites although Belhaven was a staunch Episcopalian himself.

The Country Party split along Federal and incorporating Union lines and from this party was formed the Squadrone Volante which was pressing for a federal union or none at all. Fletcher Formed a party of patriots called the Home Rule movement with a young Scotland Party with the same aims of mobilizing the people. With the exception of William Carstares, the Moderator of the General Assembly and perhaps a dozen others, he had virtually total support from the Kirk who rightly feared English interference in their affairs. [A fear that was to be realised some 5 years later when the U.K. Parliament passed a number of anti presbyterian measures. In 1712 the Toleration Act was introduced allowing greater freedom to Scottish Episcopalians. The Patronage Act was also introduced in 1712 which reversed the abolition of patronage which had occurred in 1690. By this Act the selection of ministers to the Church was decided by the nobles and the Crown, in practice this Act caused a great deal of friction between the Scottish Church and the Crown.]

Fletcher began pressing for new elections to be held as he argued passionately and eloquently for fresh Parliamentary elections to debate the whole question of Union. Had it been accepted by the administration, then it was certain that a huge anti union majority would sit in the Parliament. This petition was flatly rejected by The Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Queensberry on the prior instructions of Queen Anne and her advisors. Daniel Defoe was listening to the debates that day and he wrote thus to Lord Harley, ‘Saltoun made heartfelt pleadings for parliament to be prorogued, indeed, many of the estates were moved to sustain this plea. This device would have been grievously and mortally perilous anent all we have worked for. Queensberry did his duty and denied Saltoun, so that the petition fell.’ [Daniel Defoe. The History of the Union. ]

Tasting defeat, Andrew Fletcher carefully weighed up the support for rejecting the Union and realized that the odds were stacked heavily against him succeeding. Determined to salvage something for the Scottish people he then turned his attention to fighting for a Federal Union, whereby Scotland would still run it’s own internal affairs through it’s own Parliament, Keep it’s laws intact, It’s religion and system of education and raise it’s own taxes. He devoted much time canvassing support for this view. He campaigned the length and breadth of Scotland, urging the people and Burgesses to organise Petitions & Addresses to the Parliament. He even gained support from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and also from the Convention of Royal Burghs. Fletcher worked tirelessly, travelling and speaking, and it is a measure of his leadership, oratory and personal charisma that no less than 15 shires, 26 burghs & towns, 55 parishes & 3 presbyteries all wrote strong petitions against the Act of Union. Fletcher even persuaded the pro unionist Moderator of the General Assembly to order all parish ministers to preach sermons against the Union with great effect upon the ordinary Scotsman and woman.

During a Public meeting in Dumbarton, Andrew Fletcher found he had a most unusual ally in Sir James Stewart, the Queens Lord Advocate in Scotland. He informed Fletcher that he had strongly advised the Queen to hold fresh elections but she remained adamantly opposed to any such. The Lord Advocate acknowledged Andrew Fletcher as the unquestioned leader of the anti unionists and promised him help on a covert basis. This single contact was to later furnish Andrew Fletcher with a great deal of damning evidence against the Lords and Nobles who sold Scottish freedom and Independence for slightly more than the 30 pieces of silver.

However during this time, behind the scenes DeFoe’s spy network spread it’s tentacles and infiltrated further and further into the fabric of Scottish life Such strange and controversial activities were extraordinary to Scottish society in the early 1700s. Infiltration, spying and the unethical conduct and morals associated with spying were highly objectionable to most Scots. Nevertheless, they are to a high degree, really effective tools, particularly as a means for monitoring the activities of groups and factions and influencing their behaviour. In the battle of Spy and Counterspy, the English with their extensive network, created over a number years, with more than ample funding, were the clear winners. Soon, however English gold began to flow north and with it the promise of the ‘Equivalence’ the Compensation to repay the Darien scheme investors losses ( a sum of £398,086. 10/- worth £26 Millions by today’s standards.) This and promises of patronage, pensions and increased salaries, immediately started to sway the doubters and some of the anti unionists who had invested heavily and sometimes put themselves in penury over their backing for the Darien venture.

From Aberdeenshire in the north to Dumfries in the south there were many crowd actions across the Lowlands. Edinburgh in particular saw some of the most violent riots. The ex Lord Provost Sir Patrick Johnstone who was known to support Union had his house plundered and sacked, narrowly escaping with his life. The crowds followed progress of debates in Edinburgh by means of rumours, word of mouth and by far the most important method was the pamphlets and news-sheets published by Fletchers party on the underground presses.

Likewise on the 3rd October, there were serious riots in Glasgow over the unwillingness of the Burgesses and magistrates to address Parliament against union. Again Troops had to be used to maintain order but they could not prevent the houses of many prominent Pro unionists from being sacked and set on fire. The lord Provost had to flee for his life from the rioters who wished to make an example by hanging him.

On the 3rd October 1706, the Scottish Parliament met to discuss the terms and articles of Union. Mobs were roaming the streets voicing their disapproval. Commissions and members of the Parliament known for their pro Union views are booed, pelted with filth and stones, sometimes having the windows of their carriages smashed. Troops of the Kings Horse Guards had to escort them to the Parliament building and stand guard outside. Fletcher and Belhaven could walk to Parliament and were cheered wherever they were seen. Due to the mob violence, it was decided to placate the mob, by allowing the petitioners to present their petitions. The following petition with over 300 Signatures and seals appended is typical of this type of Petition that Fletcher and Belhaven had long laboured over:

The address of the Barrons Heritors and Freeholders of the Shire of Lanerk

That it being (by our Claime of Right) the uncontraverted priveledge of the subject to address, wee look upon our selves bound both by honour and Conscience in this criticall and dangerous Juncture to apply our selves to your Grace and Honourable Estates… Our Church government as by Law Established and her other concernes, cannot…But be in great danger and have no maner of Security, when she is subjected to the British parliament wherin 26 prelates are members…It is not to be imagined that this nation is able to bear a share of the heavie and great taxes imposed in England such as the Excisse or malt, bear, all and salt etc: without being in a small time reduced to the utmost misery…wee doe conceive that the articles of the Union of the two nations as at present agreed to are contrair to the fundamentall Laws, ancient priviledges, Rights, Liberties and Digneties of this Nation, our Claime of Right Legall Establishment of our Church and the honour trew entrest and welfair of every subject of whatsoever degree and station, in all their concernes both Civill and Religious. [National Archives of Scotland, PA 7/28/10]

Petitions some of them with thousands of signatures were brought in. With one single exception, that from the Town of Ayr, they were all against union and for the continued independence of Scotland. They made great piles on the Chancellor’s table. The Clerk asked the lord Chancellor what was he to do with them and was airily told by the Duke of Argyle, ‘Make kites of them, they are good for nothing else!’ [From ‘Scotland’s Ruine:’ Lockhart of Carnwath’s Memoirs of the Union]

The following day, Parliament assembled to discuss Article 1. (Dealing with an Incorporating union between Scotland and England.) The debate was initiated by the Earl of Stair, Lord James Dalrymple then stood up to speak, ‘I urge you all to consider the benefits of Union, a Union of the two Parliaments and Governments, make an end to centuries of bickering and warfare. Scotland as a small nation could never withstand the larger, mightier and Richer nation of England. Would it not be better to recognize these facts and join forces. It is a known fact that highly influential and far seeing men in London are in favour of such developments.’ Andrew Fletcher got to his feet and spoke thus,

‘The Noble Lord advocates Union, what doth such a union mean? When the Smaller unites with the greater, what happens? The greater absorbs and engulfs the lesser, it is ever thus and so will be! There are ten times as many English as Scots. Think you then, when the ten becomes eleven, the eleventh will partner the ten? Or, be swallowed up by the ten? Is this what my Lord of Stair wants? An end to Scotland? The most ancient nation in Christendom, a kingdom when England was but a medley of warring tribes! Scotland, from whence Christianity spread to the English. Scotland, a people with their own Kirk and laws, their freedoms, customs and pride. Is all that for which our forefathers fought for untold generations, to be merely thrown aside for a mess of trading privileges and navigation rights? I would rather that Scotland sank to the bottom of the ocean rather than we lost one least part of our cherished Independence and ages old identity!’

The Earl of Stair interrupted. ‘Mr Fletcher roars like a lion, but methinks his roaring hideth a timorous heart! He fears a union, Why? Scotland would still be Scotland. We would not be incorporated into England, only work with her instead of against her! Is not harmony to be preferred to Enmity? We should be Confederate states. As are those of the Netherlands, the Germans and the Empire Electorates. They fare well enough in unity. Why not Scotland and England?’

Fletcher was on his feet. ‘My Lord, I sorrow to learn that I am so timorous of heart and to learn that my Lord could be so forgetful of the elementary facts of nature, and also of mankind, that he believes when the lesser joins the greater, it can remain itself and maintain it’s identity entire! When a wee burn joins a river, which streams on? The wee Burn or the River? When a Pike swallows a minnow, in all unity, who chooses the direction to swim? When a man joins a crowd, can his lone voice be distinguished amid the shouting of the many? No, My Lords and friends, you are all acquaint with the answers to these questions. Could it be any different for us? I urge you to consider this question of Union no more. Even if your souls appear to reside in your pockets. Have you even considered English taxation? My Friends, the English have ten taxes for every one of ours to pay for their ambitious plans, their Armies and Fleets. Do you really wish to pay these taxes also? You must, if we are united with them! Would this suit your pockets and revenues?’ [Daniel Defoe. ‘History of the Union’ (1710) ]

Over the next few weeks all 25 Articles of Union were fiercely debated and Fletcher was at the forefront of all these debates, seeking to ameliorate the worst excesses and put in place safeguards on behalf of the Church, the Law and Education systems of his day. He got very little rest and sleep over this period due to his ex parliamentary campaigning and pamphlet writing. Daniel Defoe, writing two years later, considered that Andrew Fletcher was the most formidable adversary and debater he had ever listened to.

There were even greater disturbances on the 23rd October 1706 Troops had to be used to restrain large hostile crowds attempted to disrupt Parliament by protesting at Articles dealing with the imposition of Taxes and Duties. Parliament had to be temporarily adjourned, forcing the Administration to issue a ‘Proclamation against tumults’ the following day. Reports of rioting and unrest came in from many parts of Scotland and rumours abounded that the Jacobites had risen, the Cameronians were arming themselves, whilst untrue, did cause much consternation in the administration.

On the 27th October 1706 Commissioner Queensberry requested troops to be sent to the English border and N. Ireland in case of rising. The Duke of Marlborough immediately ordered the reinforcement of the garrison at Berwick with 800 mounted dragoons (Heavy Cavalry). Although it sounds unlikely, a combination of Cameronians from SW Scotland and Athol and Jacobites from Perthshire started to gather in Hamilton. Numbers estimated at 7000 to 8,000 were reported ready to rise by Lockhart of Carnwath. By now seriously alarmed that events were slipping out of their hands, the Commissioners used the tried and tested tactic of ‘divide and conquer,’ whereby the largely moderate organisers were offered concessions to Neutralise their demands.

Andrew Fletcher was very active in the drafting of the ‘Act for Security of the Protestant Religion.’ This Act guaranteed that Scotland’s Kirk and system of church government would remain intact (Broken by the UK Parliament in 1712.) Andrew Fletcher also proposed, drafting the clauses for safeguarding the rights and liberties of the common people. He successfully and skilfully managed to carry the house with him. This Act was Authorised by Queen Anne who approved it several days later. The Act was passed on the 12th November 1706 and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, satisfied that their Kirk and form of worship was safe, wrote to all the presbyteries asking them to suppress local opposition.

Even worse riots took place on November 18th 1706 when Troops of the Household cavalry rode down rioters and used the edges of their swords for the first time. This caused fearsome injuries with many victims dying of Gangrene and blood poisoning many days later. There is no accurate record of the numbers killed, for some reason best known to the Commissioners no records were ever kept. However diaries and letters written by some of the Officers concerned reveal a completely callous disregard of human life.

November 18th 1706. A Crowd estimated at around 5,000 Cameronians gathered to burn the articles of Union at Dumfries. The Provost read out the text of a petition (See Below) to be presented in Parliament, before setting fire to the Articles of Union. There were also similar crowd actions on record in Kirkcudbright, Stirling and Lanarkshire.

‘An Account of Burning the Articles of Union at Dumfries’

‘So we protest that whatever ratification of the foresaid union may pass in Parliament, contrary to our fundamental laws, liberties and privileges concerning church and state, may not be binding upon the nation now, nor at any time to come. …And so we earnestly require that the representatives in Parliament, who are for our nation’s privileges, would give timeous warning to all corners of this kingdom that we and our posterity become not tributary and bondslaves to our neighbours without acquitting ourselves as becomes men and Christians.’ [From ‘Scotland’s Ruine:’ Lockhart of Carnwath’s Memoirs of the Union, p. 179]

November 19th 1706. Serious riots in Aberdeen and parts of Moray The unrest was spreading to the country areas and many wild rumours about high taxation were current. The Commissioners were aghast at the scale of the unrest and set about drafting proclamations forbidding the gathering of more than 3 people in any one place. Naturally these were totally ignored by the patrons of Inns and Public Houses. The unrest did not abate and on the 29th November 1706 a proclamation against Unlawful Convocations was enacted to prevent the Cameronians from mustering. Due to a legality which made such a proclamation unlawful, the following day on November 30th 1706. An Act anent all Musters & Rendevouzes was hurriedly drafted and passed against a sizable minority including Andrew Fletcher in Parliament who hoped thereby that the people would arm themselves and rise.

Attempts were made for large gatherings to address the treaty signatories in Edinburgh in December and put pressure on them for an address to Queen to call a new parliament. Defoe’s agents soon uncovered these plans and the militaristic organisers were dealt with summarily by being imprisoned and held incommunicado. And the crowds were dispersed by brutal overwhelming military force.

Public pressure from the ordinary Scottish people forced the Commissioners to make some amendments to the economic articles of Union. These were: The excise duty on Scottish two-penny ale to be kept low (Article 7). There was to be no levying of the malt tax during current war (Article 14). Scottish-made salt was to be made exempt from duty for 7 years, low duty thereafter (Article 8). This was vitally important to the salt fish trade. Relief or drawback on all exported oatmeal, beer, etc. (Article 6). Once these minor concessions had been made, the moderates became resigned to the fact of union although many still hoped for a federal type union like Andrew Fletchers Party.

There was still much public disorder in the Cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow which required the use of troops to suppress. On the 27th December 1706 a proclamation discharging Unwarrantable and Seditious Convocations and Meetings was enacted, without much noticeable effect. The Pro Union members of parliament became like hunted animals, dogged by mobs, jostled, sworn at and suffered filth and stones being hurled at them. They took to travelling to Parliament by back alleys and passages in order to avoid the hostile mobs. All this Time Fletcher was unmolested and in him the ordinary Scots placed their faith, that somehow he would salvage something for Scotland. In Parliament Fletcher Argued and debated with carefully crafted oratory and his speeches were printed and circulating within hours of their being spoken. Sadly not many have survived as the Town guard were assiduous in burning any such printed materials and the quality of the paper was very poor due to a strict embargo on the import of printing paper. Only approved printers who toed the government line were supplied. In the end, the underground presses were forced to use wallpaper and wads of cartridge paper as printing mediums.

January 8th 1707. The day began acrimoniously when Andrew Fletcher verbally crossed swords with the Earl of Stair. Stair made the statement that it was every patriotic Scotsman’s duty to support the union. Indeed ‘any man who set’s his visage against union is guilty of treason against the person of the Queens grace. This realm is in need of firm governance in these perilous times and the union in making two nations as one will be a sure shield and defence against the rebels and the French who would enslave us .’

Andrew Fletcher then retorted angrily (according to the diarist he was aflame with indignation and passion) ‘The noble Stair speaks of treason and firm governance! Does he recall his firm governance of Glencoe perchance? The infamy of murdering innocent men, women and children in cold blood! The blood even of infants that cries out for justice from a cruel demagogue! Murder, oppression and barbarity for which he should have been justly tried and hanged! In the past weeks and days, the murder and mortal injury of unarmed Citizens of this City by dragoons acting on your orders sir? By your infamous actions you reveal yourself as traitor! Like those in Longshanks day who gladly sold their patriotism and duty to their country in exchange for baubles (Bawbies?) and worthless honours! Now a new Surrey is set over us, who like Caligula of old, will brook no resistance to his nefarious designs.’ By now there was a near riot in the house as members of the Court party tried to shout Fletcher down.

The lord Chancellor was banging his gavel and calling for order and quiet in the house but without much success. Stair was trying to interrupt and by all accounts was red faced and breathless. Finally order was restored and Stair rose to speak,’Saltoun, you impugn my honour in the presence of this house and I demand a full apology for your intemperancy and impertinence!’ Andrew Fletcher then stood up to speak, ‘We shall settle this matter as befits Gentlemen with either swords or pistols! My man will be calling upon you this evening.’

The Lord Chancellor tried to get both sides to temporise but Fletcher was adamant. In his eyes, Stair was a traitor who had sold Scotland out for English Pensions, privileges and honours and he refused the Lord Chancellors request to abandon the challenge. The Chancellor had no choice but to adjourn the proceedings for the day. Possibly this is what Fletcher wanted, a delaying tactic. It is plainly clear that Fletcher fully intended to meet Stair in a duel, perhaps it crossed his mind that this was one way of reducing the votes for union by one. Fletcher was a noted Swordsman and pistol shot, Stair was neither and there could only be one possible outcome.

At or around 8pm, John Dalrymple, Earl of Stair died of Apoplexy at his dinner table Had he lived longer he would have received generous pensions totalling some £8,000 p.a. A seat in the House of Lords as a Senior English peer and a well paid sinecure as a high Court Judge on the Queens bench in London. These were given to others for their part in forcing the union through. When Fletcher heard the news he was heard to remark, ‘Stair is arraigned before, and answering to a greater judge than himself and the blood of the innocents will be visited upon him in full measure as he deservedly burns forever in the fires of hell!’

16th January 1707: The Scottish Parliament agrees the Treaty of Union by 110 votes to 67.

14th February 1707. The General Officer commanding troops in Ulster receives sealed orders regarding embarkation in transports to be provided if the military Occupation of Scotland becomes necessary. Likewise the commanding officers of the garrisons in Carlisle, Wark, Hexham, Newcastle, Tynemouth, Alnwick and Berwick on Tweed were put on a weeks notice to move. Likewise the Vice Admirals commanding the Forth and Clyde blockading squadrons also received confirmatory orders regarding the military occupation of Scotland. These orders make grim reading the squadrons were ordered to bombard defenceless coastal communities, towns and cities in support of the English Army with a view to spreading widespread destruction, fear and panic. (As they had done at the battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547.) After which, the two fleets were to give protection to English transport ships bringing up forces of occupation .

19 March 1707: The English Parliament ratifies the Treaty of Union.

25 March 1707: The Scottish Parliament adjourns, and is dissolved in the cellar of a mean little saddlers shop at 177 High Street, opposite the Tron Kirk, three days later.

1 May 1707: The Treaty of Union comes into effect, in all of England, it was a holiday. In London, the Queen, "accompanied by four hundred coaches," proceeded to St. Paul's to give thanks for the greatest bloodless "victory" of her reign. In Scotland, they wept.

Fletcher was a fierce advocate of the continued Independence of The Scots Parliament. He had some faithful allies, most notably his dearest and closest friend, John Hamilton, Lord Belhaven who memorably accused the Nobility of Scotland of betrayal.

I see the labourious ploughman, with his corn piling on his hands for want of sale, cursing the day of his birth, dreading the expense of his burial, and uncertain whether to marry or do worse. I see the landed men, fettered under the golden chain of equivalents, their pretty daughters petitioning for want of husbands and their sons for want of employment. I see a free and independent kingdom delivering up that which all the world hath been fighting for, since the days of Nimrod, to wit, a power to manage their own affairs by themselves without the assistance and counsel of any other.

But above all, I see our ancient mother Caledonia, like Caesar sitting in the midst of our Senate, ruefully looking about her, covering herself with her royal garment, attending the fatal blow, and breathing out her last with a ‘Et tu quoque mi fili.’ [ ‘And you my Son?] Our all is at stake, Hannibal my Lords, is at our gates! Hannibal is come within our gates! Hannibal is come to the length of this table! He is at the foot of the throne! He will demolish this throne! If we take not notice, he’ll seize upon these regalia, he’ll take them as spoils optima [Choicest spoils] and whip us out of this house, never to return again.

By this time Lord Belhaven was on his knees, tears pouring copiously down his cheeks. The Parliament was profoundly moved. Then the pathos of the moment was shattered as the Earl of Marchmont stood up to reply: ‘We have heard a very long speech, but, it requires only a very short answer. Behold he dreamed, but lo! when he awoke, he found it was a dream.’ This in Theatrical terms, brought the house down! the Court party was convulsed with raucous laughter and was then adjourned.

Postscript. The mysterious death of Lord Belhaven. In March 1708, the Pretender landed in Peterhead and the authorities acted in great haste to arrest and imprison as many Jacobites as possible. Andrew Fletcher was arrested on trumped up charges because of his leadership qualities and personal popularity. He was held in Stirling Castle, unlike his close friend Lord Belhaven who, with many other Jacobite supporters was immured in the Tower of London. Shortly afterwards he died on the 21st June 1708 of a ‘Vexation!’ There have always been questions raised about his death (and also the deaths of other prominent Scottish and English Jacobite supporters around that time.) There is no recognised medical condition known as vexation and the suspicion exists that Lord Belhaven was quietly assassinated by poisoning, on the Orders of Lord Harley and the Earl of Godolphin. Why was Lord Belhaven murdered? Was it because he was a charismatic leader who could rally the Scottish people to the Jacobite cause? The whole affair was played down in the same way that the murder of SNP activist Willie MacRae was played down in 1985.


The following is an extract from a letter written in September of 1709 by Lord Harley now Earl of Oxford to William Carstares the moderator of the General Assembly of the kirk, who, had been one of Harley’s most faithful servants in formulating the Union. ‘ Foreigners say publicly, I mean our own allies, that we are a perfidious nation; and since we have violated our treaty with Scotland, and laugh at the notions of fundamental and inviolable articles, there is no great wonder if we treat other Nations as we do.’

In the year after the treaty of Union was signed(1708) England brought forward an Act for improving it. ‘Whereas nothing can more conduce to the improving the Union of the two Kingdoms which by Her Majesty’s great wisdom and goodness hath been happily effected than that the Laws of both parts of Great Britain [ which the terms of the said Union had expressly safeguarded] should agree as near as maybe, especially those Laws which relate to high treason and proceedings thereupon as to the nature of the crime, the method of prosecution and trial, and also the forfeitures and punishments for that offence... be it enacted... that ... such crimes and offences which are high treason and misprision of high treason within England shall be construed and adjudged and taken to be high treason and misprision of high treason in Scotland ‘ and suffer the same penalty,’

Both the horrible disembowelling of the actual culprit and the “corruption of the blood “ which destroyed the rights of his heirs. In his commentaries containing an account of public affairs from the union to the death of Queen Anne , Lockhart of Carnwath says : ‘In this bill the English laws and forms were crammed down upon the Scots and all their own laws and forms concerning treason repealed.’ The Scots unanimously opposed all and every part of the act asserting that their laws and justiciary court were secured by the union; that by this Bill, the one was to give way to the English laws, and the commissions of Oyer and Terminer are a manifest encroachment of the other; that their judges and lawyers were strangers to these laws and forms , from which many inconveniences might arise to innocent people, and that their own laws and forms were in many particulars preferable to the English, and should rather become part of the English law than be taken from the Scots. But, all that was said or could be said proved in vain.

[Historical Note This horrible penalty was extensively used in England within the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and countless men were condemned to suffer its most barbaric tortures as first designed by the Plantagenant Edward I though in the last case occured in England in 1870 when the law was changed to death by hanging. However, when it was abolished for England no one remembered that it was still part of Scottish law and it was not until 1948 when an English newspaper ran glaring headlines regarding Scottish barbarism that Parliament got round to repealing it.]

This quotation belongs to the Parliamentary session of 1710-11 when Scotland had already felt the rather startling Act for improving the Union and the flagrant breach of the treaty in the trials and execution of men concerned in the abortive Jacobite rising of 1708. Now a Bill was brought in to slap an export duty on all linen cloth from the United Kingdom for the next thirty two years . Mr. Baillie of Jerviswood and Mr. Smith member for Glasgow opposed it vigorously for though little or no linen cloth was manufactured in and exported from England, it was the staple and chief commodity in Scotland and of the same importance there as woollen cloth was in England: and as it was a wise and constant maxim never to impose any duties on English woollen cloth it was equally just to be expected , that the Scots linen cloth now that the two kingdoms were united, would meet with the same encouragement. They vociferously pointed out that since the union had utterly ruined the Scots woollen trade, linen had become of even greater importance.

After a long debate, Lord Harley now Chancellor of the Exchequer said he admired the debate should last so long ‘for have we not bought the Scots and a right to tax them? And prey, for what did we give the equivalent?’ Baillie of Jerviswood records ‘I took him up, and said that I was glad to hear the truth, which never doubted, now publically brought to light and owned: for the Honourable Gentleman acknowledged that Scotland was bought and sold : but I much admired to hear from one of his experience in business, and who had so great a hand in the purchase that the equivalent was the price, it be as certain as it was no secret that the equivalent was paid to Scotland on account of a sum with which Scots customs and excise were to be charged towards paying debts contracted by England before the Union, so that the English got an equivalent for this sum paid to Scotland: and therefore if Scotland was bought and sold it must be for a price not yet come to light and I would be extremely glad to know what this price amounted to and who received it.’

Baillie of Jerviswood then spoke He had the relevant clause of the treaty read. His knowledge of the text was grimly exact. The duty, not withstanding, was imposed, though at least it was made equal for both countries: the original tax was to be so much per piece which meant that Scotland paid four times as much per yard ‘ this affair was somewhat shocking to the Scots’ but their enlightenment was not yet complete. Soon the member for Dundee brought in a bill prohibiting export of Scots linen yarn. It merely clarified an existing Scots law , precisely safeguarded by the Treaty of Union: but English members bitterly opposed it, as England subsidised the Irish trade, and the Irish trade needed to import linen yarn from Scotland. [Many English members made huge fortunes from the Linen trade and the ‘Subsidies’ on it, and would make sure their investments were protected at all costs.]

Mr. John Manley then spoke to this affect ‘That whatever were or maybe the laws of Scotland yet now she was subject to the sovereignty of England, she must be governed by English maxims and laws, and Ireland must not be ruined to humour north British members.’ Baillie of Jerviswood interrupted him, calling him to order and saying that he had dropped some expressions which never were, nor would be fact, for Scotland never was nor never would be subject to the sovereignty of England; that before the union Scotland was a free, separate, and independent state, and since the union was no more sovereignty of England than of Scotland subsisting , both these formerly distinct sovereignties being now consolidate into the sovereignty of Great Britain. I told them ‘I had often observed that gentlemen when they spoke mentioned the trade, liberty, etc., of England, which I was inclined to believe proceeded from a certain inadvertency : but now that there was too much reason to believe that some gentlemen did think the interest of England comprehended that of Great Britain or at least that the other part thereof was to be little regarded, I was obliged to interrupt such spoken in a style contrary to the articles of union and the present constitution of this Parliament of Great Britain.’

Historical footnote. The Commons were shamed into passing the Bill, but it had a bad time in the Lords, where the Earl of Sunderland described Scotland as ‘ a county of Britain,’ Ireland, for present purposes being a kingdom.


Daniel DeFoe. ‘History of the Union’ (1710) Defoe was active in Scottish political life: he attended debates in the Scottish Parliament, contributed to the work of committees and had access to the government archives. The History that emerged is by far the most detailed account of the Union, and remains an indispensable source work for modern historians.

Duncan, Douglas ed., History of the Union of Scotland and England by Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, Edinburgh: Pillans & Wilson Ltd, 1993.

Szechi, Daniel, ed., ‘Scotland’s Ruine’ Lockhart of Carthwath’s Memoirs of the Union, Aberdeen: The Association for Scottish Literary Studies, 1995.

Whatley, Christopher, Scottish Society 1707-1830: Beyond Jacobitism, towards industrialisation, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.

Whatley, Christopher, ‘Economic Causes and Consequences of the Union of 1707: A Survey,’ Scottish Historical Review, vol 68 (1989), p 150-181.

Young, John R., ‘The Parliamentary Incorporating Union of 1707: Political Management, Anti-Unionism and Foreign Policy’

T M Devine and JR Young, eds, Eighteenth Century Scotland: New Perspectives, Edinburgh: Tuckwell Press, 1999. T.

M. Devine ‘The Scottish nation: a history 1700 - 2000.’ Penguin 2000.

Jan Andrew Henderson. ‘The Town below the ground,’ Mainstream Publishing 1999.

History of the Union of Scotland and England: Sir John Clerk of Penicuik. Extracts from his MS De Imperio Britannico, trans. and ed. D Duncan, 1993.

Letters of George Lockhart of Carnwath, 1698-1732, ed. D Szechi, 1989.

George Lockhart of Carnwath’s view in ‘Scotland’s Ruine’: Lockhart of Carnwath’s Memoirs of the Union, ed. D. Szechi (Aberdeen, 1995).

Letters of the earl of Seafield and others, illustrative of the History of Scotland during the Reign of Queen Anne, ed. Professor Hume Brown, 1915.

Sir David Hume of Crossrig 'A Diary of Proceedings in the Parliament and Privy Council of Scotland, 1700-1707 (Bannatyne Club, 1828

John Robertson. ‘The Scottish enlightenment and the Militia issue.’ (John Donald Publishers Ltd. Edinburgh) ISBN 0 85976 109 6 Text here