party, who, like Fletcher of Saltoun, resisted the treaty, not on the grounds of the succession to the crown, but as destructive of the national independence of the kingdom. They were headed by the Duke of Hamilton, the premier peer of Scotland, an excellent speaker, and admirably qualified to act as the head of a party in ordinary times, but possessed of such large estates as rendered him unwilling to take any decisive steps by which his property might be endangered. To this it seems to have been owing that the more decided and effectual measures, by which alone the union treaty might have been defeated, though they often seemed to gain his approbation for a time, never had his hearty or effectual support in the end.

There was a third party, greatly smaller than either of the others, but which secured to themselves a degree of consequence by keeping together, and affecting to act independently of the rest, from which they were termed the squadróne volánte. They were headed by the Marquis of Tweeddale, and consisted of the members of an administration of which the marquis had been the head, but which were turned out of office to make way for the Duke of Queensberry and the present ruling party. These discontented politicians were neither favorers of the court, which had dismissed them, nor of the opposition party.

The unpopularity of the proposed measure throughout Scotland in general was soon made evident by the temper of the people of Edinburgh. The citizens of the better class exclaimed against the favorers of the union as willing to surrender the sovereignty of Scotland to her ancient rival, whilst the populace stated the same idea in a manner more obvious to their gross capacities, and cried out that the Scottish crown, sceptre and sword were about to be transferred to England, as they had been in the time of the usurper, Edward Longshanks.

On the 23d of October the popular fury was at its height. The people crowded together in High Street and Parliament Square, and greeted their representatives as friends or enemies to their country, according as they opposed or favored the union. The commissioner was bitterly reviled and hooted at,

while, in the evening of the day, several hundred persons escorted the Duke of Hamilton to his lodgings, encouraging him by loud huzzas to stand by the cause of national independence. The rabble next assailed the house of the lord provost, destroyed the windows and broke open the doors, and threatened him with instant death as a favorer of the obnoxious treaty.

Other acts of riot were committed, which were not ultimately for the advantage of the anti-unionists, since they were assigned as reasons for introducing strong bodies of troops into the city. These mounted guard in the principal streets, and the commisioner dared only pass to his coach through a lane of soldiers under arms, and was then driven to his lodgings in the Canongate amidst repeated volleys of stones and roars of execration. The Duke of Hamilton continued to have his escort of shouting apprentices, who attended him home every evening.

But the posting of the guards overawed opposition both within and without the Parliament, and, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the opposition party, that it was an encroachment both on the privileges of the city of Edinburgh and of the Parliament itself, the hall of meeting continued to be surrounded by a military force.

The temper of the kingdom of Scotland at large was equally unfavorable to the treaty of union with that of the capital. Addresses against the measure were poured into the house of Parliament from the several shires, counties, burghs, towns and parishes. Men, otherwise the most opposed to each other, Whig and Tory, Jacobite and Williamite, Presbyterian, Episcopalian and Cameronian, all agreed in expressing their detestation of the treaty, and imploring the estates of Parliament to support and preserve entire the sovereignty and independence of the crown and kingdom, with the rights and privileges of parliament, valiantly maintained through so many ages, so that the succeeding generations might receive them unimpaired; in which good cause the petitioners offered to concur with life and fortune. While addresses of this description loaded the table of the Parliament, the promoters of the union could only procure from a few persons in the town of Ayr a

single address in favor of the measure, which was more than overbalanced by one of an opposite tendency, signed by a very large majority of the inhabitants of the same burgh.

The unionists, secure in their triumphant majorities, treated these addresses with scorn. The Duke of Argyle said, they were only fit to be made kites of, while the Earl of Marchmont proposed to reject them as seditious, and, as he alleged, got up collusively, and expressing the sense of a party rather than of the nation. To this it was boldly answered by Sir James Foulis, of Colington, that, if the authenticity of the addresses were challenged, he had no doubt that the parties subscribing would attend the right honorable house in person, and enforce their petitions by their presence. This was an alarming suggestion, and ended the debate.

Amongst these addresses against the union, there was one from the Commission of the General Assembly, which was supposed to speak the sentiments of most of the clergymen of the Church of Scotland, who saw great danger to the Presbyterian Church from the measure under deliberation. But much of the heat of the clergy's opposition was taken off by the Parliament's passing an act for the security of the Church of Scotland as by law established at the Revolution, and making this declaration an integral part of the treaty of union. This cautionary measure seems to have been deemed sufficient; and although some presbyteries sent addresses against the union, and many ministers continued to preach violently on the subject, yet the great body of the clergy ceased to vex themselves and others with the alarming tendency of the measure, so far as religion and church discipline were concerned.

Almost the only remarkable change in the articles of the union, besides that relating to church government, was made to quiet the minds of the common people, disturbed, as I have already mentioned, by rumors that the Scottish regalia were to be sent into England. A special article was inserted into the treaty, declaring that they should on no occasion be removed from Scotland. At the same time, lest the sight of these symbols of national sovereignty should irritate the jealous feelings of the Scottish people, they were removed from

the public view, and secured in a strong chamber, called the crown-room, in the castle of Edinburgh, where they remained so long in obscurity, that their very existence was generally doubted. But King George IV. having directed that a commission should be issued to search after these venerable relics, they were found in safety in the place where they had been deposited, and are now made visible to the public under proper precautions.

It had been expected that the treaty of union would have met with delays or alterations in the English Parliament. But it was approved of there, after very little debate, by a large majority; and the exemplification or copy was sent down to be registered by the Scottish Parliament. This was done on the 25th of March; and on the 22d of April, the Parliament of Scotland adjourned forever. Seafield, the chancellor, on an occasion which every Scotsman ought to have considered as a melancholy one, behaved himself with a brutal levity, which in more patriotic times would have cost him his life on the spot, and said that "there was an end of an auld sang."

On the 1st of May, 1707, the union took place, amid the dejection and despair which attend on the downfall of an ancient state, and under a sullen expression of discontent, that was far from promising the course of prosperity which the treaty finally produced.-SIR W. SCOTT.

SIR ROBERT WALPOLE was the first
actual Prime Minister of England, in
the modern sense of that term, and
during the twenty years of his admin-
istration the country enjoyed peace and
prosperity. He gave to the English
government that character of lenity
which it has since generally preserved.
In his old age he became Earl of Or-
ford, but is known in history by his
former name.

He was born at Houghton, in Nor-
folk, on the 26th of August, 1676, and

was a younger son of Robert Walpole, then a member of Parliament. He was educated at Eton and King's College, Cambridge, quitting the latter in May, 1698. He was intended for the church; but at the age of twenty-two, by the death of his elder brother, he became heir to a large estate. He thus obtained, it has been said, a double advantage-the inheritance of an elder and the application of a younger son. He was elected to Parliament in 1701, and attached himself to the Whig Party. In 1702 he was returned for King's Lynn, which he represented until he passed into the House of Peers. He proved himself an able debater, and a skillful parliamentary tactician. In 1708 he was appointed Secretary of War, and was thus brought into direct contact with Marlborough.

The Whig ministry was driven from power in September, 1710, and fifteen months later the Tory majority accused Walpole of corruption, expelled him from the House, and im