hills, there be no seas or great rivers, there is no diversity of tongue or language that hath invited or provoked this ancient separation and divorce*.* The value of a complete political union to countries naturally united by climate, language, contiguity of situation, and consequent identity of interest with respect to foreign enemies, is admirably illustrated by Bacon in his several Memorials on this subject; and his practical arguments upon the increase of power produced by union in such circumstances amply justify his expression to the king, that England, Scotland, and Ireland, well united, were such a trefoil as no other prince weareth in his crown.' In conformity with this opinion, a proposal for an union with Scotland was laid by James I., before his first and second parliaments, and commissioners were appointed to arrange its details; but though urged forward with the utmost zeal and even impatience by the king, and earnestly and actively promoted by the powerful intellect of that great man whose writings had suggested and matured the scheme, and who says, that the labour of the commission rested most upon his hand,' the project of an incorporating union entirely failed, and nothing resulted from the attempt beyond the abolition of the hostile laws previously subsisting between the two kingdoms.

The practicability of the union had also been frequently debated since the reign of James I. It was much discussed in the Scotch Parliament or Convention assembled at Edinburgh, upon the arrival of the Prince of Orange; and at that time commissioners were appointed in Scotland to arrange the terms of a treaty. Various obstacles impeded the progress of the measure during the whole reign of William; but the last public act of his life was to send a message to his parliament, recommending to them, in the most earnest manner, to proceed with the treaty. The reader will remember that at this time Lord Somers was in the most intimate confidence of the king. William died eight days after this message was delivered; and his successor, in her first speech to the same parliament, strongly urges the subject upon their attention. An act

'Brief Discourse of the Happy Union of the Kingdoms,' &c.

Letter to the King on Presenting his Discourse touching the Plantation of Ireland.

Chandler's Commons' Debates, vol. iii. p. 189.

was accordingly passed without delay, appointing commissioners to conduct the treaty on the part of England.

The state of parties in both countries, however, prevented the further progress of the measure at that period; but in March, 1705, an act of parliament was passed, entitled 'An act for the effectual securing of the kingdom of England from the apparent dangers that may arise from several acts lately passed in the parliament of Scotland*. By one of the provisions of this act, the queen was enabled to appoint commissioners for England to treat with commissioners for Scotland, for an union between the two kingdoms. The proceedings of these commissioners were directed by the statute to be reduced into writing and submitted to the queen and the parliament of each kingdom, to whom the entire consideration of them, and the allowing or disallowing the whole or any part thereof, were expressly reserved. In her speech at the opening of the ensuing parliament in October, 1705, the queen again referred to the subject, stating, that commissioners had lately been appointed by the Scottish Parliament, and that she intended in a short time to cause commissions on the part of England to be made out. Accordingly, commissioners were soon afterwards appointed by the queen, and the name of Lord Somers appeared in the commission amongst those of the wisest statesmen of the time, though he was not then a member of the administration. The delegates for both countries assembled at Whitehall on the 15th of April, 1706, and commenced their deliberations with the solemnity which the magnitude of the occasion deserved. The Scottish commissioners, and, indeed, a considerable party in Scotland, were strongly impressed in favour of a federal union similar to that which then existed in the United Provinces and in the cantons of Switzerland. The English commissioners, on the other hand, insisted upon a substantial incorporation, by which the national interests should be consolidated and identified into one kingdom, and all distinctions between the two countries, with respect to representation and government, should be entirely and for ever abolished. This was the main point of discussion between the two parties; but in the end, the Scotch commissioners agreed to

* 3 and 4 Anne, cap. vii.

the proposal of an incorporating union. On the 23d of July, 1706,the articles being fully arranged and completed, with entire unanimity on both sides, were formally presented to the queen, who expressed her acquiescence and satisfaction, declaring, that she should always look upon it as a particular happiness, if a project, which promised so great a security and advantage to both kingdoms, could be accomplished in her reign *.*

The stipulations of this treaty are well known; and as the part taken by Lord Somers in the discussion of them by the commissioners is not recorded, it would be quite unnecessary to repeat them in this memoir.

Generally speaking, the articles seem to be highly favourable to Scotland in all substantial respects, though in some points they were thought to derogate from the national dignity and independence. In the sharing of the public burdens assigned to Scotland, that country had a decided advantage; less than the fortieth part of the public taxes were to be levied in Scotland; and yet, contrary to the maxim generally received, that in framing a government representation should be in proportion to taxation, the Scotch were offered nearly one-eleventh part of the legislature. On the other hand, the Scotch peerage, as an independent body, were deprived of their privileges as lords of parliament, the whole community being in future to be represented in the English parliament by sixteen elective peers and forty-five members in the house of commons. The debates in the parliament of Scotland upon the ratification of this treaty, displayed exertions of eloquence and argument rarely excelled in any deliberative assembly. The speeches of the celebrated Fletcher of Saltoun, and Lord Belhaven, against the union, and that of Seaton of Pittmedden in favour of it, are the most remarkable. At length, however, by the great personal address of the Duke of Queensberry, the opposition of some of the most influential objectors to the measure was removed, and the treaty, as originally framed, and without any material al terations, received the solemn sanction of the Scottish parliament.

The English parliament met on the 3d of December, 1706; and on the 28th

* Chandler, vol. iii. p. 479.

of January following, the queen announced in the house of lords the ratification of the treaty of union by the parliament of Scotland. Very shortly afterwards, a bill was introduced into the house of commons, ratifying the same on the part of England, which passed through the commons with great facility and very little discussion; so much so, that Burnet says it was thought they interposed not delay and consideration enough, suitable to the importance of so great a transaction." The debates in the house of lords, in which Lord Somers acted the most conspicuous part, in the defence of the union, were longer and more solemn ; but all the articles were carried by large majorities, and on the 6th of March, 1706, the bill received the royal assent.

Thus was this great work, of the accomplishment of which most of the wisest politicians of that day despaired, and which none expected to see effected without a lingering negotiation of many years, commenced and completed within the compass of a single year. In her speech to the lords and commons before the passing of the bill, the queen expresses herself in the following terms: I consider this union as a matter of the greatest importance to the wealth, strength, and safety of the whole island; and, at the same time, as a work of so much difficulty and nicety in its own nature, that till now all attempts which have been made towards it in the course of above a hundred years have proved ineffectual; and therefore I make no doubt but it will be remembered and spoken of hereafter to the honour of those who have been instrumental in bringing it to such a happy conclusion.'

In truth, the incorporation of two sovereign kingdoms, not by force or hostile aggression on the part of either, but by the express consent of both, founded upon the conviction of mutual advantage, was without a precedent in the history of the world; but the success of the experiment, now practically confirmed by the experience of more than a century, depended almost entirely upon the skilful arrangement of the details. The merit of projecting the scheme has been generally ascribed to Lord Somers; but it was in the laborious discussion of particular articles, upon which the political and

* Burnet's Own Times, vol. ii. p. 458.

commercial interests of the two nations appeared to conflict,-the patient and skilful management of objections passionately suggested by national pride and prejudice, that his high authority, his calm temper, and lucid reasoning, were most conspicuously useful. If the magnitude of the interests at stake, the weight and number of the difficulties interposed by faction in both countries, and the eminent and acknowledged success of the measure are duly considered, it will be readily admitted that there are few statesmen in the history of this country whose claims to the respect and gratitude of posterity are better founded than those of Lord Somers, for his services in the accomplishment of the union with Scotland.

In the ensuing session of parliament, a bill passed the house of commons for abolishing the privy council of Scotland. It was proposed, in the house of lords, to give it a continuance for several months after the passing of the bill. This proposition was powerfully and successfully opposed by Lord Somers. The heads of his speech on this occasion are still in existence *, being preserved amongst the few fragments which were saved from the fire in Lincoln's Inn, already alluded to. His arguments in this speech against a separate council for Scotland are extremely forcible and curious, and are particularly interesting in the present day, when the question of the policy of a distinct government for Ireland is strangely brought under discussion. He declares that he is heartily desirous of making the union entire and complete, but that it cannot be perfect while two political administrations subsist. The true argument for the union was the great danger to both kingdoms from a divided state. The advantage of Scotland is to have the same easy access to the prince as England, to be under the immediate personal care of the prince, and not to owe their protection and countenance to any subordinate institution.' This, he says, was my argument for the union; and now if a distinct administration continue, the marks of distinction will continue; and Scotland, having now no parliament to resort to, will be in a worse state than before. I wish North Britain as happy as England; I meant it should be so in the union; and I will always do what

Hardwicke State Papers, vol. ii. p. 473,

lies in my little power that it shall be really so. I should think the true way to make the union well relished in Scotland is to let that country see plainly that England means no otherwise than fairly by them, and desires they should be in the very same circumstances they are themselves. In the union of Poland and Lithuania, by keeping up their distinct great offices of state and their distinct diets, though there be one general diet for their united country, their former manners of division are continued, and have occasioned perpetual dissensions and distractions in that imperfectly and unskilfully united country, so that they are much more unhappy than if they had still remained divided. Upon the suggestion that it was only proposed to continue the Scotch privy council a short time, he asks, If it be a good thing, why is it not to be continued? If it be the desire of Scotland, why show it them only to be taken away? If they are afraid of the council, why should they be terrified with it, when it is not meant to continue? whole tenor of the reasoning in this admirable speech is equally clear and convincing; and the inconvenience and oppression occasioned in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and earlier periods of our history, by the existence of distinct councils for various districts in England, with powers delegated by the crown, but beyond the personal control of the sovereign, are illustrated in the most ingenious and masterly manner.

The

In the early part of the year 1708, a change took place in the character of the ministry, by the resignation of Harley and the appointment of Mr. Boyle in his place, as secretary of state. Lord Somers had often announced his resolution never to accept any office of state while Harley continued in administration; but upon the removal of that obstacle, it became an object of the first importance to the whigs to press him into the royal service. Nor was this object opposed by the leaders in the cabinet; for the mildness and candour of his character, and his steady attachment to the principles of the revolution, had won the respect even of his rivals, and he was personally esteemed by both Lord Marlborough and Lord Godolphin. But the proposition of placing him in the administration was strenuously resisted by the queen. In a letter to Lord Marlborough* she de

• Coxe's Life of Marlborough, vol. ii. p. 423.

office, it appears from the journals that he attended constantly upon his duty in the house of lords, being rarely absent from his place, and much employed in committees and other active parliamentary business. He was present during the debates respecting the Earl of Peterborough's conduct in Spain, in January, 1711, in the course of which reflections being cast upon the Lords Galway and Tyrawley, and a vote of censure being attempted against them, those noblemen presented a petition praying for time to answer the charges before the lords came to any determination. This was resisted by the ministers as an improper interference with the debates of the lords; but Lord Somers declared, with some indignation, that the petitions were neither improper nor given in at an improper time; that it would be too late for the petitioners to apply to the lords after they were come to a resolution; that he hoped it would never be found in the book of that house, that when the lords were going to proceed to a censure, they refused to hear those that were to be affected by it; that the Lords Galway and Tyrawley had a right to be heard and clear the matters of fact as subjects of Great Britain; and that it was but natural justice that men in danger of being censured should have time to justify themselves*. The petitions were, however, rejected by the house; and a vote of censure was afterwards passed upon Lords Galway and Tyrawley; but a strong protest was entered upon the journals against both these resolutions, signed by thirty-six peers, amongst whom were Lord Somers, the Duke of Marlborough, and Lord Cowper, the late chancellor. Lord Somers also signed protests against the resolution of the lords approving of the Earl of Peterborough's conduct in Spain, and against several resolutions passed in the course of the same session censuring the measures of the late ministry respecting the prosecution of the wart.

At the commencement of the next session of parliament, in December, 1711, there were some rumours of a change of ministry. Swift says that Bolingbroke and he were both of opinion that the queen was false,' and mentions a report that the whole matter

Chandler's Lords' Debates, vol. ii. p. 309. + See Lords' Journals, Jan. and Feb. 1710-11. + Swift's Journal, Dec. 9, 1711.

was arranged between her and the whigs, and that Lord Somers was to be treasurer. In a few days, however, these apprehensions were removed, and Lord Oxford expressly assures Swift that all would be well, and that he should fear nothing.'

In the early part of the year 1712, Lord Somers suffered severely from illness, which disabled him from appearing in the house of lords for a considerable portion of the session of parliament. At this point, perhaps, his political life may be considered as closed; for though he afterwards attended in parliament for several sessions, and was present upon most occasions of importance or unusual interest, he never again took a prominent part in the debates. He was present at the debate on the Earl of Findlater's motion for repealing the union with Scotland, in June, 1713, and voted with the small majority by whom that proposition was negatived. In 1714 the celebrated Schism Act was passed, by which all schoolmasters and instructors of youth were required to subscribe an acknowledgment before the ordinary, that they conformed to the liturgy of the church of England, under pain of imprisonment for three months; and upon being convicted of teaching without such subscription, were made liable to penalties and imprisonment. Against this unjust and unnecessary measure which Lord Wharton declared to be more like a decree of Julian the apostate, than a law enacted by a protestant parliament,'-a protest was entered on the journals, and signed, amongst other peers, by Lord Somers. The reasons attached to this protest contain an excellent summary of the arguments against all religious persecution, and a perspicuous statement of the danger of irritating the dissenters against the church of England, and of promoting religious animosities in the critical state in which the Protestant succession was then placed. Fortunately, the death of the queen on the 1st of August, 1714, the very day on which the schism bill was to take effect, prevented its being brought into practical operation. On the accession of George I., a total change of ministry took place: the state of Lord Somers's health disabled him from accepting any official employment, but he took his seat in the cabinet council as a member of the new administration.

་

In the revolutions of the wheel of