Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 4.djvu/234

220 of New Castile. After incredible sufferings they reached Requena, the last town of New Castile, where, considering themselves secure from the nature of the country, they went into winter quarters at the end of September, and Charles and his attendants proceeded to Valencia, where he wrote to the duke of Marlborough, recounting his misfortunes, the result of his own incapacity, and vehemently entreating for fresh forces and supplies from England and Holland. Could a large army have been sent under the earl of Peterborough, with authority for his undisputed command, there is no doubt but that he would very speedily have cleared Spain of the French; but against this was supposed to operate the influence of Marlborough himself, who did not wish to see another English general raised to a rivalry of glory with him. And, indeed, had the English succeeded in setting up such a poor, soulless sort of monarch, nothing could have kept him there against the power of France but the whole power of England. For such miserable purposes was England then wasting her energies.

The victory of Prince Eugene rendering the presence of the earl of Peterborough unnecessary in Piedmont, he made a second voyage to Genoa, to induce that republic to lend king Charles and his allies money for his establishment. The English fleet in the Mediterranean continued sailing from place to place with six or eight thousand men on board, seeking some occasion to annoy the coast of France, whilst these men might have been of the utmost service in Spain if commanded by Peterborough. As it was, half of them are said to have perished in this objectless cruise, and another squadron under the earl of Rivers, sent to join lord Galway at the siege of Alicante, suffered as much. In short, no campaign ever appears to have combined more kinds of mismanagement than this of Spain, including the movements of the fleet to support it.

But whilst these various fortunes of war were taking place on the continent, a victory greater than that of Ramillies or of Turin was achieved at home. This was the accomplishment of the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England, and with it the extinction of all those heart-burnings and embarrassments which were continually arising out of the jealousies of Scotland of the overbearing power of England. In the last session nothing appeared farther off; nay, a bill—the bill of security—had passed, which threatened to erect again two thrones in this island, with all the rivalries and bloodshed of former years. The commissioners, however, appointed by England and Scotland to decide the terms of this agreement, met on the 16th of April in the council-chamber of the cockpit near Whitehall, and continued their labours till the 22nd of July, when they had agreed upon the conditions, and on that day mutually signed them. As this is one of the most important measures which ever was transacted in this kingdom, we shall present the names of the commissioners for both Scotland and England. Those for England were:—The archbishop of Canterbury; William Cowper, lord keeper; the archbishop of York; lord Godolphin, high treasurer; the earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, lord president of the council; the duke of Newcastle, lord privy seal; the duke of Devonshire, steward of the household; the duke of Somerset, master of the horse; the duke of Bolton; the earls of Sunderland, Kingstone, Carlisle, and Oxford; viscount Townshend; lords Wharton, Grey, Powlet, Somers, and Halifax; the marquises of Hartington and Granby; John Smith, speaker of the house of commons; Sir Charles Hedges and Robert Harley, secretaries of state; Henry Boyle, chancellor and under-treasurer of the exchequer; Sir John Holt, chief justice of the Queen's Bench; Sir Thomas Trevor, chief justice of the court of Common Pleas; Sir Edward Northey, attorney-general; Sir Symon Harcourt, solicitor-general; Sir John Cook, advocate-general; and Stephen Waller, doctor of laws. To the English commissioners Daniel Defoe, the celebrated writer, was secretary.

The commissioners for Scotland were:—The earl of Seafield, lord chancellor; the duke of Queensberry, lord privy seal; the earl of Mar and of Loudon, secretaries of state; the earls of Sutherland, Morton, Wemys, Leven, Stair, Roseberry, and earl of Glasgow, deputy treasurer; lord Archibald Campbell, brother of the duke of Argyll; viscount Duplin; lord Ross; Sir Hugh Dalrymple; Adam Cockburn of Ormestoun; Sir Robert Dundas of Arnistoun; Robert Stuart of Tullicultrie; Francis Montgomerie; Sir David Dalrymple; Sir Alexander Ogilvie of Forglen; Sir Patrick Johnstone, lord provost of Edinburgh; Sir James Smollett of Bonhill; George Lockhart of Carnwath; William Morrison of Preston-Grange; Alexander Grant, younger of that ilk; William Seton, younger, of Pitmedden; John Clark, younger, of Pennicook; Hugh Montgomerie, late provost of Glasgow; Daniel Stuart, brother to the laird of Castlemilk; and Daniel Campbell of Ardintennie.

In discussing the proposed plans of this union, the Scots were found to incline to a federal union, like that of Holland; but the English were resolved, that if made at all, the union of the two kingdoms should be complete, a perfect incorporation of Scotland, so that there should be for ever an end of the troubles and annoyances of the Scottish parliament. The last reign, and the present, too, had shown too clearly the inconveniences of that parliament, the means it gave to disaffected men, and especially such as were disappointed of their ambitious aims by the government, of fanning up violent feuds and entirely stopping the business of the country; nay, of threatening, as of late, to establish again their own independent state, and their own king. Therefore, the English commissioners would listen to nothing but a thorough amalgamation. The lord keeper proposed that the two kingdoms should for ever be united into one realm, by the name of Great Britain. That it should be represented by one and the same parliament, and that the succession to the crown should be such as was already determined by the act of parliament passed in the late reign, called an act for the further limitation of the crown, and the better securing the rights and liberties of the subject. The Scots, whilst seeming to comply with this proposal, endeavoured to introduce various clauses about the rights and privileges of the people of Scotland in England and of the English in Scotland, and that the crown should be established in the same persons as those mentioned in the act referred to; but the lord keeper declined entering into any consideration of any proposals, but simply for a full and