the necessity of the times was made the excuse of partiality. …
When the convention sat down, two letters were presented, one from the present, and another from the late King of England. The convention read both; but first passed an act, that nothing contained in the last of them should dissolve their assembly, or stop their proceeding to the settlement of the nation. James's letter was written in the terms of a conqueror and a priest; threatening the convention with punishment in this world, and damnation in the next. And, as it was counter-signed by Lord Melfort, a papist, and a minister abhorred by the presbyterians, the style and the signature hurt equally the interest which the letter was intended to serve. No answer was given. William's letter, on the contrary, was answered in strains of gratitude and respect; a distinction which sufficiently showed what might be expected with regard to the future resolutions of the assembly. …
The revolution in England was brought about by a coalition of whigs and tories; but, in Scotland, by the whigs almost alone. Hence, the Scottish convention, instead of amusing themselves with school disputes about words, which, while they discovered the fine lines of party in England, had embarrassed the English convention, struck their blow without ceremony, and came to a resolution, that King James had, by his evil deeds, forfaulted his right to the crown; a term which, in the language of the law of Scotland, involved in it the exclusion of all his posterity as well as his own. But, as this resolution would have comprehended the other children of James, as well as the young Prince, they agreed upon the following explanation of the word forfaulted. "Agreed, that the word forfault, in the resolution, should imply no other alteration in the succession to the crown than the seclusion of King James, the pretended Prince of Wales, and the children that shall be procreated of either of their bodies." Only five opposed these resolutions. …
The convention next made offer of the crown to William and Mary: a vote in which the Duke of Queensberry and the Marquis of Athole concurred, although they had refused to be present at the other. They reconciled their conduct by saying, "That, since the throne was declared vacant by the nation, they knew none so worthy to fill it as the Prince and Princess of Orange"—a mixture of sentiment, intended to please both Kings, but which, like most compliments of the kind, pleased neither. From an excess of zeal which betrayed the cause of it, the Duke of Hamilton demeaned himself to act the part of a clerk; reading, at the ordinary place of proclamation, the act of convention aloud to the mean multitude, who found even their own vanity hurt in the sacrifice which was made to it by the first man in the nation. With more dignity the parliament accompanied the offer of the crown with such a declaration of rights as laid open all the invasions upon the constitution, not of the late King alone, but of his brother, and ascertained every disputed pretension between the crown and the subject; for, accustomed either to trample upon their sovereigns, or to be trampled upon by them, the Scottish nation chose to leave nothing to be adjusted afterwards by the vibration between the executive and legislative powers, which had kept the English constitution almost continually in a just medium between the imperiousness of the crown and the licentiousness of the subject. The Earl of Argyle for the peers, Sir James Montgomery for the knights, and Sir John Dalrymple for the boroughs, were sent to London with the offer of the crown. …
The administration of the coronation-oath of Scotland was a ceremony attended with much awe; the King holding up his right hand high, whilst he swore, and repeated each word with slowness after the person who read it. It contained a clause, that the King should root out heretics. At these words, William stopt the Earl of Argyle, who was administering the oath, and declared, he did not mean to oblige himself to become a persecutor. The commissioners answering, that such was not the meaning of the oath: "Then," said the King, "I take it in that sense only." Whether this scruple was the effect of affectation or of delicacy, is immaterial: it became a King, and it pleased the people.
DUNDEE'S REBELLION (1689).
Source.—Memoirs of the War carried on in Scotland and Ireland, 1689–1691, by Major-General Hugh Mackay, Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's forces. With an appendix of original papers, p. 225. (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1833.)
The Duke of Hamilton to Lord Melvill.
Holyroodhous, 8 June, 1689.
Yesternight I received your lordship's of the 4th instant, with one to General Major Mackay; I did the same night send one to the west to dispatch some to Ireland for intelligence, and write two several ways to the captains of our ships to go to the coast of Ireland to cruise there, and give the best account they could if there was any appearance of an invasion from thence, which, I am confident, there is little fears of, if it be not by the French fleet, and it's very strange if they can be able to come to our coasts and land men, if there be an English and Dutch fleet at sea as you write, but if they should be able to land any considerable force we should be in an ill condition, considering how disaffected all the north is, and if we should absolutely with all his forces recall Mackay before he dissipates or beats Dundee, all that country generally, lowlands as well as highlands, would be in arms with him; so, upon communicating your letter to the Council this morning, they thought it not fit absolutely to recall him, but leave it much to himself, and desired him to send any of the English horse that is with him to the west country, where they can be best provided with horse meat, and most of our own new levied horse we intend should go there also, and some regiments of our foot lays there and about Stirling, the rest being in St. Johnston,[1] Dundie, and about this place, beside what is with Mackay, from whom we have not heard since what I sent you.
P. 248. The Same to the Same.
Holyroodhous, 28 July, 1689.
My Lord—On Friday last Major General Mackay marched from St. Johnston with about 4000 foot, 4 troops of horse and dragoons, and was at Dunkell that night, where he received intelligence that Dundie was come to Blair in Atholl; he marched on Saturday towards him, and within two miles of Blair about 5 at night they engaged, and by several inferior officers and soldiers that is come here this evening, gives us the account, that after a sharp engagement Dundie being much stronger, the Major General was quite defeat, and I have yet heard of no officers of quality that is come of but Lieutenant Colonel Lauther, who my Lord Ruthven spoke with as he came from St. Johnston this day, and gives the same account of their being wholly routed, but the confusion is such here that the particulars is hardly to be got. We have given orders at Council this afternoon to draw all the standing forces to Stirling, and has sent to the west country to raise all the fencible men, and Sir John Lanier has write to the English forces in Northumberland to march in here, and is going to Stirling to command, for Mackay is either killed or taken by all the account we have yet got, but you shall quickly have another flying packet or an express.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Perth.
THE BATTLE OF KILLIECRANKIE (1689).
Source.—Memoirs of the War carried on in Scotland and Ireland, 1689–1691, by Major-General Hugh Mackay, Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's forces. With an appendix of original papers, p. 50. (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1833.)
Being
