the powers of Europe were on as friendly terms with the king as the duke of Lorraine. Lord Peterborough sarcastically remarked that as the pretender had begun his studies at Paris, he might very fitly go and finish them at Rome. No one, however, dared to oppose the motion, which was accordingly carried unanimously. On the 1st of July, only two days afterwards, general Stanhope made a similar motion in the house of commons, which was equally afraid to oppose it, seeing that the house was still under the triennial act, and this was its last session. The slightest expression in favour of the pretender would have to be answered on the hustings, and there was a long silence. Sir William Whitelock, however, was bold enough to throw out a significant remark, that he remembered the like address being formerly made to the protector to have king Charles Stuart removed out of France, "leaving to every member's mind to suggest how soon after he returned to the throne of England notwithstanding." The addresses carried up from both houses were received by the queen with an air of acquiescence, and promises to do her best to have the pretender removed. Prior, in Paris, was directed to make the wishes of the public known to the French government, but this was merely pro formâ; it was well understood that there was no real earnestness on the part of the English queen or ministry. Prior, writing to Bolingbroke, said that De Torcy asked him questions, which for the best reason in the world he did not answer; as, for instance, "how can we oblige a man to go from one place when we forbid all others to receive him? "In fact, the abbé Gualtier, in his private correspondence, assures us that Bolingbroke himself suggested to the duke of Lorraine the pretexts for eluding the very commands that he publicly sent him.
Another subject agitated parliament before its close nearly as much as the debate on the commercial treaty. The commons granted an aid of two shillings in the pound, and proposed to renew the malt duty for another year, and to extend it to Scotland. The Scotch members objected to this, that it was contrary to an article of the union; and, during the adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays, the Scots of both houses, and of all parties, met to determine on their mode of action on the subject. They deputed the earl of Argyll, the earl of Mar, Mr. Lockhart, and Mr. Cockburn, to lay their grievances before the queen. They represented to her majesty that their countrymen, already incensed by the violations of various articles of the union, would probably, should this bill be passed, determine on dissolving the union. The queen was alarmed at this menace, replied that they might have cause to repent so precipitate a resolve, but promised that she would endeavour to make all easy. On the 1st of June, however, the earl of Findlater, in the house of lords, declared that the Scotch found the union broken at the pleasure of the English; that even in the observance of it they were deprived of a privy council, were rendered incapable of being created British peers, and that as they were now to be oppressed with the malt tax—a war tax, when they were calculating on the blessings of peace—he therefore moved to bring in a bill to abolish the union. A violent debate ensued. Lord North declared the complaints of the Scots utterly groundless, the repeal of the union impossible, and made some contemptuous allusions to the poverty of that nation. Lord Eglinton retorted that it was because they were poor they could not bear the imposition of the malt tax. The earl of Peterborough contended that the union was like a marriage. That England was like the husband, Scotland the wife, but that because the husband was in some measure unkind, the lady ought not to seek a divorce, inasmuch as by the marriage she had greatly improved her fortune. He said the Scots wanted to have all the advantages of the union, and to pay nothing, though they had received more money than would have purchased all their estates. This called up the duke of Argyll in great anger; but amidst his wrath, he made the very pertinent observation that taxing malt in Scotland, where it fetched only one fourth of the price it did in England, was like taxing land in Scotland which would not fetch many shillings an acre at the same rate as land near London would fetch as many pounds. Faction, however, and not reason, was exerted on the occasion; and the monstrous sight was seen of the whigs now voting with Scots eagerly for the destruction of their own handiwork, the union, perhaps the noblest work they accomplished; and the tories were beheld as zealous, but not as disgracefully defending the very measure they had formerly done their utmost to prevent. The result was that the motion for the dissolution of the union was negatived, but not till the proxies were called in, when, there being thirteen in the affirmative and seventeen in the negative, the union was only preserved by a majority of four. The discussion, however, was not lost on the government. Bolingbroke, in a letter to the duke of Shrewsbury, confessed that it had caused the government to reflect that at once more firmness and more indulgence to Scotland were necessary. "We shall, I believe, grant on this motion a bill to make it high treason to attempt, by any overt act, the dissolution of the union. If after this we go on to show them all reasonable indulgence, and at the same time to show to them and to all mankind a firmness of resolution and a steadiness of conduct, good will have come out of evi], and we shall reap some benefit from this contretemps."
Anne prorogued parliament on the 16th of July in a speech, in which she congratulated herself on having conducted a long and bloody war, which she had inherited, and not occasioned. She trusted also that before the meeting of the next parliament the commercial interests of France and England would be better understood, so that there would be no longer any obstacle to a good commercial treaty. She said not a word regarding the pretender, so that it was felt by the whigs that she had followed the dictates of nature rather than of party in regard to him. On the 8th of August she dissolved parliament by proclamation, its triennial term having expired. Burnet says it had acquired the name of the pacific parliament; and here winds up his own history with the remark that "no assembly but one composed as this was, could have sate quiet under such a peace." There was every effort made, however, to impress on the constituencies the high merit of the parliament in making an advantageous and glorious peace, medals being cast for that purpose bearing the effigy of the queen and a Latin motto laudatory of peace. The chief negotiator
