The Jacobite Rebellions | Page 3

all by the beauty of his person, and the power of his eloquence. To the wisdom and experience of the father, to the parts and show of the son, rather than to the power of the Duke of Hamilton, William, certain that the two former could never hope to be pardoned by James, resolved to leave the management of Scotland in the end; but, in the meantime, to make advantage of the Duke's offers of service for the settlement of that country.
Of all those nobles whom James, when Duke of York, had honoured with his friendship, and when King, graced with his favours, a few only continued openly in his interest. Of these the chief were the Duke of Gordon, a Roman Catholic, to whom James had entrusted the castle of Edinburgh, a man weak, and wavering in courage, but bound by shame and religion; Lord Balcarres attached by affection, gratitude, and that delicacy of sentiment which the love of letters commonly inspires; and Lord Dundee, who had for ever before his eyes ideas of glory, the duty of a soldier, and the example of the great Montrose, from whose family he was descended. James had entrusted the care of his civil concerns in Scotland to Balcarres, and of his military ones to Dundee. William asked both to enter into his service. Dundee refused without ceremony. Balcarres confessed the trust which had been put in him, and asked the King, if, after that, he could enter into the service of another? William generously answered, "I cannot say that you can." But added, "Take care that you fall not within the law; for otherwise I shall be forced against my will to let the law overtake you." The other nobles of the late King's party waited for events, in hopes and in fears from the old government and the new, intriguing with both, and depended upon by neither.

THE CONVENTION OF ESTATES (1689).
+Source.+--Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, from the Dissolution of the Last Parliament of Charles II. until the Sea-Battle off La Hogue, vol. i., p. 218, by Sir John Dalrymple, Bart. (London and Edinburgh: 1771.)
The convention met on the 14th of March. As the governing part of the boroughs had been modelled by King James, the members sent up from thence should have been favourable to his interests. But Lord Stair, whose views were extensive, had taken care, in the paper which contained the offer of administration to the Prince, to recommend that the borough-elections should be made by a general poll of the burgesses; an artifice which, while it took the blame of innovation off the Prince, prepared the way for securing the elections to the whigs and presbyterians. The parties at the convention first tried their strengths in the choice of a president. The Duke of Hamilton was set up by the new, the Marquis of Athole by the old court: a singular situation, where both candidates were distrusted, both by those who recommended, and by those who elected them. The former was preferred by 40 votes out of about 150 voters: a victory which, from the nature of the human mind, determined the wavering. A committee of elections was next named, consisting of nine whigs and three tories. Sir John Dalrymple, who was an able lawyer, found it easy to start objections to the returns of the opposite party, and to remove those which were made against his own. The committee in the house followed his opinions, because 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