[Footnote 27: The "Act to prevent," etc. (10 Ann. c. 10) was ordered January 21st, and received the Royal Assent March 3rd, 171-1/2, [W.S.J.]
[Footnote 28: P. Fitzgerald says "North Britain." [W.S.J.]
[Footnote 29: The Scotch Patronage Bill was ordered March 13th, [1711], passed April 7th, and received the Royal Assent May 22nd, 1712 (10 Ann c 21). It did not refer to the Episcopal Church. [W.S.J.]
The Church of Scotland viewed the bills for restoring to the gentry the right of patronage, and for tolerating the exercise of the Episcopal persuasion, with great jealousy. The Reverend Mr William Carstares, who had been secretary to King William, and was Principal of the College of Edinburgh, was deputed to go to London at the head of a commission of the church, to oppose the bills while in dependence. His biographer has justly remarked, that these enactments considered at the time as fatal to the interests of Presbytery in Scotland, have, upon experience, proved her best security.
"Upon the one hand, the Act of Toleration, by taking the weapon of offence out of the hands of the Presbyterians, removed the chief grounds of those resentments which the friends of prelacy entertained against them, and in a few years almost annihilated Episcopacy in Scotland Upon the other hand, the Act restoring Patronages, by restoring the nobility and gentlemen of property to then wonted influence in the settlement of the clergy, reconciled numbers of them to the established church, who had conceived the most violent prejudices against that mode of election, and against the Presbyterian clergy, who were settled upon it. It is likewise an incontestable fact, that, from the date of these two Acts, the Church of Scotland has enjoyed a state of tranquillity to which she was an utter stranger before." (Life of Carstares, prefixed to Carstares's "State Papers," 1774, p 85) [S]
[Footnote 30: This message was reported to the House of Commons June 19th, 1712. [W.S.J]
Nothing could more amply justify the proceedings of the Queen and her ministers, for two years past, than that famous Representation above at large recited, the unbiassed wisdom of the nation, after the strictest inquiry, confirming those facts upon which Her Majesty's counsels were grounded and many persons, who were before inclined to believe that the allies and the late ministry had been too much loaded by the malice, misrepresentations, or ignorance of writers, were now fully convinced of their mistake by so great an authority. Upon this occasion I cannot forbear doing justice to Mr. St. John,[31] who had been secretary of war, for several years, under the former administration, where he had the advantage of observing how affairs were managed both at home and abroad. He was one of those who shared in the present treasurer's fortune, resigning his employment at the same time; and upon that minister's being again taken into favour, this gentleman was some time after made secretary of state. There he began afresh, by the opportunities of his station, to look into past miscarriages; and, by the force of an extraordinary genius, and application to public affairs, joined with an invincible eloquence, laid open the scene of miscarriages and corruptions through the whole course of the war, in so evident a manner, that the House of Commons seemed principally directed in their resolutions, upon this inquiry, by his information and advice. In a short time after the Representation was published, there appeared a memorial in the Dutch "Gazette," as by order of the States, reflecting very much upon the said Representation, as well as the resolutions on which it was founded, pretending to deny some of the facts, and to extenuate others. This memorial, translated into English, a common writer of news had the boldness to insert in one of his papers. A complaint being made thereof to the House of Commons, they voted the pretended memorial to be a false, scandalous, malicious libel, and ordered the printer to be taken into custody.[32]
[Footnote 31: See his character in Swift's "Enquiry," vol. v., pp. 430-431, of this edition. [W.S.J.]
[Footnote 32: The memorial appeared in the "Daily Courant" of 7th and 8th April, for which Samuel Buckley, the writer and printer, was ordered by the House of Commons to be taken into custody on April 11th. [W.S.J.]
It was the misfortune of the ministers, that while they were baited by their professed adversaries of the discontented faction, acting in confederacy with emissaries of foreign powers, to break the measures Her Majesty had taken towards a peace, they met at the same time with frequent difficulties from those who agreed and engaged with them to pursue the same general end; but sometimes disapproved the methods as too slack and remiss, or, in appearance, now and then perhaps a little dubious. In the first session of this Parliament, a considerable number of gentlemen, all members of the House of Commons, began to meet by themselves, and consult what course they ought to steer in this new world. They intended to revive a new country party in Parliament, which might, as in former times, oppose the court in any proceedings they disliked. The whole body was of such who profess what is commonly called high-church principles, upon which account they were irreconcilable enemies to the late ministry and all its adherents. On the other side, considering the temper of the new men in power, that they were persons who had formerly moved between the two extremes, those gentlemen, who were impatient for an entire change, and to see all their adversaries laid at once as low as the dust, began to be apprehensive that the work would be done by halves. But the juncture of affairs at that time, both at home and abroad, would by no means admit of the least precipitation, although the Queen and her first minister had been disposed to it, which certainly they were not. Neither did the court seem at all uneasy at this league, formed in appearance against it, but composed of honest gentlemen who wished well to their country, in which both were entirely agreed, although they might differ about the means; or if such a society should begin to grow resty, nothing was easier than to divide them, and render all their endeavours ineffectual.[33]