The Itinerists followed the Duke and his procession into the Parliament House, and heard debated the great question—­the greatest of all possible questions for Scotland—­whether this magnificence should cease, whether there should be an end of an auld sang—­in short, whether the proposed Act of Union should be proceeded with.  By special favour, our Itinerists had leave to stand upon the steps of the throne, and witnessed a famous fiery and prolonged debate, the Duke once turning to them and saying, sotto voce, ’It is now deciding whether England and Scotland shall go together by the ears.’  How it was decided we all know, and that it was wisely decided no one doubts; yet, when we read our Itinerist’s account of the Duke’s coach and horses, and the cavalcade that followed him, and remember that this was what happened every day during the sitting of the Parliament, and must not be confounded with the greater glories of the first day of a Parliament, when every member, be he peer, knight of the shire, or burgh member, had to ride on horseback in the procession, it is impossible not to feel the force of Miss Grisel Dalmahoy’s appeal in the Heart of Midlothian, she being an ancient sempstress, to Mr. Saddletree, the harness-maker: 

‘And as for the Lords of States ye suld mind the riding o’ the Parliament in the gude auld time before the Union.  A year’s rent o’ mony a gude estate gaed for horse-graith and harnessing, forby broidered robes and foot-mantles that wad hae stude by their lane with gold and brocade, and that were muckle in my ain line.’

The graphic account of a famous debate given by, Taylor is worth comparing with the Lockhart Papers and Hill Burton.  The date is a little troublesome.  According to our Itinerist, he heard the discussion as to whether the Queen or the Scottish Parliament should nominate the Commissioners.  Now, according to the histories, this all-important discussion began and ended on September 1, but our Itinerist had only arrived in Edinburgh the night before the first, and gives us to understand that he owed his invitation to be present to the fact that whilst in Edinburgh he and his friends had had the honour to have several lords and members of Parliament to dine, and that these guests informed him ’of the grand day when the Act was to be passed or rejected.’  The Itinerist’s account is too particular—­for he gives the result of the voting—­to admit of any possibility of a mistake, and he describes how several of the members came afterwards to his lodgings, and, so he writes, ’embraced us with all the outward marks of love and kindness, and seemed mightily pleased at what was done, and told us we should now be no more English and Scotch, but Brittons.’  In the matter of nomenclature, at all events, the promises of the Union have not been carried out.

After September 1 the Parliament did not meet till the 4th, when an Address was passed to the Queen, but apparently without any repetition of debate.  So it really is a little difficult to reconcile the dates.  Perhaps Itinerists are best advised to keep off public events.