[Footnote 26:  P. Fitzgerald says “North Britain.” [W.S.J.]]

[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;