cation of the British Government, for the removal of his guest from his dominions. It was believed that the Duke dared not have acted thus unless he had had some private assurance that the application was only made for an ostensible purpose, and that the Queen did not, in reality, desire to deprive her brother of this place of refuge. Other circumstances led to the same conclusion, that Anne and her new ministers favoured the Jacobite interest.

It is more than probable that the Duke of Hamilton, whom we have so often mentioned, was to have been deeply engaged in some transactions with the French court, of the most delicate nature, when, in 1713, he was named ambassador extraordinary to Paris; and there can be little doubt that they regarded the restoration of the line of Stewart. The unfortunate nobleman hinted this to his friend, Lockhart of Carnwath, when, parting with him for the last time, he turned back to embrace him again and again, as one who was impressed with the consciousness of some weighty trust, perhaps with a prescient sense of approaching calamity. Misfortune, indeed, was hovering over him, and of a strange and bloody character. Having a lawsuit with Lord Mohun,' a nobleman of debauched and profligate manners, whose greatest achievement was

1["His Grace, and Lord Mohun, had married two nieces of Charles, Earl of Macclesfield, and for several years had been engaged in a Chancery suit for part of his estate, which created much animosity, inflamed by their espousing different sides in Parliament."-Woop's Peerage, vol. i. p. 718.]

having, a few years before, stabbed a poor playactor, in a drunken frolic, the Duke of Hamilton held a meeting with his adversary, in the hope of adjusting their dispute. In this conference, the Duke, speaking of an agent in the case, said the person in question had neither truth nor honour, to which Lord Mohun replied he had as much of both qualities as his Grace. They parted on the exchange of these words. One would have thought that the offence received lay on the Duke's side, and that it was he who was called upon to resent what had passed, in case he should think it worth his while. Lord Mohun, however, who gave the affront, contrary to the practice in such cases, also gave the challenge. They met at the Ring in Hyde Park, where they fought with swords, and in a few minutes Lord Mohun was killed on the spot; and the Duke of Hamilton, mortally wounded, did not survive him for a longer space. Mohun, who was an odious and contemptible libertine, was regretted by no one; but it was far different with the Duke of Hamilton, who, notwithstanding a degree of irresolution which he displayed in politics, his understanding, perhaps, not approving the lengths to which his feelings might have carried him, had many amiable, and even noble qualities, which made him generally lamented. The Tories considered the death of the Duke of Hamilton as so peculiar, and the period when it happened as so critical, that they did not hesitate to avow a confident belief that Lord Mohun had been pushed to

sending the challenge by some zealots of the Whig party,' and even to add, that the Duke fell, not by the sword of his antagonist, but by that of General Macartney, Lord Mohun's second. The evidence of Colonel Hamilton, second to the Duke, went far to establish the last proposition; and General Macartney, seeing, perhaps, that the public prejudice was extreme against him, absconded, and a reward was offered for his discovery. In the subsequent reign, he was brought to trial, and acquitted, on evidence which leaves the case far from a clear one.

The death of the Duke of Hamilton, however, whether caused by political resentment or private hatred, did not interrupt the schemes formed for the restoration of the Stewart family. Lord Bolingbroke himself went on a mission to Paris, and it appears highly probable he then settled secret articles explanatory of those points of the Utrecht treaty, which had relation to the expulsion of the Pretender from the dominions of France, and the disclamation of his right of succession to the crown of Britain. It is probable, also, that these remained concealed from the Premier Oxford, to whose views in favour of the Hanoverian succession they were distinctly opposed.

Such being the temper of the Government of

["Macartney and two or three more of that gang never left him (Mohun), from the time that he was with the Duke, till the duel was fought, keeping him (as was deposed [deponed] by the evidences) flushed with wine during all that time, which was two nights and a day and a half, and calling upon him, when he took fits of being grave and melancholy, to cheer up, take the other glass, and not be afraid."-LOCKHART Papers, vol. i. p. 404.]

VOL. XXV.

England, divided, as it was, betwixt the dubious conduct of Lord Oxford, and the more secret, but bolder and decided intrigues of Bolingbroke, the general measures which were adopted with respect to Scotland indicated a decided bias to the Jacobite interest, and those by whom it was supported.

CHAPTER LXV.

Persecution of the Scottish Episcopalians by the Presbyterians-Act of Toleration — Abjuration Oath-Law of Patronage-Pensions given to the Highland Chiefs to preserve their attachment to the Jacobite interest-Preparations of the Whigs to secure the succession of the House of Hanover- Quarrel between Oxford and Bolingbroke-Death of Queen Anne.

[Retrospect-1714.]

THE Presbyterians of Scotland had been placed by the Revolution in exclusive possession of the Church government of that kingdom. But a considerable proportion of the country, particularly in the more northern shires, remained attached to the Episcopal establishment and its forms of worship. These, however, were objects of enmity and fear to the Church of Scotland, whose representatives and adherents exerted themselves to suppress, by every means in their power, the exercise of the Episcopal mode of worship, forgetful of the complaints which they themselves had so justly made concerning the violation of the liberty of conscience during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. We must here remark, that the Episcopal Church of Scotland had, in its ancient and triumphant state,