pacy. He states the Episcopal party to have been then "near one half of the nation."[1] So little were the Presbyterians indebted, either to their numbers, or their principles, for the ascendancy of their system.
But many of the Presbyterians, like some of the English Whigs at the same period, were secret favourers of the Pretender's claims, though, only a few years before, they had denounced the Episcopal Clergy because they could not take the Oaths. Especially was this the case subsequent to the Union: so that, in consequence of their dislike to that measure, they were even ready to restore the son of James II. This is a singular circumstance: but abundant evidence of the fact is furnished by Ker, by Hooke, and by Lockhart. They agreed to support the Pretender on condition, that he never consented to the Union, and that he supported the Protestant religion. Could they have set the Pretender on the throne, on these conditions, they would have done so, in consequence of their hostility to the Union.[2]
The Union occupied the Presbyterians so completely at this period, that their attention was for a time drawn off from the Episcopal Clergy: but when the feeling, which that measure created, had subsided, they did not overlook a body of men, whose
- ↑ Ker's Memoirs, p. 16. At this time none of the Episcopal Clergy were legally tolerated except those who held Parish Churches under the Comprehension Act: but in consequence of the Queen's countenance and support, the worship of others in private houses was connived at. Keith, by Russell, 506.
- ↑ Ker's Memoirs, pp. 28-9. Hooke's Secret History of Negotiations in Scotland in 1707, pp. 11, 31, 43–47. Lockhart Papers, i. 302–308.
