yed, during the greater
portion of his life, forbearance and consistency. "Had not his loyalty
been so unalterable," writes Lockhart, "and that he would never engage
in King William's and his Government's service, and his love to his
country induced him to oppose that King and England's injustice and
encroachments on it, no doubt he had made as great a figure in the world
as any other whatsoever, and that either in a civil or military
capacity."[34] "The Duke of Hamilton's love for his country," observes a
contemptuous, anonymous assailant, "made him leave London, and follow
King James, who had enslaved it. His love to his country had engaged him
in several plots to restore that prince, and with him, tyranny and
idolatry, poverty and slavery."[35] Upon the odious principle of always
seeking out for the lowest and the most selfish motive that can actuate
the conduct of men,--a principle which is thought by weak and bad minds
to display knowledge of the world, but which, in fact, more often
betrays ignorance,--another part of his conduct was misjudged. The
reluctance of the Duke of Hamilton, in 1704, to nominate a successor to
the throne of England, before framing the treaty touching "the Commerce
of Scotland and other Concerns," was ascribed by many to the remote hope
of succeeding to the Crown, since, in case of the exclusion of the
Princess Sophia and her descendants, his family was the next in
succession, of the Protestant Faith. Such was one of the reasons
assigned for the wise endeavour which this nobleman exerted to prevent
an invasion of the kingdom by James Stuart during the reign of Anne, and
such the motive adduced for his advice to the Chevalier to maintain
terms of amity with his royal sister. It was the cause calumniously
assigned of his supposed decline in attachment to the exiled family.[36]

But, notwithstanding the inference thus deduced, the Duke of Hamilton
continued to enjoy, in no ordinary degree, popular applause and the
favour of Queen Anne, until his tragical death in 1712 occurring just
before the Rebellion of 1715, spared him the perplexity of deciding on
which side he should embark in that perilous and ill-omened
insurrection.

This celebrated statesman,--one who never entered into a new measure,
nor formed a project, ("though in doing thereof," says Lockhart, "he was
too cautious") that he did not prosecute his designs with a courage that
nothing could daunt,--now determined to win over the E