FLETCHER, ANDREW, so much celebrated for his
patriotism and political knowledge, was the son of Sir Robert Fletcher of
Salton and Innerpeffer, by Catharine Bruce, daughter of Sir Henry Bruce of
Clackmannan, and was born in the year 1653. His descent was truly noble, his
father being the fifth in a direct line from Sir Bernard Fletcher of the
county of York, and his mother of the noble race of Bruce; the patriarch of
the family of Clackmannan, having been the third son of Robert de Bruce,
lord of Annandale, grandfather of Robert de Bruce, king of Scots. The
subject of this memoir had the misfortune to lose his father in early youth;
but he was, by that parent, on his deathbed, consigned to the care of
Gilbert Burnet, then minister of Salton, and afterwards bishop of Salisbury,
who carefully instructed him in literature and religion, as well as in the
principles of free government, of which Fletcher became afterwards such an
eminent advocate. After completing his course of education under his
excellent preceptor, he went upon his travels, and spent several years in
surveying the manners and examining the institutions of the principal
continental states. His first appearance as a public character was in the
parliament held by James, duke of York, as royal commissioner, in the year
1681. In this parliament Fletcher sat as commissioner for the shire of East
Lothian, and manifested the most determined opposition to the arbitrary and
tyrannical measures of the court. In a short time he found it necessary to
withdraw himself, first into England, to consult with his reverend
preceptor, Dr Burnet, and afterwards, by his advice, to Holland. For his
opposition to the test, and to the general spirit of the government, he was,
not long after, summoned to appear before the lords of his majesty’s privy
council at Edinburgh. Of the spirit of this court, the most abominable that
has disgraced the annals of Great Britain, Fletcher was too well aware to
put himself in its power, and for his non-appearance he was outlawed and his
estate confiscated. Holland was at this time the resort of many of the best
men of both kingdoms, who had been obliged to expatriate themselves, to
escape the fury of an infatuated government, and with these Fletcher formed
the closest intimacy. In the year 1683, he accompanied Baillie of Jerviswood
to England, in order to concert measures with the friends of liberty there,
and was admitted into the secrets of lord Russell’s council of six. This
assembly consisted of the duke of Monmouth, the lords Russell, Essex, and
Howard, Algernon Sydney, and John Hampden, grandson to the immortal patriot
of that name. Tyranny was, however, at this time, triumphant. Monmouth was
obliged to abscond; Russell was apprehended, tried, and executed,
principally through the evidence of his associate lord Howard, who was an
unprincipled wretch. Essex was imprisoned, and either cut his own throat, or
had it cut by assassins,—history has never determined which. Sydney was
executed, and Howard subjected to a fine of forty thousand pounds sterling.
Many other persons of inferior note were executed for this plot. Jerviswood
fell into the hands of the Scottish administration, and was most illegally
and iniquitously put to death. Fletcher too was eagerly sought after, and,
had he been apprehended, would certainly have shared the same fate. He,
however, escaped again to the continent, where he devoted his time to the
study of public law, and for sometime seems to have had little
correspondence with his native country.
In the beginning of the year
1685, when James VII. acceded to the throne of Britain, Fletcher came to the
Hague, where were assembled Monmouth, Argyle, Melville, Polworth, Torwoodlie,
Mr James Stuart, lord Stair, and many other gentlemen, both Scottish and
English, when the unfortunate expeditions of Argyle and Monmouth were
concerted. It does not appear, however, that Fletcher was a leader among
these gentlemen. His temper was of the most stern and unaccommodating
character, and he was bent upon setting up a commonwealth in Scotland, or at
least a monarchy so limited as to bear very little resemblance to a kingdom.
He had drunk deep of the spirit of ancient Greece, with which the greater
part of his associates, patriots though they were, had no great
acquaintance, and he had a consciousness of his own superiority that could
not go well down with those feudal chieftains, who supposed that their birth
alone entitled them to precedency in council, as well as to command in the
field. His own country was certainly dearer to him than any other, and in it
he was likely to put forth his energies with the greatest effect; yet from
his dissatisfaction with their plans of operation, he did not embark with
his countrymen, but with the duke of Monmouth, in whom, if successful, he
expected less obstruction to his republican views. Fletcher was certainly at
the outset warmly attached to Monmouth’s scheme of landing in England,
though he subsequently wished it to be laid aside; and he afterwards told
Burnet, that Monmouth, though a weak young man, was sensible of the
imprudence of his adventure, but that he was pushed on to it against his own
sense and reason, and was piqued upon the point of honour in hazarding his
person with his friends. He accordingly landed at Lynn, in Dorsetshire, on
the 11th of June, 1685, with about an hundred followers, of whom the subject
of this memoir was one of the most distinguished. Crowds of people soon
flocked to join the standard of Monmouth, and, had he been qualified for
such affairs as that he had now undertaken, the revolution of 1688 might
perhaps have been anticipated. He, however, possessed no such
qualifications, nor did those on whom he had principally depended. Lord
Gray, to whom he had given the command of the horse, was sent out with a
small party to disperse a detachment of militia that had been assembled to
oppose him. The militia retreated before the troops of Monmouth, who stood
firm; but Gray, their general, fled, carrying back to his camp the news of a
defeat, which was in a short time contradicted by the return of the troops
in good order. Monmouth had intended to join Fletcher along with Gray in the
command of his cavalry, and the Scottish patriot certainly would not have
fled, so long as one man stood by him; but unfortunately, at the very time
when Gray was out on the service in which he so completely disgraced his
character, Fletcher was sent out in another direction, in which he was
scarcely less unfortunate, having, in a personal quarrel about a horse which
he had too hastily laid hold of for his own use, killed the mayor of Lynn,
who had newly come in to join the insurgent army, in consequence of
which he was under the necessity of leaving the camp immediately. The
melancholy fate of Monmouth is generally known.
Though there cannot be a
doubt that the shooting of the mayor of Lynn was the real cause of
Fletcher’s abandoning the enterprise so early, he himself never admitted it.
He had joined, he said, the duke of Monmouth on the footing of his
manifestations, which promised to provide for the permanent security of
civil liberty and the protestant religion, by the calling of a general
congress of delegates from the people at large, to form a free constitution
of government, in which no claim to the throne was to be admitted, but with
the free choice of the representatives of the people. From the proclaiming
of Monmouth king, which was done at Taunton, he saw, he said, that he had
been deceived, and resolved to proceed no further, every step from that
moment being treason against the just rights of the nation, and deep
treachery on the part of Monmouth. At any rate, finding that he could be no
longer useful, he left Taunton, and embarked aboard a vessel for Spain,
where he no sooner arrived, than he was thrown into prison, and on the
application of the British ambassador, was ordered to be delivered up and
transmitted to London in a Spanish ship fitted up for that purpose. In this
hopeless situation, looking one morning through the bars of his dungeon, he
was accosted by a person, who made signs that he wished to speak with him.
Looking around him, Fletcher perceived an open door, at which he was met by
his deliverer, with whom he passed unmolested through three different
military guards, all of whom seemed to be fast asleep, and without being
permitted to return thanks to his guide, made good his escape, with the
assistance of one who evidently had been sent for the express purpose, but
of whom he never obtained the smallest information. Travelling in disguise,
he proceeded through Spain, and considering himself out of danger, made a
leisurely pilgrimage through the country, amusing himself in the libraries
of the convents, where he had the good fortune to find many rare and curious
books, some of which he was enabled to purchase and bring along with him, to
the enriching of the excellent library he had already formed at his seat of
Salton, in East Lothian. In the course of his peregrinations, he made
several very narrow escapes, among which the following is remarkable, as
having apparently furnished the hint for a similar incident in a well-known
fiction. He was proceeding to a town where he intended to have passed the
night; but in the skirts of a wood, a few miles from thence, upon entering a
road to the right, he was warned by a woman of respectable appearance to
take the left hand road, as there would be danger in the other direction.
Upon his arrival, he found the citizens alarmed by the news of a robbery and
murder, which had taken place on the road against which he had been
cautioned, and in which he would have certainly been implicated, through an
absurd Spanish law, even although not seen to commit any crime. After
leaving Spain, he proceeded into Hungary, where he entered as a volunteer
into the army, and distinguished himself by his gallantry and military
talents. From this distant scene of activity, however, he was soon recalled
by the efforts that at length were making to break the yoke of tyranny and
the staff of the oppressor that had so long lain heavy on the kingdom of
Britain. Coming to the Hague, he found there his old friends, Stair,
Melville, Folworth, Cardross, Stuart of Coltness, Stuart of Goodtrees, Dr
Burnet, and Mr Cunningham, who still thought his principles high and
extravagant, though they associated with him, and were happy to have the
influence of his name and the weight of his talents to aid them on so
momentous an occasion. Though not permitted to be a leader in the great work
of the revolution, for which, indeed, both his principles, which were so
different from those of the men who effected it, and his intractable and
unyielding temper, alike disqualified him, he came home in the train of his
countrymen, who, by that great event were restored to their country and to
their rightful possessions; and, according to the statement of the earl of
Buchan, [Life of Fletcher of Salton] made a noble appearance in the
convention which met in Scotland after the revolution for settling the new
government. Lockhart of Carnwath, who was no friend to the new government,
nor of the principles upon which it was founded, takes no notice of this
portion of the life of Fletcher, though he is large upon his speeches, and
indeed every part of his conduct, when he afterwards became a violent
oppositionist.
In the year 1692, when every
effort to bring about a counter revolution was made, Fletcher, though
strongly, and perhaps justly, disgusted with king William, renouncing every
selfish principle, and anxious only to promote the welfare of the country,
exerted himself to the utmost to preserve what had been already attained in
the way of a free government, though it came far short of what he wished,
and what he fondly, too fondly, hoped the nation had been ripe to bear. In
all that regarded the public welfare, he was indeed indefatigable, and that
without any appearance of interested motives. He was the first friend and
patron of that extraordinary man, William Paterson, to whom the honour of
the formation of the bank of England ought, in justice, to be ascribed, and
who projected the Darien company, the most splendid idea of colonization
that was ever attempted to be put in practice. "Paterson," says Sir John
Dalrymple, "on his return to London, formed a friendship with Mr Fletcher,
of Salton, whose mind was inflamed with the love of public good, and all of
whose ideas to procure it had a sublimity in them. Fletcher disliked
England, merely because he loved Scotland to excess, and therefore the
report common in Scotland is probably true, that he was the person who
persuaded Paterson to trust the fate of his project to his own countrymen
alone, and to let them have the sole benefit, glory, and danger in it, for
in its danger Fletcher deemed some of its glory to consist. Although
Fletcher had nothing to hope for, and nothing to fear, because he had a good
estate and no children, and though he was of the country party, yet, in all
his schemes for the public good, he was in use to go as readily to the
king’s ministers, as to his own friends, being indifferent who had the
honour of doing good, provided it was done. His house of Salton, in east
Lothian, was near to that of the marquis of Tweeddale, then minister for
Scotland, and they were often together. Fletcher brought Paterson down to
Scotland with him, presented him to the marquis, and then, with that power
which a vehement spirit always possesses over a diffident one, persuaded the
statesman, by arguments of public good, and of the honour that would redound
to his administration, to adopt the project. Lord Stair and Mr Johnston, the
two secretaries of state, patronized those abilities in Paterson, which they
possessed in themselves, and the lord advocate, Sir James Stewart, the same
man who had adjusted the prince of Orange’s declaration at the revolution,
and whose son was married to a daughter of lord Stair, went naturally along
with his connexions." From the above, it appears that Fletcher, next to the
projector, Paterson, who was, like himself, an ardent lover of liberty, had
the principal hand in forwarding the colonization of Darien, and to his
ardent and expansive mind, we have no doubt, that the plan owed some, at
least, of its excellencies, and also, perhaps, the greatest of its defects.
"From this period," remarks lord Buchan, "till the meeting of the Union
Parliament, Fletcher was uniform and indefatigable in his parliamentary
conduct, continually attentive to the rights of the people, and jealous, as
every friend of his country ought to be, of their invasion by the king and
his ministers, for it is as much of the nature of kings and ministers to
invade and destroy the rights of the people, as it is of foxes and weasels
to rifle a poultry yard, and destroy the poultry. All of them, therefore,"
continues his lordship, "ought to be muzzled." Among other things
that Fletcher judged necessary for the preservation of public liberty, was
that of a national militia. In a discourse upon this subject, he says, "a
good and effective militia is of such importance to a nation, that it is the
chief part of the constitution of any free government. For though, as to
other things the constitution be never so slight, a good militia will always
preserve the public liberty; but in the best constitution that ever was, as
to all other parts of government, if the militia be not upon a right
footing, the liberty of that people must perish."
Scotland, ever since the
union of crowns, had been stripped of all her importance in a national point
of view, and the great object at this time was to exclude English influence
from her councils, and to restore her to her original state of independence;
a thing which could never be accomplished, so long as the king of Scotland
was the king of England. James the sixth, when he succeeded to the English
crown, wiser than any of his statesmen, saw this difficulty, and proposed to
obviate it by the only possible means, a union of the two kingdoms; but
owing to the inveterate prejudices of so many ages, neither of the kingdoms
could at that time be brought to submit to the judicious proposal. Fletcher
and his compatriots saw what had been the miserable evils, but they saw not
the proper remedy; hence, they pursued a plan that, but for the superior
wisdom of the English, would have separated the crowns, brought on
hostilities, and the entire subjection of the country, by force of arms. In
all the measures which had for their object the annihilating of English
influence, Fletcher had the principal hand, and there were some of them of
singular boldness. In case of the crowns of the two kingdoms continuing to
be worn by one person, the following, after pointing out in strong terms the
evils that had accrued to Scotland from this unfortunate association, were
the limitations proposed by Fletcher:—"1st, That elections shall be made at
every Michaelmas head court, for a new parliament every year, to sit the
first of November next following, and adjourn themselves from time to time
till next Michaelmas—that they choose their own president, and that every
thing shall be determined by balloting, in place of voting. 2d, That so many
lesser barons shall be added to the parliament, as there have been noblemen
created since the last augmentation of the number of the barons, and that in
all time coming, for every nobleman that shall be created, there shall be a
baron added to the parliament. 3d, That no man have a vote in parliament but
a nobleman or elected members. 4th, That the kings shall give the sanction
to all laws offered by the estates, and that the president of the parliament
be empowered by his majesty to give the sanction in his absence, and have
ten pounds sterling a day of salary. 5th, That a committee of one-and-thirty
members, of which nine to be a quorum, chosen out of their own number by
every parliament, shall, during the intervals of parliament, under the king,
have the administration of the government, be his council, and accountable
to the next parliament, with power, on extraordinary occasions, to call the
parliament together, and that, in said council, all things be determined by
balloting, in place of voting. 6th, That the king, without consent of
parliament, shall not have the power of making peace and war, or that of
concluding any treaty with any other state or potentate. 7th,
That all places and offices, both civil and military, and all pensions
formerly conferred by our kings, shall ever after be given by parliament.
8th, That no regiment or company of horse, foot, or dragoons, be kept on
foot in peace or war, but by consent of parliament. 9th, That all the
fencible men of the nation betwixt sixty and sixteen, be with all diligence
possible armed with bayonets and firelocks all of a calibre, and continue
always provided in such arms, with ammunition suitable. 10th, That no
general indemnity nor pardon for any transgression against the public shall
be valid without consent of parliament. 11th, That the fifteen senators of
the college of justice shall be incapable of being members of Parliament, or
of any other office or pension but the salary that belongs to their place,
to be increased as the parliament shall think fit; that the office of
president shall be in three of their number to be named by parliament, and
that there be no extraordinary lords. And also, that the lords of the
justice court shall be distinct from that of the session, and under the same
restrictions. 12th, That if any king break in upon any of these conditions
of government, he shall, by the estates, be declared to have forfeited the
crown." The above limitations did not pass the house, though they met with
very general support; yet, something little short of them were really
passed, and received the royal assent. The so much applauded Act of Security
made many provisions respecting the mode of proceeding in parliament in case
of the queen’s death, with the conditions under which the successor to the
crown of England was to be allowed to succeed to that of Scotland, which
were to be, "at least, freedom of navigation, free communication of trade,
and liberty of the plantations to the kingdom and subjects of Scotland,
established by the parliament of England." It also provided, "that the whole
protestant heritors with all the burghs of the kingdom, should forthwith
provide themselves with fire-arms, for all the fencible men who were
protestants within their respective bounds, and they were further ordained
and appointed to exercise the said fencible men once a month, at least. The
same parliament passed an act anent peace and war, which provided, among
other things, that after her majesty’s death, and failing heirs of her body,
no person, at the same time king or queen of Scotland and England, shall
have sole power of making war with any prince, state, or potentate
whatsoever, without consent of parliament. A proposal made at this time for
settling the succession, as the English parliament had done in the house of
Hanover, was treated with the utmost contempt, some proposing to burn it,
and others insisting that the member who proposed it should be sent to the
castle, and it was at last thrown out by a majority of fifty-seven voices.
Another limitation proposed
by Fletcher, was, that all places, offices, and pensions, which had been
formerly given by our king, should, after her majesty and heirs of her body,
be conferred only by parliament so long as the crowns remained united.
"Without this limitation," he continues, "our poverty and subjection to the
court of England will every day increase, and the question we have now
before us, is, whether we will be free-men, or slaves for ever? whether we
will continue to defend or break the yoke of our independence? and whether
we will choose to live poor and miserable; or rich, free, and happy? Let no
man think to object that this limitation takes away the whole power of the
prince; for the same condition of government is found in one of the most
absolute monarchies of the world, China." Quoting the authority of Sir
William Temple for this fact, he continues, "and if, under the greatest
absolute monarchy of the world, in a country where the prince actually
resides—if among heathens this be accounted a necessary part of government
for the encouragement of virtue, shall it be denied to christians living
under a prince who resides in another nation? Shall it be denied to people
who have a right to liberty, and yet are not capable of any, in their
present circumstances, without this limitation." We cannot refrain copying
the following sentences on the benefits he anticipated from the
measure:—"This limitation will undoubtedly enrich the nation by stopping
that perpetual issue of money to England, which has reduced this country to
extreme poverty. This limitation does not flatter us with the hopes
of riches, by an uncertain project—does not require so much as the condition
of our own industry; but by saving great sums to the country, will every
year furnish a stock sufficient to carry on a considerable trade, or to
establish some useful manufacture at home with the highest probability of
success: because, our ministers, by this rule of government, would be freed
from the influence of English councils, and our trade be entirely in our own
hands, and not under the power of the court, as it was in the affair of
Darien. If we do not attain this limitation, our attendance at London will
continue to drain this nation of all those sums which should be a stock for
trade. Besides, by frequenting that court, we not only spend our money, but
learn the expensive modes and ways of living of a rich and luxurious nation;
we lay out, yearly, great sums in furniture and equipage to the unspeakable
prejudice of the trade and manufactures of our own country. Not that I think
it amiss to travel into England, in order to see and learn their industry in
trade and husbandry; but at court, what can we learn, except a horrid
corruption of manners, and an expensive way of living, that we may for ever
after be both poor and profligate? This limitation will secure to us our
freedom and independence. It has been often said in this house, that our
princes are captives in England, and, indeed, one would not wonder, if, when
our interest happens to be different from that of England, our kings, who
must be supported by the riches and power of that nation in all their
undertakings, should prefer an English interest before that of this country;
it is yet less strange, that English ministers should advise and procure the
advancement of such persons to the ministry of Scotland, as will comply with
their measures and the king’s orders, and to surmount the difficulties they
may meet with from a true Scottish interest, that places and pensions should
be bestowed upon parliament men and others. I say, these things are so far
from wonder, that they are inevitable in the present state of our affairs;
but I hope, they likewise show us that we ought not to continue any longer
in this condition. Now, this limitation is advantageous to all. The prince
will no more be put upon the hardship of deciding between an English and a
Scottish interest, or the difficulty of reconciling what he owes to each
nation in consequence of his coronation oath. Even English ministers will no
longer lie under the temptation of meddling in Scottish affairs, nor the
ministers of this kingdom, together with all those who have places and
pensions be any more subject to the worst of all slavery. But if the
influences I mentioned before still continue, what will any other
limitation avail us? What shall we be the better for our act concerning the
power of war and peace, since by the force of an English interest and
influence, we cannot fail of being engaged in every war, and neglected in
every peace? By this limitation, our parliament will become the most
uncorrupted senate of all Europe. No man will be tempted to vote against the
interest of his country, when his country shall have all the bribes in her
own hands, offices, places, and pensions. It will be no longer necessary to
lose one half of the customs, that parliament men may be made collectors; we
will not desire to exclude the officers of state from sitting in this house,
when the country shall have the nomination of them; and our parliament, free
from corruption, cannot fail to redress all our grievances. We shall then
have no cause to fear a refusal of the royal assent to our acts, for we
shall have no evil counselor nor enemy of his country to advise it. When
this condition of government shall take place, the royal assent will be the
ornament of the prince, and never be refused to the desires of the people; a
general unanimity will be found in this house, in every part of the
government, and among all ranks and conditions of men. The distinctions of
court and country party shall no more be heard in this nation, nor shall the
Prince and people any longer have a different interest. Rewards and
punishments will be in the hands of those who live among us, and
consequently best know the merit of men, by which means, virtue will be
recompensed, and vice discouraged, and the reign and government of the
prince will flourish in peace and justice. I should never make an end if I
should prosecute all the great advantages of this limitation, which, like a
divine influence, turns all to good, as the want of it has hitherto poisoned
every thing, and brought all to ruin."
If Fletcher really believed
the one half of what he ascribes in this speech to his favourite limitation,
he was an enthusiast of no common order. We suspect, however, that his
design was in the first place to render the king insignificant, and then to
dismiss him altogether; it being one of his favourite maxims, that the
trappings of a monarchy and a great aristocracy would patch up a very clever
little commonwealth. The high-flying tories of that day, however, or in
other words, the jacobites, in the heat of their rage and the bitterness of
their disappointment, citing to him as their last hope of supporting even
his most deadly attacks upon the royal prerogative, from the desperate
pleasure of seeing the kingly office, since they could not preserve it for
their own idol, rendered useless, ridiculous, or intolerable to any one else
who should enjoy it. By this means, there was a seeming consistency in those
ebullitions of national independence, and a strength and vigour which they
really did not possess, but which alarmed the English ministry; and the
union of the kingdoms, which good sense and good feeling ought to have
accomplished, at least one century earlier, was effected, at last, as a work
of political necessity, fully as much as of mercy. In every stage of this
important business, Fletcher was its most determined opponent, in which he
was, as usual, seconded by the whole strength of the jacobites. Happily,
however, through the prudence of the English ministry, the richness of her
treasury, and the imbecility of the duke of Hamilton, the leader of the
jacobites, he was unsuccessful, and retired from public life, under the
melancholy idea that he had outlived, not only his country’s glory, but her
very existence, having witnessed, as he thought, the last glimmering of
hope, and heard the last sounds of freedom that were ever to make glad the
hearts of her unfortunate children. He died at London in 1716.
The character of Fletcher has
been the subject of almost universal and unlimited panegyric. "He was," says
the earl of Buchan, "by far the most nervous and correct speaker in the
parliament of Scotland, for he drew his style from the pure models of
antiquity, and not from the grosser practical oratory of his contemporaries;
so that his speeches will bear a comparison with the best speeches of the
reign of queen Anne, the Augustan age of Great Britain." Lockhart says, "he
was always an admirer of both ancient and modern republics, but that he
showed a sincere and honest inclination towards the honour and interest of
his country. The idea of England’s domineering over Scotland was what his
generous soul could not endure. The indignities and oppression Scotland lay
under galled him to the heart, so that, in his learned and elaborate
discourses, he exposed them with undaunted courage and pathetic eloquence.
He was blessed with a soul that hated and despised whatever was mean and
unbecoming a gentlemen, and was so steadfast to what he thought right, that
no hazard nor advantage,—not the universal empire, nor the gold of America,
could tempt him to yield or desert it. And I may affirm that in all his
life, he never once pursued a measure with the least prospect of any thing
by end to himself, nor farther than he judged it for the common benefit and
advantage of his country. He was master of the English, Latin, Greek,
French, and Italian languages, and well versed in history, the civil law,
and all kinds of learning. He was a strict and nice observer of all the
points of honour, and had some experience of the art of war, having been
some time a volunteer in both the land and sea service. He was in his
private conversation affable to his friends, (but could not endure to
converse with those he thought enemies to their country,) and free of all
manner of vice. He had a penetrating, clear, and lively apprehension, but so
exceedingly wedded to his own opinions, that there were few, (and these too
must be his beloved friends, and of whom he had a good opinion,) he could
endure to reason against him, and did for the most part so closely and
unalterably adhere to what he advanced, which was frequently very singular,
that he’d break with his party before he’d alter the least jot of his scheme
and maxims; and therefore it was impossible for any set of men, that did not
give up themselves to be absolutely directed by him, to please him, so as to
carry him along in all points: and thence it came to pass, that he often in
parliament acted a part by himself, though in the main he stuck close to the
country party, and was their Cicero. He was no doubt an enemy to all
monarchical governments; but I do very well believe, his aversion to the
English and the union was so great, that in revenge to them he’d have sided
with the royal family. But as that was a subject not fit to be entered on
with him, this is only a conjecture from some innuendoes I have heard him
make. So far is certain, he liked, commended, and conversed with high-flying
tories more than any other set of men, acknowledging them to be the best
countrymen, and of most honour and integrity. To sum up all, he was a
learned, gallant, honest, and every other way well accomplished gentleman;
and if ever a man proposes to serve and merit well of his country, let him
place his courage, zeal, and constancy, as a pattern before him, and think
himself sufficiently applauded and rewarded by obtaining the character of
being like Andrew Fletcher of Salton."—Of the general truth of these
descriptions we have no doubt; but they are strongly coloured through a
national prejudice that was a principal defect in Fletcher’s own character.
That he was an ardent lover of liberty and of his country, his whole life
bore witness; but he was of a temper so fiery and ungovernable, and besides
so excessively dogmatic, that he was of little service as a coadjutor in
carrying on public affairs. His shooting the mayor of Lynn on a trifling
dispute, and his collaring lord Stair in the parliament house, for a word
which he thought reflected upon him, showed a mind not sufficiently
disciplined for the business of life; and his national partialities clouded
his otherwise perspicacious faculties, contracted his views, and rendered
his most philosophical speculations, and his most ardent personal exertions
of little utility. Upon the whole, he was a man, we think, rather to be
admired than imitated; and, like many other popular characters, owes his
reputation to the defects, rather than to the excellencies of his
character.
Fletcher of Saltoun
By G. W. T. Omond (1897) (pdf)
The Political Works of Andrew
Fletcher (1732) (pdf) |
