commodities to be used in fishing and in curing, and the burghs petitioned in 1671 that its license to import commodities to be used in fishing and curing should not be used to introduce any other goods.1 But apparently the company, though it did not do much to develop fishing, tried to make profit out of this permission, for in 1673 the burghs spoke of the great prejudice which the kingdom sustained by such importations.2

A few years later the convention asked the council's approbation of an act laying down regulations about barrels, etc., and giving the burgh magistrates power to put acts of parliament into execution. Then, inspired by accounts of the fishing company in England, the burghs appointed a committee to consider what measures should be proposed for setting up a fishery, and whether it should be managed by a joint stock of the whole burghs or only by those who wished to be partners. But this, like other proposals, came to nothing, and the development of Scottish fisheries did not take place until the eighteenth century.

The convention was not much concerned with the woollen manufactory, which was now being prosecuted with considerable success. After successfully petitioning the Privy Council to prohibit the export of wool, it urged each burgh to set up a manufactory of cloth, but without result. The execution by magistrates of regulations about the breadth, etc., of plaiding was desired by the burghs in 16935 and 1702.6 In connection with this trade a monopoly granted for the manufacture of cards used in cloth making was a frequent cause of complaint. The import of old cards was prohibited, and the manufacturers, that they might the more friely and without Controll abuse the whole subjects,' were allowed to have waiters of their own to seize any which were brought in. The burghs desired to continue to import and use old cards, in spite of the assurances of the promoters that the royal burghs have the greatest interest to support this,' the new manufacture; and they very often petitioned against the patent and against the methods of maintaining it, but without success.7

The convention, as before, tried to maintain uniformity in weights and measures, and complained in 1671 that several persons had tried to get letters from His Majesty depriving the 1 Convention Records, iii. 626. 2 Laing MSS., Div. ii. 43.

Privy Council Register, Acta, 1696-9, June 8 and 23, 1699.

A Convention Records, iv. 287.

6 Convention Records, iv. 329-30.

5 Parliamentary Papers, xiv. 101.
"Parliamentary Papers, xiii. 391, 2, 3.

burghs of their privilege of regulation in their own jurisdictions.1 One of these was the Laird of Touch, who presented a patent for the sole privilege of weights and measures for thirty-three years, in direct oppositione to the rightis and priviledgis of the royall burrowis.' 2

In trade the convention, as before, was more occupied with maintaining old privileges than in promoting new enterprises, and was therefore principally concerned with the Dutch, French, and English trades. trades. In the trade with Holland, although the convention of 1689 suggested that they should consider whether the office of a conservator was necessary or not,3 a great deal of attention was given to the maintenance of the staple port, which year by year proved a more difficult task, as more and more merchants sailed to markets where their affairs were less strictly supervised and which suited them better, especially to Rotterdam. During the war it was easier to get convoys thither, and in 1691 the conservator wrote that the bulk of the wholl trade... runs to Rotterdam.' William wrote to the burghs in 1692 that he had interposed with Campvere to send convoys for Scots ships. He recommended to them at the same time 'the Improvement of your meetings for the use they were designed, to fall upon effectual Measures for the Advancement of the Trade and Manufacture of the Kingdom.''

In 1695 the conservator said the reason of the breaches of the staple was that the merchants declared they would not take goods out of the country at all if they had to take them to Campvere, and the customs collectors, rather than lose their money, allowed them to go without giving bond to sail there. A great part of these, as of the earlier records, is taken up with complaints of the merchants, negotiations with Campvere, and fresh regulations about keeping the staple port.

The Scottish nation, because of their change in religion and in politics, and still more because of Colbert's protective system, were losing their earlier privileges in France, not without remonstrance from both council and convention, who made numerous appeals to the French government to restore the Scots to their ancient privileges. Early in Charles II.'s reign the duty of fifty sous per ton on every ship was a fruitful source of complaint, and 1 Convention Records, iii. 631. 2 Ibid. iii. 565-6.

8 Ibid. iv. 95.

4 S.P. Scotland, Warrant Book 15, 125-6.

5 Davidson and Gray, op. cit. 233-4 n., and see pp. 211-51 for the breaches of

the staple port.

from a number of conventions letters were written to Lauderdale, asking him to use his influence with the king or the French ambassador for the 'doungetting' of this impost. In 1684 Mr. William Aitkman was appointed by the burghs to go to the English and French courts to negotiate, they being resolved to be at a finall poynt in the said matter.'1 Their efforts were unavailing, but the conclusion of the treaty with France in 1697 gave them fresh hopes, and they begged the king to allow one or more of their commissioners to represent the burghs at the treaty and try to get the impost of fifty sous, the prohibition of the import of herrings, and the impositions on Scottish manufactures removed. William had already promised to recommend them particularly to the Earl of Pembroke, one of his plenipotentiaries. Mr. John Buchan, the burghs' agent, was appointed to go to London in connection with the treaty, but Scottish interests were ignored, and no concessions were gained, which was one of the accumulation of grievances against England.

As regards the English trade, the convention played much the same part, petitioning and negotiating in vain for a return to the favoured position which the Scots merchants had enjoyed after the union of 1603, if not to the complete freedom of trade of the interregnum. The burghs early began to lament the passing of the navigation act as totallie distructive to the tread and navigations of this kingdome.' They moved the Scottish parliament to put an excise on commodities imported from England in order that the impositions on Scottish coal, salt, cattle, etc., in England might be taken off, but this retaliation had no result. In 1702, amongst the articles to be delivered to the union commissioners for consideration was the 'communicatione of trade betwixt the two kingdoms of Scotland and England, and particularly to the plantationes in the East and West Indies.'s The convention was realizing the value of the trade to the west, although they did not take active measures to promote it. Glasgow represented in 1691 that it is the great concern of the royall borrows to have ane interest in forraigne plantations,' and that there might yet be convenient places in Carolina or in some of the islands," but this 1 Convention Records, iv. 45. 2 Ibid. 248-50.

3 Privy Council Register, Acta, 1696-9, March 11, 1697.

4 Convention Records, iv. 262-3.

5 Ibid. iii. 528-9, 547-8, 554-8; Privy Council Register, Third Series, i. 89.

6 Convention Records, iii. 564.

8 Convention Records, iv. 343-4.

Acts, Scotland, vii. 465-6.

9 Ibid. iv. 133.

suggestion does not seem to have been discussed further. The burghs decided to subscribe £3000 to the African Company, each burgh to pay its proportion according to the tax roll, and Sir Robert Cheisly, lord provost of Edinburgh, was appointed to represent them at the meetings of the company.1

The

In spite of the desire of the burghs for freedom of trade with England and with the plantations, the convention presented an address to parliament opposing the union in 1706. They objected to the parliamentary union because Scottish laws, liberties, trade, etc., would be in danger of being encroached upon, altered, or wholly subverted by the English in a British parliament.' trade proposed is uncertain involved and wholly precarious, especially when regulat as to export and import by the lawes of England,' and 'the most considerable branches of our trade are different from that of England and are and may be yet more discouraged by their lawes.' This address seemed to show clearly that the trading interests of Scotland did not want union, but in fact, as Defoe points out, only twenty-four burghs out of the sixty-six voted for the address, twenty-two were absent, and twenty voted against; while the richest and largest burghs, except Edinburgh, did not join in the address. The twenty-four perhaps were alarmed by Lord Belhaven's rhetorical prophecy-' the Royal State of Burrows walking their desolate Streets, hanging down their heads under Disappointments; wormed out of all the Branches of their old Trade, uncertain what hand to turn to, necessitate to become Prentices to their unkind Neighbours; and yet after all finding their Trade so fortified by Companies, and secured by Prescriptions, that they despair of any success therein " -instead of attracted by the vision of the commercial prosperity which eventually followed the union.

The history of the convention before the union shows that, especially in the reigns of James VI. and Charles I., it had a share in the economic development of Scotland. It may not have done much for the direct promotion of new industries and trades, but in other ways it played a very useful part. It was of value as representing the part of the nation most directly interested in economic matters, and in placing their views, asked or unasked, before the king and privy council, when these were more active in encouraging manufactures and commerce than was parliament. 1 Convention Records, iv. 209. 2 Ibid. iv. 399-402.

Defoe, History of the Union of England and Scotland, 36.
Ibid.; Minutes of the parliament of Scotland with Observations thereon, 33.

In industry the convention stood for the enforcement of national regulations and opposed the continuance of local rules. It upheld its own monopoly, but it was a national monopoly, and it opposed all those granted to individuals. In trade its organization was national, there were no restrictions as to persons, and only in the Dutch trade were there any as to places; and it negotiated for privileges for its members. On the whole, therefore, it made for nationalism and freedom from restriction, and by using its advisory, regulating, and negotiating powers wisely, it helped forward both industry and trade.

But the convention was a conservative body, and when after the civil war Scottish trade and industry began to grow along more modern lines it failed to develop with them. Unfree burghs took a share of foreign trade, manufacturing companies were established outside the burghs, and the convention no longer represented the whole commercial and industrial interests of the nation. Parliament was more important, the burghs were represented there and in the committees of trade, and the convention as an advisory body was less necessary. Industry was escaping from its control, and municipal regulation was beginning to break down. In trade the staple policy was breaking down, and trades with distant places did not give such opportunity for negotiations and regulations as did commerce with neighbouring countries. But when the union was accomplished, the Scottish burghs had a small proportion of representation, and were no longer influential as an estate, nor on councils or committees of trade. The convention was more directly representative of the commercial and industrial part of the nation than was the Scottish contingent at Westminster, and it had therefore an opportunity given to it of returning to its old, or rather, of developing a new, economic importance.

THEODORA Keith.