obnoxious,
though the inclination is not united with it. Besides, the Duke of Argyle's
independent and somewhat haughty mode of expressing himself in Parliament, and
acting in public, were ill calculated to attract royal favour. He was,
therefore, always respected, and often employed; but he was not a favourite of
George the Second, his consort, or his ministers. At several different periods
in his life, the Duke might be considered as in absolute disgrace at court,
although he could hardly be said to be a declared member of opposition. This
rendered him the dearer to Scotland, because it was usually in her cause that he
incurred the displeasure of his sovereign; and upon this very occasion of the
Porteous mob, the animated and eloquent opposition which he had offered to the
severe measures which were about to be adopted towards the city of Edinburgh,
was the more gratefully received in that metropolis, as it was understood that
the Duke's interposition had given personal offence to Queen Caroline.
    His conduct upon this occasion, as, indeed, that of all the Scottish members
of the legislature, with one or two unworthy exceptions, had been in the highest
degree spirited. The popular tradition, concerning his reply to Queen Caroline,
has been given already, and some fragments of his speech against the Porteous
Bill are still remembered. He retorted upon the Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, the
insinuation that he had stated himself in this case rather as a party than as a
judge: - »I appeal,« said Argyle, »to the House - to the nation, if I can be
justly branded with the infamy of being a jobber or a partisan. Have I been a
briber of votes? - a buyer of boroughs? - the agent of corruption for any
purpose, or on behalf of any party? - Consider my life; examine my actions in
the field and in the cabinet, and see where there lies a blot that can attach to
my honour. I have shown myself the friend of my country - the loyal subject of
my king. I am ready to do so again, without an instant's regard to the frowns or
smiles of a court. I have experienced both, and am prepared with indifference
for either.
    I have given my reasons for opposing this bill, and have made it appear that
it is repugnant to the international treaty of union, to the liberty of
Scotland, and, reflectively, to that of England, to common justice, to common
sense, and to the public interest. Shall the metropolis of Scotland, the capital
of an independent