He said it was a union carried on by corruption and bribery within doors, by force and violence without; that the promoters of it had basely betrayed their trust, in giving up their independent constitution, and he would leave it to the judgment of the house, to consider whether or not men of such principles were fit to be admitted into their house of representatives.

He observed that her majesty, by the coronation oath, was obliged to maintain the church of England as by law established; and likewise bound by the same oath to defend the presbyterian kirk of Scotland in one and the same kingdom.

Now, said he, after this union is in force, who shall administer this oath to her majesty?
It is not the business of the Scots, who are incapable of it, and no well-wishers to the church of England.

It is then only the part of the bishops to do it, and can it be supposed that those reverend persons will, or can act a thing so contrary to their own order and institution, as thus to promote the establishment of the presbyterian church government in the united kingdom?
He added, that the church of England being established _jure divino_, and the Scots pretending that the kirk was also _jure divino_, he could not tell how two nations that clashed in so essential an article could unite; he therefore thought it proper to consult the convocation about this critical point.

A motion was made, that the first article of the treaty, which implies a peremptory agreement to an incorporating union, should be postponed; and that the house should proceed to the consideration of the terms of the intended union, contained in the other articles.