De Foe published his History of the Union, while Greenshields's case was before the public. Had he waited until the decision of the House of Lords had been awarded, it is not unlikely, that he would have expressed himself in terms somewhat different. His conduct, however, in this matter, proves him to have been dishonest and unprincipled as a writer of history, whatever may have been the case with him in other matters. While the cause was pending, this unscrupulous writer insinuated, that the matter was devised by the Nonjurors, to bring "the people to prosecute and attack them." He says, that the Government and magistrates were so lenient, that they would not persecute the Nonjurors, though they even prayed for the Pretender, and that, therefore, another expedient was devised, "which they are assured the Scots will not bear: and this was erecting the Common Prayer or English Liturgy in Scotland." He proceeds: "the people that made this attempt, behoved to get somebody to do it: that, however Jacobite he might be in principle, was yet Latitudinarian enough in conscience, that he could swallow all the Oaths. The design being concerted, they found a tool: a poor curate of 15 lib. a year in Ireland, but born in Scotland, comes over to Edinburgh to mend his commons: and having taken the Oaths, he falls in with this party, who finding him a person of prostituted morals, a large stock in the face, and ready, if well paid, to do their work, they promise him fourscore pounds a year, and accordingly begin a subscription for it." He asserts, that the plea that it was used to accommodate the English strangers was not true. "The people," says he, "as every body knew they would, immediately took fire at the thing, but not doing him the honour to rabble him, which
