1914-15.] BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH 403 



brighten I put in print now what I have. All I claim in 

 it is that I have removed doubts and uncertainties that 

 have hung over a period in the history of my predecessors 

 in the Keepership of the Royal Botanic Garden. Xowhere 

 in any of the documents referring to Arthur is mention 

 made of his having performed the duties of his Professor- 

 ship. Possibly during the summer months after his 

 appointment in May 1715. he may have given some atten- 

 tion to the Royal Garden and held colleges there before 

 his obsession by the political scheming which ended in 

 the abortive Castle Plot. We have no evidence. And we 

 must bear in mind that from 1706 the direction of the 

 Town's Botanic Garden and the Professorship of Botany 

 in the University were in the capable hands of Dr. Charles 

 Preston first of all, and then of his brother George Preston. 

 Their teaching would be in rivalry of that in the Royal 

 Garden, and doubtless they had acquired by the time that 

 James Sutherland left the Royal Garden a practical 

 monopoly of the teaching, inasmuch as Sutherland had 

 given himself up entirely to numismatics. In any case 

 Arthur's botanical work must have been of the slightest. 



One cannot but feel on reading Arthur's story of his 

 exploit that he was hardly of the stutf of which successful 

 conspirators are made. That it was through him that 

 information of the plot was conveyed to those who could 

 stop it. is not, as I have pointed out, beyond question. He 

 certainly suffered severely through the failure. The Earl 

 of Mar's opinion and appreciation of his services are 

 cynically shown in the following letter : — 



■■ The Duke of Mar to Captain Harry Straton. 

 " 1716, November 15. 



• A countryman of yours, a very pretty young man. is 

 lately dead at Rome, Dr. Arthur, and his brother Tom, who 

 is at Francis' quarters (the Firth of Forth), has fallen so 

 ill on it, that 'tis feared he'll die too. The Doctor at his 

 death. I hear, declared he was a Presbyterian, but a loyal 

 one, as he called it. which he thought was not at all 

 inconsistent. You know what was his kind of loyalty. 

 Pray are many of your Presbyterians of his opinion ? " 



Cal. Stuart Papers, iii. p. 215. 



