588 ARTILLERY COMPANY IN SCOTLAND AT THE TIME OF THE UNION. 
to the Rev. William Carstairs on the same subject in which he 
said: “I sent up a letter or two of his [Lord Teviot’s] to Captain 
Slezer in one of which he treats me like a little ensign which I will not 
bear whatever be the event.” This remark reminds one of the Border 
challenge :— 
“O wha daur meddle wi’ me! 
And wha daur meddle wi’? me! 
My name it is little Jock Elliot, 
And wha daur meddle wi’ me!” 
Having got his blood well up Lord Argyll sent an account of his 
wrongs to the Duke of Queensberry, Secretary of State for Scotland, 
and it gives us an insight into the power wielded by Mr. Carstairs 
when we find a letter from the noble Duke to the Scottish chaplain 
(Mr. Carstairs) begging the latter to settle this pretty quarrel between 
the two disputants as if it went on “there was no knowing what it 
would grow into.” And Lord Argyll kept the ball going by declaring 
there were many in Scotland “would sooner have no army taan have 
Lord Teviot for Commander-in-Chief.” How all this storm in a tea- 
pot ended does not appear, but pressure was put on Lord Teviot to 
resign his command in Scotland and he was succeeded as Commander- 
in-Chief by Major-General the Honourable George Ramsay, Colonel of 
the Scots Foot Guards, 1 February, 1700. And in the following 
year the Earl of Argyll was created a Duke. 
We now come to the last chapter of Slezer’s life. On the 25 
August, 1702, Queen Anne renewed his commission as “ Captain of 
the Train of Artillery in Scotland”? but he soon afterwards lost the 
accompanying post of ‘‘ Surveyor of Stores and Magazines.” In 1705 
he brought out his “ Case ” which there is every reason to believe is not 
exaggerated. Slezer’s biographer (Dr. Jamieson) states that! :— 
“Slezer was not less unfortunate with respect to his claims in his pro- 
fessional line, than as to those which he made as an author; for he 
states in his Case that although his commission as Captain of 
Artillery in 1690 expressly bore that he should have 12s. per diem, yet 
by the establishment in the year 1693 this was reduced one-third ; that 
although in his Majesty’s letter, Anno. 1695, this defalcation was said 
to be merely the consequence of a mistake and a mandate was issued 
that he should not only thenceforth receive the full-pay, but that the 
arrears should be paid up, yet after the receipt of this for two or three 
years he had been subjected to the same reduction by a similar mistake; 
that although honoured with a new commission from Queen Anne as 
captain and also surveyor of the public magazines in which he was 
allowed the original pay he had never ‘ received any benefit from her 
Royal intentions ;’ that he was the only officer in the Artillery, or in 
any other department of the Service, who had met with so hard a fate 
‘for what reason he would not take upon him to judge,’ and that 
matters continued on this same foot as long ‘as he was upon the 
Scotch Establishment.’ ” 
One of the debts which Slezer could not meet was for clothing 
1 Preface to Theatrum Scotia, p. 10. 
