Volume 74 — SCOTLAND SINCE THE UNION.[1]

SCOTLAND SINCE THE UNION.^[1]

Notwithstanding all that has been said regarding the strict impartiality required from an historian, we are of opinion that the theory, however proper and plausible, can hardly be reduced to practice by any writer whilst treating of affairs in which he must feel a national or political interest. If facts alone were to be dealt with, it might, at first sight, appear no very difficult task to present an accurate and orderly array of these. But no one who has had occasion to investigate minutely contemporary records, for the purpose of arriving, if possible, at a clear and distinct understanding of the details of any one particular transaction, can have failed to remark the startling discrepancies and gross contradictions which meet him at every turn. There is, indeed, a common skeleton or framework, but the clay which is cast around it, and moulded into form, differs in shape according to the peculiar instincts of the artist. Even diarists, who might be supposed to be impartial, as labouring solely for their own gratification, are by no means to be implicitly received in regard to what they set down. The many tongues of rumour begin to babble contrariety almost as soon as a deed is acted. You cannot be certain that the event of yesterday is narrated to you one whit more faithfully than that which occurred a hundred years ago. All men have their prepossessions and tendencies towards belief—what they wish they accept without investigation; and discard with as little ceremony all that is obnoxious to their views. Men there are, undoubtedly, at all times, who cannot be termed partisans, seeing that they have no leaning to one side or other of a dispute; but theirs is the impartiality of indifference, not of conscientiousness. And as it rarely happens that a man thinks it worth his while to preserve a record of events in which he does not feel a vivid interest, history receives very little assistance from the contributions of cold-blooded spectators. Take any event of moderate remoteness; and, if it be of such a nature as to excite party antagonism, you will find, almost invariably, that the real evidence is resoluble into two parts—one of assertion and one of contradiction. For example, even a circumstance so publicly notorious as a political execution, shall be related by two eyewitnesses in a totally different manner. One of them, whose opinions are precisely identical with those of the victim, describes his bearing and demeanour at the scaffold as heroic, and claims for him the sympathy of the populace—the other, who regards him as a criminal of the deepest dye, charges him with cowardly pusillanimity, and declares that he departed from this life amidst the execrations of the mob. As to what took place before the execution, when the prisoner was necessarily secluded from the eyes of both witnesses, that must ever remain a mystery. The friend portrays him as a Christian martyr, surrounded by fiends in human shape, whose delight was to insult his misfortunes—the enemy would have you look upon him as a poltroon, whose fear of death was so abject as to overcome all his other faculties. So difficult is it, even at the source, to acquire accurate information as to the complexion of the facts upon which subsequent historians must found.

Passing from facts to motives, there is of course much greater discrepancy. The grand outlines of history cannot be violently distorted, though the accessories constantly are. Certain landmarks remain, like mountains, unchangeable in their form, though the portraying artist may invest them either with sunshine or with storm. But in dealing with the characters of public men, historians are rarely liberal, almost never impartial. They judge the man, not only by his cause, but by their estimate of his cause. If the tendencies of the writer are puritanical, he will see no merit in the devotion, loyalty, and courted sufferings of the cavalier; nay, he will often insinuate that he was actuated by baser motives. On the other hand, the writer who detests the violence and condemns the principles of the Parliamentarian faction, is too apt to include, in his general censure, men of unblemished life and irreproachable private character. And the temptation to exaggerate becomes all the greater, because exaggeration has already been practised on the other side.

Mr Burton, in his praiseworthy endeavours to elucidate the history of Scotland from the Revolution of 1688, down to the suppression of the Jacobite cause in 1746, has exhibited, throughout his work, very little of the spirit of the partisan. In this respect he is entitled to much credit—the more so perhaps, as, had he chosen to adopt the other course, he might have pleaded the example of a brilliant living authority, who is rather to be regarded as a fashioner than as a truthful exponent of history. His subject, too, is a difficult one, and such as few men living could approach without exhibiting a decided bias on one side or on the other. In Scotland, religious and political zeal run constantly into extremes, so that zealotry perhaps is the more appropriate term. There was no considerable neutral party in the country, constituted as it then was, to recall the others to reason, or to temper their stern enthusiasm; and hence arose that series of conflicts and commotions which, for more than a century, convulsed the kingdom. Even now, men are not agreed as to the points on which their ancestors disputed. They have inherited, concerning the events of the past, a political faith which they will not surrender; and the old leaven is seen to affect the consistency of modern character. From this sort of party spirit Mr Burton is remarkably free. He has diligently collected facts from every available source, but he has not allowed himself to be swayed by the deductions of previous writers. In forming his estimate of public characters, he has dismissed from his mind, as much perhaps as it was possible for man to do, the extravagant eulogy of the friend, and the indiscriminate abuse of the opponent; and it must be acknowledged that many of his individual portraits impress us with the idea of reality, though they differ widely in resemblance from the handiwork of other artists. A book of history, constructed on such principles, though it may not excite enthusiasm, is undeniably entitled to respect; and as Mr Burton was eminently qualified, by his previous studies and pursuits, to undertake this difficult task, we are glad at length to receive from his hands so valuable a contribution to the history of Scottish affairs during a period of peculiar importance.

If it were our intention to enter into a minute consideration of the subject-matter of the work, we should be inclined to take exception to some portions of the narrative, as calculated to convey erroneous impressions as to the social state of the country. We have already said that, as a political chronicler, Mr Burton may be considered as remarkably free from prejudice. We ought to add that he is equally fair in his estimate and analysis of the religious differences which were, in Scotland, for a long period, the fruitful sources of discord; and that he has succeeded, better than any former historian, in explaining the nature of the ecclesiastical difficulties which—arising out of the intricate question of the connection between Church and State, and the efforts of the latter to restrain the former from arrogating, as had been done before, an entire and dogmatic independence of action—have resulted in repeated secessions from the main Presbyterian body. But we cannot accord him the same meed of praise for his sketches of the Highlanders, and his attempted delineation of their character. The martial events of last century, in which the Highlanders were principally engaged, have given them, in the eyes of strangers, a prominence greater than is their due; so that, even at the present day, Englishmen and foreigners are apt, when reference is made to Scotland, to form an entirely mistaken view as to the bulk of the population. Many of the present generation must remember the singular spectacle which Edinburgh displayed during the visit of George IV., when the tartan mania was at its height, and the boundary of the clans seemed to have been extended from the Highland line to the Tweed. There was no harm in such a demonstration, but it tended to generate and diffuse false ideas; which, however, may be corrected without unduly lowering the position of the Highlanders, or denying them that consideration which their valour undoubtedly deserves. When we remember the materials of which the armies of Montrose, Dundee, Mar, and Charles Edward were composed, we should be slow to credit the assertion that the Highlanders have played an unimportant part in Scottish history; nor can we assent to the sweeping propositions advanced by writers who, for years past, have been ringing the changes upon what they are pleased to term the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race, over every other sept which has a distinct name, and especially over such of the inhabitants of the British Isles as are supposed to be of a different descent. Notwithstanding the vast intermixture of blood which has taken place, there are undoubtedly visible, even at the present day, in so small a country as Scotland, very marked peculiarities of race; but, without descending to the minute distinctions of the antiquarian, the Scottish nation has, by popular consent, been long divided into two sections, territorially separated—the Lowlanders and the Highlanders. Whatever may have been the origin of the Lowlanders, it is at all events certain that up to the reign of Malcolm III. there were few or no Saxons in the land. “Malcolm,” says Hailes, “had passed his youth at the English court; he married an Anglo-Saxon princess; he afforded an asylum in his dominions to many English and Norman malcontents. The king appeared in public with a state and retinue unknown in more rude and simple times, and affected to give frequent and sumptuous entertainments to his nobles. The natives of Scotland, tenacious of their ancient customs, viewed with disgust the introduction of foreign manners, and secretly censured the favour shown to the English and Norman adventurers, as proceeding from injurious partiality.” Of many important districts on the coasts, the Scandinavians acquired and retained possession, and some of the nobility and gentry are undoubtedly of Norman descent. But the old names, such as those of Douglas, Graham, Ogilvie, and Keith, are indigenous to the country, and have no more affinity with the Saxon than they have with the Hungarian race. Alexander III.—whose accidental death at Kinghorn led to the nefarious attempts of the English Edward upon the liberties of a free nation—was the last of a long line of Celtic monarchs, in whom, however, it is not now the fashion for our petty virtuosos to believe. That descent, which tradition had preserved from times of the remotest antiquity—which was referred to as acknowledged fact in the public acts of the legislature and official documents of the kingdom—which was not refuted nor denied when advanced as a plea against the pretended right of suzerainty asserted for the English crown—which such men as Fletcher and Belhaven cited in the course of their arguments against an entire incorporating union—is sneered at by modern antiquaries who have nothing to substitute for the faith which they seek to overthrow. Indeed, to call such gentlemen antiquaries, is a direct abuse of language. Scriblerus, we are told, flew into a violent passion when, by dint of unnecessary scouring, his handmaid demonstrated that the ancient buckler in which he prided himself, was nothing more than a rusty pot lid. His successors take the scouring into their own hands, and deny the possibility of a buckler. Our present business, however, is not with the pseudo-antiquaries—for whom we entertain a sentiment bordering very closely upon contempt—we simply wish to show that the term Saxon, as applied to the Scottish Lowlanders, is altogether inappropriate; and that, if there is any remarkable degree of energy in their character which distinguishes them from the Highlanders, it does not, at all events, arise from a superabundant infusion of the Anglo-Saxon blood. Energy, indeed, is about the last quality that can be claimed for the Saxons. They were brave, no doubt, but also intensely phlegmatic; and, in point of intellect, were not to be compared either to the Normans or the Danes. They were smally endowed with that imaginative faculty which is so remarkable a characteristic of the Celtic race—displayed but little aptitude for proficiency in the arts—and in all matters of taste and cultivation were exceedingly slow and unimpressible.

Owing to the peculiar nature of the country in which they were located, and to their obstinate adherence to the patriarchal, as opposed to the feudal system, the Highlanders retained not only their speech but their original manners and customs, while the Lowlanders were gradually altering theirs. Thus there came to be, within the same country, and nominally owing allegiance to the same sovereign, two great sections which held but little intercourse with each other. Still they were both Scots, and gathered round the same standard. At Bannockburn and at Flodden, the Highland chief and clansman fought alongside of the Lowland knight and man-at-arms; and some of the most powerful heads of tribes stood high in the roll of the nobility. In this way the Highland influence, important on account of the warlike material which it commanded, was always more or less powerfully represented at the court of Scotland; and although the southern population generally saw little, and knew less, of their northern neighbours, it is not true that there existed between them a feeling of strong animosity. Raids and reprisals there were undoubtedly; but these were common from Caithness to the border. The strife was not always between the tartan and the broadcloth. Scotts and Kerrs, Johnstones and Maxwells, fought and harried one another with as much ferocity as did the Campbells, Macdonalds, and M‘Leans in their mountain country; nor, if we are to trust contemporary accounts, is it very clear that the former were decidedly superior in civilisation to the latter.

Mr Burton, we think, has not done full justice to the Highland character. Whatever may be thought of the abstract merits of the cause which they espoused, the resolute adherence of the Highland clans to the exiled family, the surprising efforts which they made, and sufferings which they endured in the last memorable outbreak, must ever command our sympathy, and excite our warm admiration. Surely Mr Burton might have been contented with narrating the fact that, notwithstanding the reward of thirty thousand pounds offered for the apprehension of Prince Charles Edward, none of the poor Highlanders or outlaws whom he encountered in his wanderings would stoop to the treachery of betraying him, without suggesting that the amount “was too large for their imagination practically to grasp as an available fund”! The same under-current of depreciation towards the Highlanders is visible in his account of the atrocious massacre of Glencoe, and even in the half-apologetic manner in which he palliates, though not excuses, the butcheries of Cumberland after the battle of Culloden. It is necessary to note these blemishes, the rather because they occur in a work distinguished, in other respects, for a high degree of accuracy.

We have the less inclination to enter upon disputed grounds, because the points on which we differ from Mr Burton are not of practical moment. The political intrigues and risings of the last century have not left any permanent effect upon the social condition of the country; but the subsequent blending together of the Lowland and Highland population, and the establishment throughout the country of a uniform administration of the laws, have been productive of the happiest results. So far the changes have wrought well within Scotland. But the great event of last century undoubtedly is the union between England and Scotland, which, often proposed, and long delayed by mutual jealousy and clashing interests, has elevated Great Britain to the foremost rank among the European states.

That union was carried into effect, not as the result of any sympathy between the English and Scottish nations—for antipathy rather than sympathy was felt on both sides—but as an absolute political necessity. In truth, such an event was an almost inevitable sequel to the union of the crowns in the person of one monarch, at least if that arrangement was to be maintained; and it could not be long delayed. There is, in Lockhart’s Papers, an anecdote which shows how early this was foreseen. “We are told,” says he, “that when King James was preparing to go and take possession of his crown of England, his subjects of Scotland came to take their leave of him, and attend him part of his way thither with all the state and magnificence imaginable; but amongst these numerous attendants, decked up in their finest apparel, and mounted on their best horses, there appeared an old reverend gentleman of Fife, clothed all over in the deepest mourning; and being asked why, whilst all were contending to appear most gay on such an occasion, he should be so singular? ‘Why, truly,’ replied he, ‘there is none of you congratulate His Majesty’s good fortune more than I do, and here I am to perform my duty to him. I have often marched this road, and entered England in an hostile manner, and then I was as well accoutered in clothes, horses, and arms, as my neighbours, and suitable to the occasion; but since I look upon this procession as Scotland’s funeral solemnity, I’m come to perform my last duty to my deceased and beloved country, with a heart full of grief, and in a dress correspondent thereto.’ This gentleman, it seems, foresaw that, by the removal of the king’s residence from Scotland, the subject wanted an occasion of making so immediate an application to the fountain of justice, and the state of the nation could not be so well understood by the king; so that the interest and concerns of every particular person, and likewise of the nation in general, would be committed to the care of the ministers of state, who, acting with a view to themselves, could not fail to oppress the people. He foresaw that England, being a greater kingdom, made (as said Henry VII. when he gave his daughter to the King of Scotland rather than the King of France) an acquisition of Scotland, and that the king would be under a necessity of siding with, and pleasing the most powerful of his two kingdoms, which were jealous of, and rivals to, one another; and that, therefore, ever after the union of the crowns, the king would not mind, at least dare encourage, the trades of Scotland; and that all state affairs would be managed, laws made and observed, ministers of state put in and turned out, as suited best with the interest and designs of England; by which means trade would decay, the people be oppressed, and the nobility and great men become altogether corrupted.” These anticipations—though probably confined to a few who were not dazzled at the prospect of the enormous succession which had opened to their prince, nor rendered blind to the future by the splendour of the present triumph—were afterwards thoroughly realised. From the union of the crowns, Scotland derived no permanent benefit, but the reverse. She retained, indeed, her parliament; but she had parted with the presence of her sovereign, who was entirely surrounded and swayed by English influence. Whenever the interests of the two countries clashed—and that was not seldom—the weaker was sure to suffer; and thus, instead of increasing amity, a feeling even bitterer than that which had existed while the kingdoms were entirely independent, was engendered. No wonder that there were rebellions and outbreaks; for, in a political point of view, it would have been better for Scotland to have had no king at all, than to owe allegiance to one who was necessarily under English dictation. Hence, instead of advancing like England, steadily in the path of prosperity, Scotland rapidly decayed—until, to use the words of an historian of the union—“in process of time, the nobility and gentry turned, generally speaking, so corrupted by the constant and long tract of discouragement to all that endeavoured to rectify the abuses and advance the interests of the country, that the same was entirely neglected, and religion, justice, and trade made tools of to advance the private and sinister designs of selfish men; and thus the nation, being for a hundred years in a manner without a head, and ravaged and gutted by a parcel of renegadoes, became, from a flourishing, happy people, extremely miserable.”

Passages like the foregoing are apt to be regarded as general complaints, which hardly could be substantiated by reference to special instances. There is, however, abundance of evidence to show that Scotland, during the period which intervened between the union of the crowns and that of the kingdoms, was greatly depressed by the influence and policy of her more powerful neighbour. Under Cromwell, an entire freedom of trade had been established between the two countries. His ordinance was as follows: “That all customs, excise, and other imposts for goods transported from England to Scotland, and from Scotland to England, by sea or land, are, and shall be, so far taken off and discharged, as that all goods for the future shall pass as free, and with like privileges, and with the like charges and burdens, from England to Scotland, and from Scotland to England, as goods passing from port to port, or place to place in England; and that all goods shall and may pass between Scotland and any other part of this commonwealth or dominions thereof, with the like privileges, freedom, and charges, as such goods do or shall pass between England and the said parts or dominions.”

“Thus,” remarks Mr Burton, who has entered very fully and distinctly into the trading and commercial history of the times, “there was no privilege enjoyed by traders in England which was not communicated to Scotland; and what was not even attempted in France till the days of Turgot, and only arose in Germany with the Prussian league—an internal free trade—was accomplished for Britain in the middle of the seventeenth century. It was during the few years of prosperity following this event that many of our commercial cities arose. Scotland enjoyed peace and abundance, and was making rapid progress in wealth.”

After the Restoration, however, the Parliament of England repealed this wise arrangement, and by enacting that the Scottish people should be commercially considered as aliens, introduced a fresh element of discord between the nations.

“In 1667, commissioners were appointed from the two kingdoms to treat of union, when this object of a free trade was at once brought prominently forward on the part of Scotland, and at once repelled on that of England. It was stated that the colonies had been created at the expense of Englishmen, and should exist for their advantage only; that the East India and some other trades were monopolies in the hands of companies, not even open to the English at large, which it was out of the question to communicate to any strangers; and, finally, that the privileges of English shipping were far too precious to the merchants of England to be extended to Scotsmen.”

This churlishness on the part of England was the more inexcusable, because the Scots nation was not left, as of old, free to form an unfettered and reciprocal alliance with any of the Continental states. From very early times, the relations between Scotland and France had been of the most intimate description—it being the policy of the latter country to support the former, and to retain its friendship, as the most effective check upon English aggression. The military service of France had long been open to the enterprising Scottish youth, and at the French universities the northern men of letters were received with open arms. But the union of the crowns, if it did not entirely close, at least greatly limited the extent of this intercourse. If England went to war with France, all communication with Scotland was necessarily closed. It might not be Scotland’s quarrel, but the enemies of the King of England were also to be considered as her foes. Hence she found that, on the one hand, her old relations were ruthlessly broken off, whilst, on the other, she was denied all participation in the commercial privileges which were rapidly augmenting the wealth of her southern neighbour. Hume tells us that “the commerce and riches of England did never, during any period, increase so fast as from the Restoration to the Revolution.” At the accession of the Stuarts to the English throne, the revenue of that country amounted to about £500,000: in 1688, when James II. left the throne, it had risen to £2,000,000. Within twenty-eight years the shipping of England had more than doubled. And, while this extraordinary degree of prosperity prevailed in the south, Scotland was daily becoming poorer, not through the fault or indolence of her people, but in consequence of that anomalous connection, which, while it withheld any new advantages, deprived her of the opportunity of the old.

One effort, which well deserves to be remembered in history, was made by the Scottish nation to rescue themselves from this degrading position. We allude to the Darien scheme, which, though unfortunate in its issue, was yet as bold and comprehensive a commercial enterprise as ever was undertaken. That it failed, was undoubtedly not the fault of the projectors. The most disgraceful means were used on the part of the English government, at the instigation of English merchants alarmed for the continuance of their monopoly, to render it abortive; and even were the character of William of Orange otherwise without reproach, his duplicity and treacherous dealing in this transaction would remain as a dark blot upon his memory. But in thus attempting, disreputably and unfairly, to crush the rising spirit of Scottish enterprise in a field hitherto unoccupied, the English advisers of the crown had gone too far. True, they had succeeded in annihilating nearly all the available capital of the northern kingdom, which had been embarked in this gigantic scheme; but they had also roused to a point almost of ungovernable fury the passion of an insulted people. There is this peculiarity about the Scots, that they are slow to proclaim a grievance, but resolute to redress it when proclaimed. The extreme quietude of demeanour and retinence of speech have sometimes been falsely interpreted as indicative of a want of spirit; whereas, on the contrary, no people can be more keenly alive than they are to a sense of injury. And such was the attitude of the Scottish parliament at the time, and such the defiant tone of the nation, that William, seriously alarmed for the safety of his throne, “took up the neglected question of the union, and earnestly recommended such a measure to the House of Lords, with a special reference to the history of Darien, and to the adjustment of trading privileges, as the only means of saving the two nations from endless and irreconcilable discord.”

It was not, however, destined that the union of the kingdoms should be effected under the auspices of the prince whose name in Scotland is indissolubly connected with the tragedies of Glencoe and Darien. The accession of Queen Anne, a daughter of the house of Stuart, inspired the Scottish people with the hope that their grievances might be at last redressed, or, at all events, be considered with more fairness than they could expect from her predecessor, who was an utter stranger to their habits and their laws, and whose title to rule, being questionable in itself, might naturally lead him to show undue favour to the stronger nation which had accepted him, at the expense of the weaker and more remote. It was now perfectly evident to all who were capable of forming a judgment on the matter, that, unless some decided step were taken for admitting the Scots to a commercial reciprocity with the English, an entire separation of the two kingdoms must inevitably take place. With a large portion of the northern population, the latter alternative would have been cheerfully accepted. What they complained of was, that they were uselessly fettered by England—could not take a single step in any direction without interfering or being interfered with by her—were denied the privilege, which every free nation should possess, of making their own alliances; and had not even the right of sending an accredited ambassador to a foreign court. They had no objection, but the reverse, to be associated with England on fair terms; but hitherto there appeared no reason to hope that such terms would ever be granted; and they would not consent to be degraded from their rank as an independent nation. The English were, on the other hand, exceedingly adverse to any measure of conciliation. As in individuals, so in nations, there are always peculiarities which distinguish one from another; and an overweening idea of their own superiority is essentially the English characteristic. A great deal has been and is written in the South about Scottish nationality—it is, in reality, nothing compared to the feelings which are entertained by the Englishman. But of this we shall have occasion to speak presently; in the mean time, it is sufficient to note that no measure could have been more unpopular in the trading towns and shipping ports of England, than one which proposed to admit the subjects of the same crown to an equal participation of privileges. Accordingly, the first attempt of Queen Anne, made only three days after her accession, in her opening speech to the Parliament of England, towards a union between the two countries, proved entirely abortive. It is worth while quoting from Mr Burton the note—for it is little more—of this negotiation, for the purpose of showing how determined the English people were to maintain their old monopoly. Commissioners on either side were appointed.

“It became at once apparent that the admission of Scotland to equal trading privileges was still the great difficulty on the side of England. The first fundamental proposition—the succession to the throne, according to the Act of Settlement—was readily acceded to, as well as the second for giving the United Kingdom one legislature. As an equivalent fundamental article, the Scottish commissioners demanded ‘the mutual communication of trade, and other privileges and advantages.’ To this it was answered, that such a communication was indeed a necessary result of a complete union; but a specific answer was deferred, until the Board should discuss ‘the terms and conditions’ of this communication. There was a deficiency of attendance of English members to form a quorum, which for some time interrupted the treaty. Whether this was from their being otherwise occupied, or from distaste of the business before them, it chafed the spirits of the Scots. When the two bodies were brought together again, the trade demands of the Scots were articulately set forth. They demanded free trade between the two nations; the same regulations and duties in both countries for importation and exportation; equal privileges to the shipping and seamen of the two nations; the two nations not to be burdened with each other’s debts, or, if they were to be so, an equivalent to be paid to Scotland, as the nation more unequally so burdened; and, lastly, it was proposed that these demands should be considered without reference to existing companies in either kingdom. This was well understood by both parties to have reference to the Darien affair.

“On the part of England it was conceded that ‘there be a free trade between the two kingdoms for the native commodities of the growth, product, and manufactures of the respective countries.’ But even this concession, defined so as to exclude external trade, was not to extend to wool—an article on which English restrictions on exportation, for the support of home manufacture, had risen to a fanatical excess. A reference was made to the colonial trade—the main object of the Scottish demand of an exchange of commercial privileges. It was postponed, and in a tone indicating that it was too precious, as a privilege of Englishmen and a disqualification of Scotsmen, to be conceded.”

After further communing, without any satisfactory result, the meetings of the commissioners were adjourned; and there stands on the minutes of the Scottish Parliament the following brief but exceedingly emphatic resolution, that the Scottish commission for the treaty is terminate and extinct, and not to be revived without the consent of the Estates.

These details are absolutely necessary for a proper understanding of the circumstances under which the great Act of Union of the two kingdoms was finally carried. Former historians have given too much prominence to mere party intrigues and ecclesiastical contests, which, though they undoubtedly lend a colour to the transactions of the times, are by no means to be regarded as the sole motives of action. The Presbyterian form of Church government was by this time finally settled; and there was no wish, on the part of any large section in the country, to have that settlement disturbed. The Jacobite or Cavalier party regarded the proposals for a union with suspicion, as necessarily involving a surrender of their cherished principle of legitimacy; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that many of them were rather glad than otherwise to perceive that the failure of the negotiation was entirely attributable to the tenacity and superciliousness of the English. Some of the nobility were conscientiously opposed to an entire incorporating union as degrading to the country, and injurious to the dignity of their own order; and they were supported in that view by a large number of the gentry, who were not sufficiently conversant with commercial affairs to understand the enormous importance of the development of the national trade. But in the midst of parties actuated by traditionary feeling and sectarian motives, there had arisen one, the members of which were fully alive to the critical state of the country, earnestly impressed with the necessity of elevating its position, and, withal, determined that its honour should not suffer in their hands.

At the head of this independent body of politicians was Fletcher of Saltoun, a man of high and vigorous intellect, but of a hasty and impetuous nature. Fletcher was heart and soul a Scotsman, and devoted to his country. Loyalty to the sovereign was with him a secondary consideration—indeed he seems always to have entertained the theory that the kingly office was simply the result of the election of the people. He had taken an active part in Monmouth’s rebellion, and fought against King James—William he looked upon as no better than a usurping tyrant—and he was now ready to transfer the crown, if transferred it must be, to the head of any claimant, if by so doing he could rescue his country from what he deemed to be intolerable degradation. Those who followed Fletcher, and acted along with him in Parliament, did not subscribe to all these peculiar opinions; but, like him, they regarded the welfare of the country as their primary object, and were determined, since England would not come to terms, to achieve once more an entire and thorough independence. They looked for support, as brave men will ever do in such emergencies, not to party politicians who might use and betray them, but to the great body of the people; and they did not appeal in vain.

The last Parliament ever held in Scotland, assembled on the 6th of May 1703. Nothing was said about further negotiation for a union, but something was done significant of the determination of the country to vindicate its rights. An act was passed restraining the right of the monarch to make war, on the part of Scotland, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Another, by removing the restrictions on the importation of French wines, was intended to show that the Scottish legislature did not consider themselves involved in the English continental policy. But the most important measure by far was that termed the “Act for the Security of the Kingdom.” The crown of England had been formally settled upon the Princess Sophia and her heirs, failing direct descendants of Queen Anne, and it appears to have been confidently expected that the Scottish Parliament would adopt the same order of succession. So little doubt seems to have been entertained on this point, that no conference on the subject had been held or even proposed,—a neglect which the Scots were entitled to consider either as an insult, or as an indirect intimation that they were at perfect liberty to make their own arrangements. The latter view was that which they chose to adopt. In their then temper, indeed, it was not to be expected that they would let slip the opportunity of testifying to England that, except on equal terms, they would enter into no permanent alliance, and that, in the event of these not being granted, they were desirous to dissolve the connection by effecting a separation of the crowns. The main provisions of the Act, as it was passed, were these:—

“That on the death of the Queen without issue, the Estates were to name a successor from the Protestant descendants of the royal line of Scotland, but the admitted successor to the crown of England was excluded from their choice, unless ‘there be such conditions of government settled and enacted as may secure the honour and sovereignty of this crown and kingdom,—the freedom, frequency, and power of Parliaments,—the religion, freedom, and trade of the nation, from English or any foreign influence.’ It was made high treason to administer the coronation oath without instructions from the Estates. By a further clause, to come in force immediately, the nation was placed in a state of defence, and the able-bodied population were ordained to muster under their respective heritors or burgh magistrates.”

This act, though not formally ratified until another session, affords the true key to the history of the great Union effected in 1707, whereby the people of two kingdoms, long rivals and often at hostility, were happily blended into one. It is not our intention to enter into any minute details regarding the progress of that measure, or to depict the popular feeling with which it was received. It was hardly possible that an event of this magnitude could take place, without exciting in some quarters a feeling of regret for altered nationality, and creating in others a strong misgiving for the future. But, in reality, there was no national surrender. The treaty was conducted and carried through on terms of perfect equality. England and Scotland were united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain, and their separate ensigns were appointed to be conjoined. Each division was to retain its own laws, institutions, and ecclesiastical polity, and one Parliament was to legislate for the whole. It was upon the latter point that the great difference of opinion prevailed. Some advocated—and the reasons they adduced were not without their weight—a federal union, which would at least have the effect of preserving to Scotland the administration of its own affairs. They maintained that, under an incorporating union, the interests of Scotland, in so far as their own domestic and peculiar institutions were concerned, must necessarily, in the course of time, be neglected, in as much as the Scottish representatives in the Imperial Parliament would constitute but a small minority—that by entire centralisation of government, the wealth of the lesser country would be gradually attracted to the greater—and that no guarantees could justify the imprudence of parting with an administrative and controlling power over such matters as were intended to remain peculiarly distinctive of the nation. The experience of well-nigh a century and a half has proved that such apprehensions were not altogether without a foundation, and that the predicted tendency to absorb and centralise was not the mere phantom of an inflamed patriotic imagination; nevertheless, we are clearly of opinion that the objections which were raised to a federal were of far greater weight than those which could be urged against an incorporating union. It is impossible, we think, to read the history of last century without perceiving that a federal union, however skilfully framed, could hardly have been maintained unbroken—it would at any rate have engendered jealousies and perpetuated prejudices which are now happily set at rest—and it probably would have been a material bar to that unrestricted intercourse which has been productive of so much advantage to both divisions of the island. But, while granting this, we by no means intend to deny that centralisation, when pushed beyond a certain necessary point, may not become a grievance which loudly calls for a remedy.

To judge from their language, and the general tone of their opinions, many of our brethren in the south seem to regard the Union simply as an act by means of which Scotland was annexed to England. A few weeks ago, a presumptuous scribbler in a London weekly journal, while reviewing Mr Burton’s work, designated Scotland as the incorporated, in contradistinction to the incorporating body; and although we do not suppose that such exceeding ignorance of historical fact is common, we are nevertheless constrained to believe that a good deal of misapprehension prevails as to the real nature of the treaty. Even the language of statesmen in Parliament is often inaccurate, and has a tendency to promote false views upon the subject. To talk of the laws of England or of her Church, is strictly correct, for these are peculiar to, and distinctive of herself; but such expressions as the English flag, English army, English parliament, &c., are altogether inappropriate, unless, indeed, the Treaty of Union is to be considered as an absolute dead letter. These things may be deemed trifles; but still there is a significance in words, which becomes the greater the oftener they are employed. We have, however, no desire to cavil about terms; nor would we have noticed such a matter, if it were not also evident that there has been, for some time past, and still is, a tendency to regard Scotland in the light of a subsidiary province, and to deal with her accordingly. Such, we say, is the case at present; but we do not therefore by any means conclude that there is a desire to defraud us of our privileges, or to degrade us from our proper position. We believe that we have grievances for which we require redress; but we are induced to attribute the existence of these grievances, most of which have been generated by neglect, rather to the limited number of our national representatives, and the inadequate provision which has been made for the administration of Scottish affairs, than to any intention on the part of British statesmen to withhold from us what we consider to be our due. Still, as claimants, and especially as claimants under so solemn a treaty, we are not only entitled, but bound to state our case, which we shall do, we hope, with proper temperance and discretion.

We have often been told, especially of late years, that any expression of what is called Scottish nationality is absurd, and likely to be injurious to the general interest of the kingdom; and those journals who have taken upon themselves the task of ridiculing any movement on the part of Scotsmen to obtain what they consider to be their just privileges under a solemn international treaty, beseech us not “to engage in a disgraceful imitation of the worst features of Irish character.” We certainly have no intention of imitating the Irish; but we have as little idea of relinquishing that which is our own, or of submitting to domineering pretensions which have not a shadow of a foundation to rest on. In all matters common to the British empire, we acknowledge but one interest—in all matters peculiar to Scotland, we claim a right to be heard.

To say that Scottish nationality is a dream without an object, is to deny history, and to fly in the face of fact. The Union neither did nor could denationalise us. It left us in undisturbed possession of our national laws and our national religion; and it further provided, as well as could be done at the period, and most anxiously, for the future maintenance of those institutions which the state is bound to foster and preserve. If it had been intended that in all time coming the Imperial Parliament of Britain was to have full liberty to deal as it pleased with the internal affairs of Scotland, certainly there would not have been inserted in the treaty those stringent clauses, which, while they maintain the institutions of the past, lay down rules for their regulation in the future. These were, to all intents and purposes, fundamental conditions of the treaty; and to that treaty, both in word and spirit, we look and appeal. We can assure our friends in the south that they will hear nothing of what a polished and judicious journalist has had the exquisite taste to term “a parcel of trash about Bannockburn, and sticks of sulphur of which a schoolboy, in his calmer moments, might feel ashamed.” We have no intention whatever, as the same ornament of letters has averred, of demanding a repeal of the Union—on the contrary, our demand resolves itself into this, that the spirit of the treaty should be observed, and the same consideration be shown by Parliament to matters which are purely Scottish, as to those which relate exclusively to England. And until it shall be received as righteous doctrine, that men are not only ridiculous, but culpable, in demanding what has been guaranteed to them, we shall give such assistance as lies in our power, to any movement in Scotland for the vindication of the national rights.

That the provisions of the Treaty of Union were just and equitable, will not be disputed. They were adjusted with much care, with much difficulty, and were, in many points of view, exceedingly favourable to Scotland. But, unfortunately, almost from the very outset, a series of infringements began. Mr Burton, who certainly does not exaggerate Scottish grievances, remarks, “that many of the calamities following on the Union, had much encouragement, if they did not spring from that haughty English nature which would not condescend to sympathise in, or even know, the peculiarities of their new fellow-countrymen.” We go even further than this; for we are convinced that, had the provisions of the Union been scrupulously observed, and a judicious delicacy used in the framing of the new regulations necessary for the establishment of a uniform fiscal system—had the pride of the Scots not been wantonly wounded, and a strong colour given to the suspicions of the vulgar that the national cause had been betrayed—it is more than probable that no serious rising would have been attempted on behalf of the Stuarts. Obviously it was the policy of the English to have conciliated the Scots, and by cautious and kindly treatment to have reconciled them to their new position. But conciliation is not one of the arts for which Englishmen are famed; and it is not improbable that the nation was possessed with the idea that the Scots had, somehow or other, obtained a better bargain than they were altogether entitled to. Moreover, the English were then, as some of them are even now, profoundly ignorant of the history, temper, and feelings of the northern population. Mr Burton very justly remarks:—

“The people of Scotland, indeed, knew England much better than the people of England knew Scotland—perhaps as any village knows a metropolis better than the people of the metropolis know the village. Those who pursued historical literature, it is true, were acquainted with the emphatic history of the people inhabiting the northern part of the island, and were taught by it to respect and fear them; but the ordinary Englishman knew no more about them than he did about the natives of the Faroe or Scilly isles. The efforts of the pamphleteers to make Scotland known to the English at the period of the Union, are like the missionary efforts at the present day to instruct people about the policy of the Caffres or the Japanese.”

No sooner was the Union effected, than disputes began about duties. Illegal seizures of Scottish vessels were made by the authorities. Englishmen, wholly ignorant of the laws and habits of those among whom they were to reside, were appointed to superintend the revenue; and, as sometimes occurs even at the present day, the dogmatic adherence of such men to the technicalities of the “system” under which they were bred, and their intolerance of any other method, made them peculiarly odious, and cast additional unpopularity upon the English name. If we again quote Mr Burton on this subject, it is less with the view of exposing what formerly took place, than in the hope that the spirit of his remarks, not altogether inapplicable even now, may penetrate the obtuse mist which shrouds our public departments; and lead to some relaxation of that bigoted bureaucracy which prevails in the Government offices. It has been, we are aware, laid down as an axiom that the local business of any district is best conducted by a stranger. Our view is directly the reverse. We maintain that an intimate knowledge of the people with whom he is to transact, is a high qualification for an official; and it is much to be regretted that the opposite system has been pursued in London, under the baneful influence of centralisation.

“Cause of enmity still more formidable passed across to Scotland itself, where the Englishman showed his least amiable characteristics. To manage the revenue, new commissioners of excise and customs were appointed, consisting in a great measure of Englishmen. They were followed by subordinate officers trained in the English method of realising the duties, whose distribution throughout the country afforded opportunities for saying that a swarm of harpies had been let loose on the devoted land, to suck its blood and fatten on the spoils of the oppressed people. The Englishman’s national character is not the best adapted for such delicate operations. He lays his hand to his functions with a steady sternness, and resolute unconsciousness of the external conditions by which he is surrounded. The subordinate officer generally feels bound, with unhesitating singleness of purpose, to the peculiar methods followed at home in his own ‘department,’ as being the only true and sound methods. He has no toleration for any other, and goes to his duty among strangers as one surrounded by knaves and fools, whose habits and ideas must be treated with disdain. Thus has it often happened, that the collective honesty and national fidelity to engagements of the English people, have been neutralised by the tyrannical pride and surly unadaptability of the individual men who have come in contact with other nations.”

These arrangements were evidently unwise, as being calculated to produce throughout the country a spirit of discontent among the middle and lower classes, whom the Government ought to have conciliated by every means in their power. There is much independence of thought, as well as shrewdness, among the Scottish peasantry and burghers; and their hearty co-operation and good-will would have been an effectual barrier against any attempts to overthrow the Hanoverian succession. To that, indeed, as a security for the maintenance of the Presbyterian form of church government, they were well inclined; and, therefore, it was of the more moment that they should be reconciled as speedily as possible to the Union. But instead of the fair side of the picture, the dark one was imprudently presented to them. The taxation was greatly increased, the measures altered according to a foreign standard, and a degree of rigour exercised in the collection of the revenue, to which they had been previously unaccustomed. Against these immediate burdens and innovations, it was of no use to expatiate upon future prospects of national prosperity as an off-set. The Commons, never keenly in favour of the Union, began presently to detest it; and, if they did not absolutely wish success to the Jacobite cause, it was pretty generally understood that they would take no active measures to oppose a rising which at least might have the effect of freeing them from a burdensome connection.

Nothing, indeed, could be more injudicious than the early legislation of the United Parliament in regard to Scottish affairs. In order to strengthen the hands of the English officers of customs and excise located in the north, who could not understand the technicalities, and would not observe the forms of a law to which they were habitually strangers, it was determined that the Scottish Justices of the Peace should be made fac-similes of the English. We may conceive the horror of a grim Presbyterian west-country laird at finding himself associated in the commission with “the most reverent father in Christ, and our faithful counsellor, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and metropolitan thereof!” Then came the abolition of the Scottish Privy Council, and a new act for the trial of treason, superseding the authority of the Court of Justiciary, and introducing the commission, unintelligible to Scottish ears, of Oyer and Terminer. This was passed in the face of the united opposition of the whole body of the Scottish members. Then came the Patronage Act, which effected a schism in the church, and others more or less injurious or injudicious; so that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion of Mr Burton, “that English statesmen, had they desired to alienate Scotland, and create a premature revulsion against the Union, could not have pursued a course better directed to such an end.” In fact, the existence of the Union was at one time in the greatest peril. The Scottish members of the House of Commons, though almost to a man returned on the Revolution interest, held a meeting for the purpose of considering the propriety of taking steps to have the Union dissolved; and it does not appear that there was a single dissentient voice. Lockhart, the member for Mid-Lothian, who summoned the meeting, has given us a sketch of his statement, the most important points of which were as follows: “That the Scots trade was sunk and destroyed by the many prohibitions, regulations, and impositions on it, and the heavy taxes imposed on the native produce and manufacture (all which were calculated and adapted to the conveniency and circumstances of England, with which those of Scotland did noways correspond); and that the country was exhausted of money, by the remittance of so great a part of the public taxes, and the great recourse of so many Scotsmen to London: if matters stood long on such a footing, the ruin and misery of Scotland was unavoidable; that from the haughty and insolent treatment we had lately received, it was sufficiently evident we could expect no just redress from the English.” The result of the conference was a communication with the Scottish Representative Peers, who were also by this time thoroughly disgusted with the Union; and the Earl of Findlater, selected as the mouthpiece of the party, moved the dissolution of the Union in the House of Lords, and succeeded in effecting an equal division of the members present. The motion was lost by the small majority of three upon the proxies.

It is remarkable that in this debate the Duke of Argyle and his brother, Lord Ilay, both warm friends of the Hanoverian succession, spoke strongly in favour of the motion; thus showing how keenly and universally the attempt to provincialise Scotland was felt by all classes. It became evident that, under such a system of administration, Scotland could not long remain tranquil; and, accordingly, the death of Queen Anne was followed by the raising of the insurrectionary standard.

Mar’s rebellion was at length quelled, mainly through the efforts and personal popularity of the Duke of Argyle. In all human probability it never would have taken place, but for the encouragement held out to the Jacobites by the universal discontent of Scotland. But in spite of every warning, the ministers of the day persevered in a line of conduct most offensive to the northern population. They suppressed the important office of the Scottish Secretary of State, as if the affairs of that kingdom were of so little importance, that an English Secretary, who knew nothing of the people or their laws, was perfectly competent to superintend their business in addition to that of the other country. Such an arrangement as this, however, was too preposterous to remain unaltered. The English Secretary might just as well have attempted to administer the affairs of Muscovy as those of Scotland; and, in process of time, the functions of Secretary were quietly handed over to the Lord Advocate—a combination of which the country has had much reason to complain, and which it certainly ought not to tolerate longer. The history of the country between 1715 and 1745, is, with the exception of a short period during which the Duke of Argyle exercised a sort of provisional vice-royalty, little else than a catalogue of repeated innovations and dissensions. At that time Scotland was regarded by English statesmen as a dangerous and smouldering volcano; and fully half a century, dating from the time of the Union, went by, before anything like a feeling of cordiality was established between the two nations.

When we regard Scotland as it is now—tranquil, prosperous, and enterprising—we are naturally led to wonder at the exceeding greatness of the change. The change, however, is not in the character of the people: they are still as jealous of what they esteem to be their just rights and guaranteed privileges as ever; but they have felt, and fully appreciate, the advantages which they have derived from the union; a closer intercourse has taught them to respect and admire the many estimable qualities of the English character; and they perceive that a very great deal of the aggression of which their fathers complained, and which led not only to heartburnings but to civil strife, arose rather from ignorance than from deliberate intention of offence. And if, even now, there are some matters with regard to which they consider that they have not received justice, these have not been, and will not be, made the subjects of a reckless agitation. No one believes that there is any design on the part of England to deal unkindly or unfairly with her sister. We may, indeed, complain that purely Scottish matters are treated with comparative indifference in the British House of Commons; but, then, it is impossible to forget that the great majority of the members know very little indeed of the Scottish laws and institutions. There is some truth in one observation of the Times—though the writer intended it for a sneer—“that the Scottish representatives in London are not only regarded with the deepest respect, but to them the highest of all compliments is paid—namely, that when a Scotch subject is brought before the House, almost invariably the matter is left to their own decision, without interference of any kind.” If the Times could have added that Scottish business obtained that prominence to which it is entitled—that our bills were not invariably shuffled off and postponed, as if they related to matters of no moment whatever—the statement might be accepted as satisfactory. Even as it is, we are not inclined to stand greatly upon our dignity. Neglect is, upon the whole, preferable to over-legislation; and we are not covetous of the repetition of such experiments as were made by the late Sir Robert Peel upon our banking system. But, so far as we know, beyond an occasional grumble at slight and delay, there has been no serious remonstrance on this head. What we do remonstrate against is, that while exposed to an equal taxation with England, Scotland does not receive the same, or anything like the same, encouragement for her national institutions, and that her local interests are not properly cared for on the part of the British government.

We are very anxious that this matter should be stated fairly and calmly, so that our brethren in the south may judge for themselves whether or not there is substantive reason in the appeal for “Justice to Scotland” which, having been faintly audible for many years, is now sounded throughout the land. We have anything but a wish to make mountains out of molehills, or to magnify and parade trifles as positive grievances. Therefore we shall not allude to such matters as heraldic arrangements, though why the stipulations made by treaty with regard to these should be violated or overlooked, we cannot comprehend. If emblems are to be retained at all, they ought to be in strict accordance with the position of the things which they represent. Our real complaints, however, are not of a nature which will admit of so easy a remedy as the application of a painter’s brush, or a readjustment of quarterings; nor can they be laughed down by silly sneers at the attitude of the Scottish Lion. They are substantial and specific; and both the honour and the interest of Scotland are concerned in obtaining their redress.

And first we maintain, and refer to the Treaty of Union, and our present arrangements as proof, that the equality established between England and Scotland has been observed only as regards equality of taxation, but has been disregarded in the matter of allowances. We ask Englishmen, against whom the charge of pecuniary injustice has almost never been made, and who frequently have erred, in regard to foreign connection and subsidy, on the other side, to take into serious consideration the facts which we are about to adduce.

The object of the Treaty of Union was to establish uniformity of trade and privilege, internal and external, throughout the United Kingdom; to equalise taxation and burdens; and to extinguish all trace of separate interest in matters purely imperial. But it was not intended by the Union to alter or innovate the laws and institutions of either country—on the contrary, these were strictly excepted and provided for. The previous acts, both of the English and the Scottish Parliaments, remained in force, applicable to the two countries: but, for the future, all legislation was to be intrusted to one body, “to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain.” Referring again to the Treaty of Union, we find anxious and careful provision made for the maintenance in Scotland of three national institutions, the Church, the Courts, and the Universities; all of which the united legislature was bound to recognise and protect. In short, the whole spirit and tenor of the Treaty is, that, without altering national institutions, equality should be observed as much as possible in the future administration of the countries.

It cannot be pretended that the Union implied no real sacrifice on the part of the Scottish people. London, to the exclusion of Edinburgh, became the seat of government. Thither the nobility and wealthier gentry were drawn, and there a considerable portion of the revenue of the country was expended. That was the inevitable consequence of the arrangement which was made, and the Scots were too shrewd not to perceive it. But, on the other hand, the advantages which the union offered, seemed, in prospect at least, to counterbalance the sacrifice; and it was understood that, though the Scottish parliament was abolished, and the great offices of state suppressed, the remanent local institutions were to receive from the British government that consideration and support which was necessary to maintain them in a healthy state of existence.

It is almost to be regretted that the Treaty of Union was not more distinct and specific on those points; and that no stipulation was made for the expenditure of a fair proportion of the revenue raised from Scotland within her bounds. That such a guarantee would have been advantageous is now evident; for, instead of diminishing, the tendency towards centralisation has become greater than ever. No government has tried to check it—indeed, we question whether public men are fully aware of its evil.

As a country advances in wealth, the seat of government will always prove the centre point of attraction. The fascinations of the court, the concourse of the nobility, the necessary throng of the leading commoners of Britain during the parliamentary season, are all in favour of the metropolis. To this, as a matter of course, we must submit, and do so cheerfully; but not by any means because we are in the situation of an English province. It never was intended to make us such, nor could the whole power of England, however exerted, have degraded us to that position. London is not our capital city, nor have we any interest in its aggrandisement. We do not acknowledge the authority, in matters of law, of the Chief-Justice of England—we are altogether beyond the reach of the southern Ecclesiastical Courts. These are not accidental exceptions; they are necessary parts of the system by which it was provided that, in all things concerning our local administration, we were to have local courts, local powers, and a local executive. We complain that, in this respect, the spirit of the treaty has not been observed. Our Boards of Custom and Commissioners of Excise have been abolished; the revenues of the Scottish Woods and Forests are administered in London, and applied almost entirely to English purposes; and a like centralisation has been extended to the departments of the Stamps and Post-office.

But lest it should be said that these are grievances more shadowy than real, let us take the case of the Woods and Forests mentioned above. The hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland amount to a very large sum, all of which is sent to London, but hardly a penny of it ever returns. Holyrood, Dunfermline, Linlithgow—all our old historical buildings and objects of interest, are allowed to crumble into decay; because the administration of a fund which ought to be devoted to such purposes is confided to Englishmen, who care nothing whatever about the matter. By one vote in the present year, £181,960 were devoted to the repair and embellishment of royal palaces, parks, and pleasure-grounds in England; but it seems by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are no funds available for the repair of Holyrood. Of course there can be no funds, if all our money is to be squandered in the south, and an annual expenditure of nearly £10,000 lavished upon Hampton Court, where royalty never resides. Of course there can be no funds, if £40,000 is given for a palm-house at Kew, and upwards of £62,000 for royal parks in England. But there are funds, if we may believe the public accounts, arising from the revenue of the Crown in Scotland, though most unjustly diverted to other than Scottish purposes. It may be, however, that, very soon, no such funds will remain. A large portion of the Crown property situated in Scotland has been advertised for public sale; and we may be sure of this, that not even a fractional portion of the proceeds will be applied to the North of the Tweed. Now, if the management of this branch of the Revenue had been intrusted to a board in Edinburgh (as it formerly was, before the Barons of Exchequer were abolished), we venture to say that, without asking or receiving one shilling of English money, we could have effectually rescued ourselves from the reproach to which we are daily subjected by strangers, who are not aware of the extent to which centralisation has been carried. They look with wonder and sorrow at Holyrood, with her ruined chapel, and the bones of our Scottish kings and queens exposed to the common gaze, and ask whether they really are among a people famous for the enthusiasm with which they cleave to the memories of the past, and to the recollections of their former glories. Peering through the bars of that charnel vault where the giant skeleton of Darnley is thrown beside the mouldering remains of those who once wore the crown and wielded the sceptre of Scotland, they can recall no parallel instance of desecration save the abominable violation of the sepulchres of St Denis by the base republican rabble. And who are to blame for this? Not certainly the Scottish people, but those who have diverted the revenues applicable to purely national objects, to the maintenance of English palaces and the purchase of London parks.

Centralisation has deprived us of several important offices which could have been filled quite as economically and efficiently for the public service in Scotland as in the south. We are by no means in favour of the extension of useless offices, but there is a vast difference between such and places of responsibility, where local knowledge becomes a very high qualification. It is impossible that a board, sitting in London, can give the same satisfaction to the people of Scotland, or conduct business so effectually, as if it was located among them. But, besides this, it seems to be a settled matter that Scottish official appointments are to be remunerated on a different scale from that which is applied in England and in Ireland. Why is it that our officials—in the Edinburgh Post-office, for example—are paid at a far lower rate than those who perform the same duties in London and in Dublin? Is it because Ireland contributes more than we do to the revenue? Let us see. The revenue of Scotland for the year ending 1852 was £6,164,804, of which there was expended in the country £400,000, leaving £5,764,804, which was remitted to London. The revenue of Ireland for the same period was £4,000,681, of which there was expended in Ireland £3,847,134; leaving a balance merely of £153,547. Have the people of Scotland no reason to complain whilst this monstrous inequality is tolerated?

Let us now turn to the Universities, which in the eyes of a Government so zealous as the present affects to be in the cause of education, and to Lord John Russell in particular, ought to be objects of considerable interest. Let us see how they have been treated. In the year 1826 a Commissioner was appointed by George IV. to examine into the state of the Scottish Universities, and to report thereon. The Commissioners, of whom the Earl of Aberdeen was one, made a report in 1831, to the effect that, in general, the chairs were scandalously ill-endowed, and that adequate and complete provision should be made in all the Universities, so that the appointment to the Chairs “should at all times be an object of ambition to men of literature and science.” Four or five bulky blue books of evidence, &c., were issued; but the only party connected with literature who derived any benefit from the commission, was the English printer. Not a step has been taken in consequence by any administration, although two-and-twenty years have elapsed since the report was given in! Sir Robert Peel had no objection to found and endow Popish colleges in Ireland, but he would not listen to the representations made on behalf of the Protestant colleges of Scotland. In consequence, the emolument drawn from many Chairs in Scotland is under £250 per annum, even in cases where the Crown is patron! Such is the liberality of the British Government in regard to Scottish education in its highest branches, even with the most positive reports recorded in its favour! As for museums, antiquarian and scientific societies and the like, they are left entirely dependent upon private support. We do not say that a Government is bound to expend the public money upon such objects as the latter; but it is at all events bound to be impartial; and really, when we look at the large sums devoted every year as a matter of course to London and Dublin, while Edinburgh is passed over without notice, we have a right to know for what offence on our part we experience such insulting neglect. This is, moreover, a matter which ought not to be lightly dismissed, inasmuch as, if Edinburgh is still to be regarded as a capital city, she is entitled to fair consideration and support in all things relating to the diffusion of arts and science. We do not desire to see the multiplication of British museums; but we wish to participate directly in that very lavish expenditure presently confined to London, for what are called the purposes of art. If we are made to pay for pictures, let us at least have some among us, so that our artists may derive the benefit. We have all the materials and collections for a geological museum in Edinburgh, but the funds for the building are denied. Nevertheless, a grant of £18,000 per annum is made from the public money to the geological museums of London and Dublin.

Passing from these things, and referring to public institutions of a strictly charitable nature, we find no trace whatever of state almonry in Scotland. Dublin last year received for its different hospitals £23,654 of state money. Edinburgh has never received the smallest contribution. Can any one explain to us why the people of Scotland are called upon to maintain their own police, while that of London receives annually £131,000, that of Dublin £36,000, and that of the Irish counties £487,000—or why one half of the constabulary expense in the counties of England is defrayed from the consolidated fund, while no such allowance is made to Scotland? We should like very much to hear Mr Gladstone or Lord Palmerston upon that subject.

It is anything but an agreeable task for us to repeat the items of grievance, of which these are only a part. There are others highly discreditable to the Government, such as the continued delay, in spite of constant application, to devote any portion of the public money to the formation of harbours of refuge on the east and northern coasts of Scotland, where shipwrecks frequently occur. But enough, and more than enough, has been said to prove that, while subjected to the same taxation, Scotland does not receive the same measure of allowances and encouragements as England, and that the system of centralisation has been carried to a pernicious and unjustifiable length. If these are not grievances, we are really at a loss to know what may be the true meaning of that term. To many of the English public they must be new, as we have no doubt they are startling; for the general impression is, that Scotsmen, on the whole, know pretty well how to manage their own affairs, and are tolerably alive to their own interest. That is undeniable; but the peculiarity of the case is, that we are not permitted to manage our own affairs. England has relieved us of the trouble; which latter, however, we would not grudge to bestow, if allowed to do so. But our grounds of complaint are not new to statesmen and officials of every party. Representation after representation has been made, but made in vain. The press of Scotland has, year after year, charged the Government with neglect of Scottish interests, and warned it against persevering in such a course; but without effect. The unwillingness of the people to agitate has been construed into indifference; and now, when the national voice is raised in its own defence, we are taunted with previous silence!

Now, we beg to repeat again, what we have already expressed, that we do not believe it is the wish of Englishmen, or of English statesmen, that we should be so unfairly treated. Indeed, we have reason to know that some of the latter have expressed their conviction that Scottish affairs are not well administered, and that great reason of complaint exists. That is consoling, perhaps, but not satisfactory. We are told that we ought to be very proud, because, at the present moment, a Scotsman is at the head of the Government. As yet we have seen no reason to plume ourselves upon that accident, which in no way adds materially to the national glory. We shall reserve our jubilation thereon, until we have a distinct assurance that Lord Aberdeen is prepared to grant us substantial justice. Of that, as yet, no indication has been afforded; and, to confess the truth, were it only for the grace of the movement, we would far rather see the reforms and readjustments we require conceded to us, as matter of right, by an English than by a Scottish Premier. What we seek is neither favour nor jobbing, but that attention to our interests which is our due. If Lord Aberdeen thinks fit to render it now, we shall, of course, be very glad to receive it; but we do not entertain extravagant expectations from that quarter. If his heart had really been warmly with the country of his birth, it is almost impossible to suppose that, having set his name, as he did, to a strong report in favour of assistance to the Scottish universities, he would have allowed about a quarter of a century to elapse without mooting the subject, either as a peer of Parliament, or as an influential member of more than one Cabinet; and it is impossible to forget that, with the most deplorable schism in the history of the national Church of Scotland—the more deplorable, because it might have been prevented by wise and timely legislation—his name is inseparably connected. Therefore, in so far as our interests are concerned, we see no especial reason for glorification in the fact that Lord Aberdeen is a peer of Scotland. That Lord Campbell, who, as the Times avers, “holds the highest common law appointment in the three kingdoms,” was born in Cupar, in the ancient kingdom of Fife, by no means reconciles us to the fact of an unfair application of the revenue. Lord Brougham, we believe, first saw the light in Edinburgh—is his subsequent occupation of the woolsack to be considered a sufficient reason why the citizens of the Scottish metropolis should be compelled to maintain their own police, when those of London and Dublin are paid out of the imperial revenue? Really it would appear that notorieties are sometimes expensive productions. With profound respect for the eminent individuals referred to, we would rather, on the whole, surrender the credit of their birth, than accept that as an equivalent for the vested rights of the nation.

Supposing, then, that the reality of the grievance is made out—as to which we presume there can be no question, for the matters we have referred to are of public notoriety—it is necessary to consider what remedy ought to be applied. Undoubtedly much is in the power of Ministers. They may select more than one point of grievance for curative treatment; and Mr Gladstone may possibly endeavour, in his next financial arrangements, to atone for past neglect; but it is not by such means as these that the evil can be wholly eradicated. We must look to the system in order to ascertain why Scotland should have been exposed so long to so much injustice; and, believing as we do, that there was no deliberate intention to slight her interests, we are driven to the conclusion that the fault has arisen from the utterly inadequate provision made by the State for the administration of her internal affairs.

The absurd idea that the true position of Scotland is merely that of a province, has received countenance from the fact that there is no Minister in the British Cabinet directly responsible for the administration of Scottish affairs. There is, indeed, a Home Secretary for the United Kingdom; but it is impossible to expect the holder of that office to have an intimate acquaintance with the laws, institutions, and internal relations of the northern division of the island. The Secretary of State, in general, knows nothing about us, and is compelled to rely, in almost every case, upon the information which he receives from the Lord Advocate. Now, the position of a Lord Advocate is this: He must be a Scottish barrister, and he usually is one who has risen to eminence in his profession. But he has had no experience of public affairs, and usually little intercourse with public men, before he receives her Majesty’s commission as first law officer of the Crown. He has not been trained to Parliament, for a Scottish barrister is necessarily tied to his own courts, and cannot, as his English brethren may, prosecute his profession while holding a seat in Parliament. Thus, even supposing him to be a man of real eminence and ability—and we are glad to express our opinion that, of late years, the office has been worthily filled—he enters the House of Commons without parliamentary experience, and has very little leisure allowed him to acquire it. For, in the first place, he is, as public prosecutor, responsible for the conduct of the whole criminal business of Scotland; and he is the Crown adviser in civil cases. Then he has his own practice to attend to, which generally increases rather than diminishes after his official elevation; and in attending to that in Edinburgh, he is absent from London during half the parliamentary session—in fact, is seldom there, except when some important bill under his especial charge is in progress. Besides this, the office of Lord Advocate is understood to be the stepping-stone to the bench. One gentleman, now a judge of the Court of Session, did not hold the office of Lord Advocate for three months, and never had a seat in Parliament. In the course of last year (1852), no less than three individuals were appointed Lords Advocate in succession, and two of them did not sit in the House. Owing to these circumstances, it rarely happens that a Lord Advocate can acquire a reputation for statesmanship—he has neither the time, the training, the facilities, nor the ordinary motives of doing so. At any moment, even on the eve of completing some important national measure, he may be summoned to the bench, and, in such an event, the interests of the country are tied up until his successor in office has been able to procure a seat, and has become, in some measure, reconciled to the novel atmosphere of St Stephen’s.

This is, beyond all question, a bad system. The peculiar legal functions of the Lord Advocate are, in addition to his private practice, a burden quite heavy enough for any single pair of shoulders to sustain; nor is it consonant either with the dignity or the convenience of the country, that he should be made to act as a sort of assessor or adviser to the Home Secretary. He ought certainly to be in Parliament, as the Attorney-General of England is, to give advice in legal matters, but no further. The training of the bar is not by any means that which tends to the development of administrative qualities; and, even were it otherwise, we have shown that the precarious nature of the office must preclude the holder of it from the advantage of official experience. But, in fact, as those who have had public business to transact in London know full well, there is no order or arrangement whatever provided for the administration of Scottish affairs. Let us take the case of a deputation sent to London about some local matter. They naturally, in the first instance, direct their steps to the Lord Advocate, who, if in town—by no means a certain occurrence—receives them with great courtesy, listens to their story, and then, regretting that the subject in question does not fall within the sphere of his department, refers them to the Junior Lord of the Treasury. They recount their tale to that official, who really seems to exhibit some interest, but discovers, after a time, that they should have made application to the Board of Woods and Forests. Thither they go, and are probably referred to some clerk or under-secretary, brimful of conceit, and exclusively English in his notions. He refers them to the Secretary of the Treasury; but that man of figures is too busy to listen to them, and knows nothing about the matter. He suggests an application to the Home Secretary. Lord Palmerston, the pink of politeness, smiles, bows, and remits them to the knowledge of the Lord Advocate. By this time half the deputation have left, and the others are savage and excited. They are advised to memorialise the Treasury, which they do, and receive an immediate reply that “my Lords” will take the matter into their consideration. And so in all probability they do; but it turns out at the last moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a ruling voice in the matter; and, as his financial arrangements for the year are already made, the application must stand over to be considered at a future period.

It is now full time that a new order of things should be introduced, and that the affairs of Scotland should be administered by a responsible Secretary of State with a seat in the Cabinet. We have, on every ground, full right to demand this. The public revenue levied from Scotland is larger than that of either Holland, Belgium, Naples, Sardinia, or Sweden and Norway. It is larger than the combined revenues of Bavaria, Denmark, Greece, and Switzerland. The revenue of Ireland is one-third less than ours, and yet Ireland has not only a Secretary of State, but a Lord-Lieutenant. No one surely can venture to say that the interests here involved are too trifling to require superintendence, or that any organisation would be superfluous. For our own part, having watched narrowly for years the working of the present absurd and unregulated system, we do not hesitate to declare our conviction that justice never can, and never will, be done to Scotland until its affairs are placed under the management of a separate Secretary of State. This point cannot be pressed too strongly. The wealth, importance, and position of the country justify the demand; and we have yet to learn that there is any one sound or substantial reason for denying it.

Another point, and it is one of vast importance, is to insist that, at the next adjustment of the representation, Scotland shall send its just proportion of members to the House of Commons. At present, whether the test of revenue or of population be applied, we are inadequately represented as contrasted with England. We pay more than a ninth of the whole revenue of the United Kingdom, but we have only a thirteenth part of the representation. It is quite necessary that this should be remedied, so that our interests may be properly and efficiently attended to in the legislature. We care not what criterion is taken—whether that of revenue or that of population—but we have a right to demand and expect, that in this matter also we shall be dealt with according to the same measure which is applied to England. According to the last census, each of our Scottish members represents an average population of 54,166; whilst one member is returned for every 35,845 of the population of England. The apportionment ought to be made according to some clear, intelligible principle—not by a mere flourish of the pen, or an arbitrarily assumed figure. With a responsible Minister, and an adequate representation, attention to the interests of Scotland would be secured; and it is the bounden duty of every man who wishes well to his country to bestir himself for the attainment of these objects.

We have not approached this subject with any feeling of exacerbation. In demonstrating wherein Scotland has not received its proper meed of justice and consideration, we have been careful to avoid rash strictures or unworthy reflections upon our neighbours. If in some things we have suffered from neglect, and in others from innovation, we must not hastily conclude that there is a deliberate intention anywhere to deprive us of our due. The form in which our affairs have been administered for well-nigh a hundred years, is, as we believe we have shown, quite inadequate for the purpose for which it was originally intended; and the rapid development of the wealth and population of the country ought, long ago, to have suggested the propriety of a more rational arrangement. There is no occasion, in a matter of this sort, for any appeal to national feelings, which indeed it would be superfluous to rouse. The case is a very clear one, founded upon justice and public policy; and, if properly urged, no government can venture to treat it indifferently. But in whatever way this movement may be met—whether it is regarded with sympathy, or replied to by derision—it is our duty to aid in the assertion of our country’s rights; and we shall not shrink from its performance.

284