to agitation. Quiet, plodding, persevering industry is her forte. Not deficient in other talents, she excels in this, and to it in great measure she owes that success which attends her sons in every part of the world. That, therefore, which has at length completely aroused her energies must not be considered as trifling or unimportant. She has long remained silent, and it is unfair to charge her at once with being captious when she constitutionally asks for her interests to be protected and her rights restored. It may be that much of what is pleaded as grievances" cannot, in the strict sense of the words of this question, be called injustice from ENGLAND; it may be that Scotland has been unjust to herself, in not watching over her own interests and respectfully but firmly opposing encroachment; still, at the hands of the Government of the united countries, she is entitled to claim redress of her grievances. The treaty of union entered into between the two countries as one of equal privileges and duties, the union of two equally independent nations—is the basis on which the whole matter rests. The question is thus a simple one:-Have the terms and stipulations of that treaty been faithfully fulfilled by and to both nations? If it can be shown that the rights and privileges secured to Scotland therein have been, and still are, granted, then may the Scottish lion reasonably be requested to betake himself to his former repose; but if, on the other hand, it can be shown that these have been unfairly encroached on, surely it is but right that reparation should be given. And can this point not be amicably and satisfactorily arranged? Is it possible that this, of all questions, cannot be judged of by its own merits, and settled accordingly? Must it be that, either from the unrighteous demands of one nation, or the selfishness of the other, such a matter as this cannot be adjusted? T. U., who is adroitly followed by "Benjamin," would have it that in this demand we are actually sounding the notes of hostility, and endeavours to frighten us with the dread of civil strife. We entertain no such alarm. We speak in these pages to as many friendly Englishmen as T. U. does, and we do not despair of finding them ready to listen fairly and dispassionately, or of receiving their consent and co-operation, if we can but prove the justice of our claims. Calm, therefore, thy fears, friend T. U., and leave thy "sword" still in the armoury; for "Thy Toledo trusty, For want of fighting shall grow rusty." The two countries are inseparably connected; their interests are too closely amalgamated, and the advantages arising to both from the union are too apparent for any rupture now to take place between them. The union of the two countries was a "union free and independent, on equal terms, with equal duties, equal responsibilities, and equal rights."* By Article VI. of the treaty it is provided that "all parts of the United Kingdom, from and after the union, shall have the same allowances, encouragements, and drawbacks." "relative equality" in things affecting the If, then, there be provided for Scotland a empire generally, and a supremacy in matters of "local administration," it is clear, in the first place, that her interests should be properly guarded. Now it is notorious that she is left, in this case, almost totally unprovided for. With a population of three millions, an increasing commerce, and extensive manufactures; with peculiar laws and institutions, and contributing a revenue of seven millions of pounds sterling annually, her multitudinous civil and political interests are entrusted to the care of a judicial officer whose legal and professional duties are otherwise too heavy for one man. With a salary not liberal enough to induce an advocate of sufficient merit to renounce his practice at the bar, the Lord Advocate is by no means sufficient as a representative to watch over Scottish interests. The present Lord Advocate has asserted that the legislative duties connected with public bills alone are as much as one man can undertake, and has told his constituents that, if he had known the trouble it would have given him, he would not have undertaken to bring in the New Sheriff Courts Bill, crude and unsatisfactory as it is. He is often not a member of the Cabinet, and possesses but little authority in Parliament, from which he is necessarily frequently absent when matters of vital importance to Scotland are debated. Scottish deputations, too, travelling to London at great expense, and requiring advice * Address of the National Association. and assistance, in many cases find that their only adviser has just been called by his other duties to Scotland. Surely, then, it must be evident to every honest reader that Scotland has reasonable ground of complaint against the manner in which her affairs are conducted, and that it is not too much to ask that a Secretary of State, contemplated by the treaty of union, and enjoyed for many years after that event, be restored to her. Another grievance, equally patent, is the manifest inequality of parliamentary representation. England, with her Parliament in her midst, and rejoicing in her officers of state, is privileged to return an undue proportion of members of Parliament over her northern neighbour. Even in a just and relative distribution England must still possess an overwhelming majority. Is it fair, then, from the terms and the spirit of the union, and the connexion of the countries, that such a disparity should exist? With twenty additional members in the House (which seems the minimum to which Scotland is entitled, taking either her population or her revenue returns as the standard), and an efficient Secretary of State for the country, there would be some more reasonable hope that Scottish affairs would not be so sadly neglected in St. Stephen's. There is also an injury done to Scotland, perhaps not less than any of the preceding, and unquestionably the effect of them, in the absorbing centralization practised by the encroachments on, and removal of, her local administrations to England. Around the Parliament and Somerset Houses must cluster all our public officers. Thither, at great expense, must we go, if we have aught of advice, of assistance, or of remedy to ask; and there must we address ourselves to men who, removed from us, are ignorant of our requirements and careless of our necessities; they have no interest in our transactions, no sympathy with our schemes, but, armed with the pomp and dignity of office, they often treat our applications, as we think, rather cavalierly. So universal is this necessity, extending to the most petty matters in every department of our affairs, that it is felt as inflicting most grievous injury on our trade and commerce. This, too, removes from Scotland much legitimate wealth that would otherwise circulate there. She is also denied the benefit of the employment created by Government, their trade being exclusively retained, and their contracts fulfilled, in England, from the building of the ships of the navy to the furnishing of the stationery to our Government offices. We complain, also, that we are neglected in the distribution of the bounties of Government. Large sums are granted for charitable purposes, for the construction of national galleries and museums, and for the purchase and embellishment of parks and pleasure grounds in England, while Scotland is left to found and uphold her own charitable institutions, to erect her own galleries and museums, and to enjoy herself as she best may in the absence of these other valuable adjuncts to a crowded city. It is no part of our mission to begrudge or speak against the munificent gifts bestowed for the advancement of science and art; but in fairness we ask that something be done also for Scotland. Many of her sons, eminent in their various departments, are tempted to remove to England, where the honours of merit follow their learned pursuits. Let us mention, too, that Scotland, richly blessed as she is by nature with mineral wealth, and fitted to enrich herself and other countries from her varied stores, has yet received from Government neither geological museum nor professorship. Nor must we omit the want of harbours of refuge on our shores. Along the whole eastern coast there is not one, while it is at once exposed and dangerous, and the navigation extensive. On the western shores, where trade innumerable wealth-laden ships to and from all parts of the globe, and immense numbers of crowded emigrant vessels, there is only a single mail-packet station. Consider these, with the fact of the large revenue returns transmitted to England and spent there, and say if Scotland has not reasonable ground of complaint, and, having complained, is not entitled to redress. But, instead of enumerating more grievances, we beg to refer our readers to the succinct statement issued by the Association, and to the speeches delivered at the enthusiastic meetings held at Edinburgh and Glasgow, and proceed briefly to notice the affirmative articles on this question. We are willing to thank T. U., and "the society with which he is connected," for the services they may have rendered to learning; but we do not profess to understand how one living in the midst of those of his own coun trymen united in this matter should represent them as consisting of a "few agitators," or seek to attribute their conduct to the baneful effect of party politics. He ought to know that in his own city men of all shades of politics are engaged in the movement, and he need not be told that throughout the nation the feeling is all but universal. People at a distance might affect to consider it as the work of a party, had not such unmistakeable disclaimers been given; but, surely, such oft-rebutted misrepresentation should not, at least, have weight with a citizen of Edinburgh. as singularly deficient. It is no answer to our claim that other members of the Government are also overworked. It is not alone on the score of humanity that we plead that the Lord Advocate should be so far relieved, but in order that Scottish interests may be better attended to by an officer appointed for that work. On the question of representation, we cannot see how he should be so much afraid of twenty additional members, when so many are allowed in England to mere fractional divisions of country. We deny the inference drawn, and blush for the low position assigned to our country, that this We admit that Scotland has received should only be the means of introducing many advantages from the union with Eng-"obstructives" and "incapables." But we land; yet, while we seek to strengthen this leave T. U., satisfied that he will have enough union, we aver that these advantages have to do to meet the facts and statistics of been reciprocal. We admit that many Scotch-"Walter," and the judicious arguments of men find their way to offices under Govern- "Douglas." ment, and would ask, why not, if their talents or their industry fit them for such positions? We are as averse to anything approaching to agitation as T. U. is; but we only ask here that an intelligible treaty be honestly and fairly implemented; and for doing this we are not, surely, open to the charge of reckless agitation. It is under such assurance as that which heads our paper that we take part in this matter, which cannot be compared to the Irish Repeal agitation. The cases are widely different. We neither seek a revisal nor a repeal of the union, and only claim that the letter and spirit of the treaty be fully and impartially observed. This, we hold, would tend to dispel jealousy and strengthen the union of the countries. A very few remarks will suffice to answer the article of "Benjamin," who holds the same views as ourselves as to the de facto and de jure constitution of the one kingdom of "Great Britain," while with his quotations, both as to their correctness and import, we are equally well pleased. But we differ from him as to those "contemptibly inadequate" grounds "with which a mischiefpregnant agitation has been organized." What do our friends mean by this "reckless," "factious," and "mischief-pregnant agitation" so much talked of? If "agitation" there be, it is such as they create. Unless we make our voice to be heard on this subject, it is asserted that we are not in earnest that it is only the whim of a few, Clearing ourselves from the charge of for which the majority care not. The inreckless agitation, we take special exception sinuation he would throw out, as though to the unnecessarily humiliating position in agitation were the native element of its prowhich T. U. would place our "auld respectit moters," we must be permitted somewhat mither" by the nature of his arguments. indignantly to repel. He concedes the "reaShe has neither "merged" her nationality sonableness" of Scotland being properly renor renounced her title to equality. Holy-presented, though he destroys its effect by rood, the last remnant of Caledonia's regal the ardour with which he catches at and pomp, is easily disposed of. No venerable associations are indulged; he calmly speaks of £29,000 being SQUANDERED thereon during the nine years prior to 1830, while so many thousands were last year voted for repairs and embellishments of the palaces, parks, and pleasure-grounds in England, besdies the princely sums paid for Victoria and Battersea Parks. On the subject of a Secretary of State we consider his remarks homologates T. U.'s "forcible reason why we are better without a Scotch party in the House of Commons," and then patronizingly tells us that the new Reform Bill, "it cannot be doubted, will deal with the deficiency in Scotland." We hope it will; and, if so, will obviate the necessity for further distinctive agitation on this point. Meantime, it is well we have got this admission. We repudiate the base motives assigned for the it origin, as well as the implied effects, of our claims, and can smile at the sneer at the "heads" of the promoters. We see not the reaction "Benjamin" speaks of, and can only consider it as "looming in the distance" of his own imagination. And now, English brother, with thy known generous nature and love of justice, what think you of this matter? Shall we be considered as one family, or treated as the children of another parent? It may not be Social Economy. IS SLAVERY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIABLE? AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III. Ir is much easier to declare in favour of dertaken the office of leader on the negative popular notions than to examine them nar- side of the present debate, and has strung rowly, and afterwards to point out their blind together a series of poetic quotations, scripfolly on the one hand, or to show the great tural allusions, and vapid but high-sounding principles of truth or justice on which they commonplacisms of moral declamation, which are founded, on the other. It is almost im- will, probably, be accepted by all the disciples possible to convince a man against his will; of the Stowe school as sound reasoning. The and it is certainly a work of supererogation article would, doubtless, produce great effect to bring forward real argumentation to prove at a meeting of the Ladies' Auxiliary to one what men are willing to believe, or do already of those cheap philanthropy societies, so believe. These remarks especially apply to admirably and deservedly satirized in Mr. times of enthusiasm. Logic is too cold and Dickens's last novel. It is to be hoped, unyielding to please the enthusiast; it is an however, that the readers of the Controverintellectual strait waistcoat, most hated by sialist, as they pore over its pages in the those who most need it. If Peter the Hermit seclusion and quiet of their own peculiar had argued instead of declaimed, the deeds nook by the domestic hearth, will strive of the Crusaders would never have formed an manfully to shake off prejudice, and to lay episode in human history; and if Mrs. Stowe aside mere emotional sympathies. Let it be had entered into a philosophic proof of the remembered that there are no slaves in the immorality of slavery, instead of writing a wide empire of England, and that, consepathetic account of the sufferings of a per-quently, the result of this discussion cansecuted but fictional negro-saint, her book not affect the condition of any Uncle Tom or would have found little favour with those Aunt Chloe in existence, but will simply be ephemeral swarms of agitators who are ever the resolution of a knotty question of social ready to "lend" their "sweet voices" to those morality. Let every reader endeavour to who can tickle their fancies-who are now approach the subject in the guise of an to be found in every nook of this slaveless "Impartial Inquirer," and resolve, pro temcountry, getting up anti-slavery societies, pore, to lay aside all previously-acquired wherein they may play the Pharisee, by notions, and especially all remembrance of pretentiously pointing to the American particular cruelties practised against certain planter, and thanking God they are not as slaves. Abuse can never be justified. The that man. In comfortable conformity with this tendency of human nature to hunt in packs, and to prefer oratory to argument, and a cry to a reason, "L'Ouvrier" has un question before us is the use of slaves. We are to pass judgment on the moral character of Abraham, who kept slaves and treated them well; on Moses, who legislated for slavery as an institution which was justifiable in his day; and not on fiends of cruelty and avarice like Haley or Legree, who treat their human servants in a manner which ought to be promptly and severely punished, even if directed against the meanest and most vicious of the brute creation. remarks are made in no spirit of fault-finding, and are not intended to detract one iota from Mrs. Stowe's merit as a writer, or her intention as a social economist, but are aimed at her untruthful, because unphilosophic attempt to substitute an appeal to the passions for an address to the reason, and for the purpose of inducing the reader to cast aside the fatal bias which he may, probably, have received from the perusal of the work in question. which "L'Ouvrier" and his friend cannot object, they can now jauntily turn on their heels and flatly deny that the instances come within the scope of the subject. It may save a vast amount of virtuous indignation, and consequent oratory, on the part of the opposition, at once to state that, as an Englishman, I detest slavery, and long for the time when it shall cease entirely; L'Ouvrier" and his successor, G. F., and so I may say of despotism and war. have carefully avoided giving a definition of These things are in the abstract bad; but I slavery. Though scarcely honest, the omismaintain that there are circumstances in sion is politic: the generality of oratorical which they become justifiable and necessary; commonplaces cannot harmonize with parnay, even imperative. Despotism ought to ticularity and precision. Besides, it is conbe established, if pure anarchy is the only venient to have no incumbrances. If (as alternative. War occasionally becomes a "Benjamin" has ably done) an opponent moral duty. Slavery, like the two last-points to forms of slavery to mentioned contingencies, is purely a creature of circumstances; in them it may find palliation and justification, and from them it may arise as a matter of pure necessity. One other subject may be here referred tothe character of that world-wide celebrity, "Uncle Tom's Cabin." If that work had simply been written with a view to touch the heart, and insensibly to lead men to treat their slaves well and to cultivate general benevolence, there could have been no objection to it; but when an avowed social politician takes up her pen to draw a grand tableau of "Slavery as it exists," and draws the slave-owners as fiends incarnate, the abolitionists as angels, and the slaves as the very elect of the earth in piety and heroism, it becomes the duty of all who love truth for truth's sake to protest against the one-sidedness of the work. What must be the effect of Mrs. Stowe's book on the thousands of the slaveholders who have never yet been able to find one Uncle Tom among the numerous slaves they have possessed? What is the proportion of slaves (if there be any-a supposition highly complimentary to human nature) like Uncle Tom, Eliza, or George, when compared with the aggregate of sullen, indolent, brutalized beings who will not work, save under the direst compulsion? Fiction may be effective in moving the passions, but can never convince; for who can value a conclusion drawn from imaginary premises, feigned and "got up" for the express purpose by a determined advocate? The foregoing "Benjamin" has pointedly shown the absurdity in which "L'Ouvrier" has involved himself by denying that "forced labour has anything to do with the subject." But "L'Ouvrier" has not only involved himself; he has cruelly contradicted himself; for, in another portion of his article, he speaks of slavery as being "involuntary servitude!" Slavery is "involuntary servitude," but has nothing to do with "forced labour!!" I fear that "L'Ouvrier" has not benefited by those admirable papers on "The Art of Reasoning" which so much enhanced the value of former volumes of the Controversialist. The misfortune is, that his arguments are of so pliant a nature that one can scarcely lay hold of him; like an eel at the muddy bottom of a pool, it is vain to endeavour to catch him; we must be content to drive him from shallow to shallow, and to contrast the turbid element in which he dwells with the crystal stream of truth. One of the most useful methods of obtaining a clear conception of a given subject is the practice of what may be termed, perhaps, definition by exclusion,-by taking a number of correlative terms or subjects, and accurately determining their relative position and meaning. Connected with the topic before us, there are three words which it will be of service to interdistinguish. Servitude, |