tance; fervent appeals are made, not to the patriotism of Great Britain, but to that of Scotland; our history is searched in order to evoke the names of those heroes who fought against England in former times; and, lastly, the combination consists, amongst others, of a number of persons who never have shown any desire to remove abuses, and do not now render any substantial assistance to the cause of reform-who expend their strength in vain acclamation and irritating appeals. Are we not justfied in maintaining that the movement, as well as the particular language employed, is "extravagant, bombastic, and inflammatory?" Looking to the addresses and resolutions of the party alone, it is easy to see that these are calculated to foment sedition. But we are not bound to be guided only by these. Any one versed in the history of revolutions is aware that the resolutions of public bodies are often calm and moderate, while the language and spirit of the great majority of those who compose them point to yet bolder changes, when the opportunity occurs; but by falling back on official declarations their real designs are veiled, and their attacks are protected. The fact that while pursuing their evil course a casual protestation is occasionally made that there is no intention of alienating the two nations, cannot alter our opinion. What faith can be put in men who have been parties to all the political manoeuvring of the present century against the people, and who began the agitation referred to as if its only design were to remedy a heraldic grievance? The tendencies of the movement are bad. The arguments our opponents use, as to particular questions, might be plausibly advanced for a separate parliament, so as to secure a proper attention to Scotch interests; for the Queen and court residing periodically in the three capitals; or, for a revisal of the Union. These views would assimilate the agitation to the repeal movement in Ireland. We do not affirm that all our opponents go this length, but the tendencies of their movement are all in this direction. At the Glasgow meeting one of the leaders urged the propriety of a local parliament in Scotland. At the great Edinburgh meeting, Mr. Alexander Baillie Cochrane said "There are only two points on which the present system can be be supported. The one is,

that the Union was a popular union at the time; we are ill-advised men who aim at changing it. And the other point is, that if you change a union of that description, it is a union like that of matrimony, for better or for worse." Again, "The bishops, if it were necessary, have a majority of eight over our sixteen peers. That is not a position for a great country like Scotland, where you have a peerage older than any in Europe (applause) -a peerage which, at the time of the Union, had 154 peers, and had as much right to be represented to the full in the peerage of Great Britain as those of England had, and they were degraded by being told to send sixteen peers to represent them (applause).” "A Thomac" tells us there is no danger of a rupture between the two countries. We have shown that there is such danger. Such appeals as our opponents make are perilous, amongst any people. A very few years ago, our national church, then one of the strongest of the reformation, was rent, and nearly destroyed by the declamation of men who appealed to the bigotry of the population, and invoked the historical recollections of presbyterianism. Would it be a matter for wonder that the present agitation, stimulated by false appeals to patriotism, and an artful use of our history, might eventually dissolve the Union, and dismember the Crown? Connect this movement with the anti-papal agitation here which opposes the moderation and the toleration of the Government, and it would receive an impetus which would still farther alienate Scotland from England, and lead to the severance of the Union and the overthrow of religious freedom in Scotland. We are bound, then, to exercise the precaution of affording no encouragement whatever to the Scottish Rights agitation.

In answer to " Douglas," we remark that there is no real heraldic grievance, the matter being left by the Act of Union to the determination of the Crown. We contend that if, as we think, Government grants are improperly given for hospitals in London and Dublin, it is a sound argument that the evil should not be extended to Scotland. From the recent discussions in Parliament, we have little doubt that those grants will be withdrawn. Our army is stationed at the places where it is most needed, and to ask more troops for our manufacturing towns

66

is to require an increase of taxation. As for the use made of Holyrood Palace, we do not consider the election of Scottish representative peers as requiring it to be kept up at a great expense, still less do we think extensive accommodation for the public on such occasions to be indispensable. There is neither "ignorance" nor duplicity on our part. A considerable sum was recently expended, so as to fit the palace for the residence of the Queen, and if not exactly suitable, no repairs could make it so. Since Douglas" is so wise, and since we are so ignorant, of Edinburgh, we should be obliged by being informed at what private hotel her Majesty resides when she visits this city? We humbly think she dwells on such occasions in Holyrood Palace, and if so, according to the argument of "Douglas," it must be "in a state fit for her reception." We did not assert that if additional members were allowed to Scotland, the majority would be Tories, but that such addition would introduce into the House of Commons a greater number of "obstructive Tories, and nameless and incapable Liberals;" and " A Thomac" may blush as he likes, but this would be a fact. The great majority of our present representatives belong to either of these classes. This is acknowledged by our opponents themselves, and what with religious intolerance and national animosity, could we expect better of the additional members? In reply to "A Thomac," we contend that those who have originated the movement, and who take a very active part in it, are a few agitators. While the leaders are chiefly Tories; while we miss those generally who are known for their advocacy of liberal opinions; while the movement is obstructive to the Liberal party, and essentially reactionary, we admit that a variety of individuals, holding different political views, are associated in the movement, yet it is not the less a party scheme, tending to alienate the two kingdoms. We admit that Scotchmen are raised to high offices in England on account of their industry and ability. But

we made the statement which "A Thomac" refers to, and also alluded to the growing prosperity of Scotland, to show the folly of an agitation which would deprive Scotland of all the advantages of the Union. While we do not object to Holyrood Palace being kept up, yet we think too much money has been expended upon it, and, if so, matters of public utility proportionally neglected.

66

In conclusion, while "Douglas" attempted to review our observations on certain of the grievances alleged, he did not reply to those examples which we afforded of the 'gross fallacies" on which the Scottish Rights movement is based. These remain unanswered. We may say again, that England and Scotland being one nation, and the grievances put forth being English as well as Scotch, a purely Scottish agitation is uncalled for, is improper, and injurious. It is true our enlightened opponents in this periodical repudiate any accusation of injustice against the English people. But if Parliament has been so partial towards England and so unjust towards Scotland, its procedure must be considered as tacitly approved of by the English, and had space allowed we could have shown by the references of the Scottish Rights advocates to the conduct of our poets in eulogising England, and to certain prejudices existing against Scotchmen in England, that the agitation is directed against the English people. Such evils as Scotland can complain of are being gradually remedied. Our clear course is to support "that great national Liberal party, whose principle and desire it is to remove every political abuse." That party gave us an adequate parliamentary representation, rescuing the burghs from the grasp of a few self-elected town councils, and the country from the rule of the Dundee's family. It is from the reformers, and not from a small number of men whose antecedents are not favourable, that we can expect any good in the future which lies before us.

Edinburgh.

THE Scottish Rights movement is just such as the English members of the Imperial Legislature might have expected. Was it to be imagined that an entire people would

T. U.

suffer themselves to be systematically wronged without remonstrance, or without an effort being made to stay the injustice and have future legislation placed upon a broad basis

of equality. The people of Scotland are neither so impassioned nor imaginative as to rise unitedly against fancied evils. Theirs is a more dignified object, to resist the partiality that would accord her only a provincial eminence, to save unsullied the national reputation, to protect her honoured institutions from designed neglect, and covert and open violation. This sense of injustice has united together all ranks of the community, and will be a stimulus to the most persistent and unwearied efforts to obtain redress. Almost every shade of religious belief and political opinion have been laid aside, and their differences forgotten, in the demand for justice to Scotland. A movement which is yet in its infancy, and already numbers among its adherents and supporters many of the ancient nobility of the country, and the major part of the magistracy and civic dignitaries of every town in Scotland-that has much of the practical intellect and business mind of the land-that has drawn towards it men of every shade of politics and creed, men of great legal attainments, of historical reputation, and poetic fame; and, more than all, a movement that has commended itself to the general mind of the community as essentially just; such a movement, supported by such men, cannot be sneered at with impunity.

The present question is one in which is involved, to a large extent, the welfare of Scotland and the prosperity of England. We feel a deep personal interest in the question as a national one; yet we are ready to examine the whole matter in dispute with impartiality and fairness; we deprecate, however, that spirit of partizanship which indulges in misrepresentation. Unfortunately, T. U. has allowed himself the greatest liberties that can well be conceived, both with facts and language. We have perused his paper with considerable care; and, honestly speaking, it is doing him no injustice to say, that his article is deficient in candour, and shows him, if a Scotchman, to be unworthy of the name and of the country. We have no desire to speak harshly; but our first duty is to truth. Perversion must not be met with smoothfaced courtesies; we, therefore, unequivocally say, that T. U.'s "Negative" is characterized by a pre-determination to misconstrue the ground of difference between the two countries. The men most exalted in the

community, by station, talent, and acquirement, are spoken of, in the choice diction of T. U., as a few individuals who have united to stir up animosities. They have not even the merit of originality in their attempts (which he is pleased to censure as criminal); but, according to him, must "imitate the Repeal agitation." He is not sparing in the use of either rhetoric or sophistry, and his vocabulary is a perfect Thesaurus of abuse. After looking into the future with both eyes open, he sees the tremendous result of this agitation to be "treason," "the awakening of national hatred;" calls us to "witness a groundless agitation;" fears the "alienation" of the English people as a consequence of the idle declamation of a few designing demagogues; and, in the very language of prophecy, exclaims, "We may, if this tumult be allowed to increase, be drawing swords against each other!" He must know little of human nature, and less of our paternal Government, who talks of alienation from England, or the danger of it, while she is annually in receipt of nearly six millions sterling of surplus or free revenue from this country.

That those who feel an interest in the question may have more reliable data to aid them in the formation of a correct judgment than that furnished by T. U., we shall now state several of the grievances of which we complain, and in doing so we shall at the same time strengthen the position taken up and ably defended by our colleagues.

The first grievance complained of is that of inadequate representation; and this is really so inadequate in point of numbers, that it is literally impossible to win or command the attention of Parliament to Scottish affairs: these are uniformly treated with indifference and neglect. Whether population, taxation, or both, are made the basis of the allocation, Scotland has not her proportional share of the representation. Our representatives are too few to cope successfully with the unjust and overwhelming majority of English members. These carry all before them-legislate for themselves, and insult us, by taking our surplus revenue to aid them in effectuating measures for the enrichment of England exclusively. This cannot be borne for ever. There is a point beyond which endurance is criminal; that point is well-nigh reached. Scotland can never be

satisfied with her present measure of representation. It is intolerable to think that thirty English boroughs, with a population inferior in point of numbers to that of Edinburgh, should return sixty representatives, while seventy-three towns in Scotland, with an intelligent and industrious population, have no representative.

Since the office of Secretary of State for Scotland has fallen into desuetude, numerous political evils have crept into the administration of our affairs, and numerous encroachments have been made, all having a covert tendency to the denationalizing of Scotland; and that, too, in direct violation of the spirit of the Union, a union founded in terms of the most perfect equality, and never to be coupled with the indignities which conquerors might thrust upon a vanquished people. Had the secretaryship still existed, should we have had the humiliation of making "the accidental discovery in an English Law Reform Bill (which by its title no one could have supposed to apply to Scotland) of a clause inserted by the Attorney General, placing all Scotland under the jurisdiction of the English law courts?" This is proof sufficient that our national interests stand somewhat in need protection; and in view of this mal-administration it is, surely, not unreasonable to insist on the re-establishment of the secretaryship, that Scottish affairs may be seen to with as keen an eye as those of England. T. U. vainly endeavours to parry the force of the arguments adduced in favour of an increased representation by asserting that it is the efficiency, and not the number, of the representatives that is to be considered; now, if our English neighbours will reduce the number of their representatives to correspond with ours, and be satisfied with the efficiency of the remainder, we will not differ further upon this point. But, no sooner are we agreed, than a new cause of difference suggests itself. Why should the universities of this northern portion of the kingdom be unrepresented? It is, surely, needless at this time to enumerate the names of the distinguished Scotchmen who have added their full share to the literature of Europe-to show that our students, the future great men of our country, are as much entitled by their merits to be represented as their brethren of England or Ireland.

The charitable institutions of Scotland are

unendowed, while those of London and Dublin have large annual grants made to them from the national treasury. As an instance in point of the parsimony of Government where the interests of the North are concerned, we may mention that the House of Refuge in Edinburgh is not only unendowed, but they have actually, for years past, exacted a rent of £80 per annum for the premises, in which the benevolent have given the destitute, irrespective of country, temporary sustenance and shelter; and latterly, regardless of the general indignation, put the building up to public sale. Do away with the disgrace of this at once, and place us on the same level as England and Ireland.

The indirect hostility of Government to the progress of learning in Scotland, is certainly not creditable to men of liberal and enlightened sentiments. In England especially, and also in Ireland, the endowments, grants, and annual payments to colleges and educational institutions present so many bounties there for the development of talent. Scotland, in this respect, is comparatively neglected; her students are even taxed, and power granted to a "lean and hungry" company of "apothecaries" to extort from them still further should they venture to practise there. If the arts and sciences do not flourish in England and Ireland, it is not for want of patronage. Much has been done, and is doing, to foster such institutions as the National Gallery, the British and Geological Museums, Colleges, and Royal Societies. With this we do not quarrel. Our English and Irish brethren deserve all they receive at the hands of Government; but why should we not share in this munificence?

English influence and avarice are being felt everywhere; our local boards, for the transaction of purely local business, are filled with pensioners and placemen who have already had too much to do with the administration of Scottish affairs. It must be admitted that our business would be conducted with more economy and despatch by men practically acquainted with the country and her manufactures than by strangers, and that men whose interests would be affected by the general prosperity of the country would feel more nearly concerned in its proper management. Is it possible to look tamely on and witness this wholesale patronage of Englishmen, to the exclusion of native merit

-to witness the withdrawal of our local Boards of Customs and Excise, for the purpose of carrying out a centralizing policy, the consequent delay of business, the loss incurred, the enterprise and commercial growth of the country impeded, the entire control usurped and engrossed by Southerns? These are promoted-nay, pushed into every well-paid official situation, to the humiliation and impoverishment of our people. The commercial and shipping interests of the country are subjected to enormous loss, loss of property and loss of life, through the exclusiveness of Government in wilfully neglecting to erect suitable harbours of refuge, although these are imperatively needed, in order that our dangerous and stormy coasts may no longer be strewed with the wrecked and scattered fortunes of our merchants, and the lifeless remains of our seamen (a class of men who, recollecting our naval and mercantile relations with the world, and irrespective of higher considerations, surely deserve better at the hands of Government). When these harbours are wanted for England, there is no lack of funds to complete the works, as witness the vast sums spent and being spent. What think our readers of grants to the extent of upwards of £2,400,000 being made for these works, whilst the geographical survey of Scotland is not even now completed? The consequences of this parsimony are just what might have been foreseen: navigation is rendered more hazardous than it need be; indeed, so wretchedly is our country mapped, that various of our promontories are inaccurately set down to the extent of several miles. It is surely evident, from the foregoing statements, that the Scottish people owe to the Government a very small debt of gratitude indeed, and that they are in reality aggrieved. The progress of the country since the Union is not, as has been asserted, the result of its connexion with England, but the result of the cessation of international feuds, and the consequent leisure and opportunity left for the cultivation of the industrial arts, arts which have been carried to a high degree of excellence by the indomitable perseverance and capacity of her sons. England, too, has been benefited by the same causes; and we might with equal propriety ascribe her wealth and prosperity to the Union; but this would be as fallacious as the statement hazarded by T. U. and reiterated by "Benjamin." We have

reason to complain, however, that Government has by positive acts of legislation fostered the trade of England at the expense of that of Scotland. All the Government dockyards and arsenals are in England, where thousands of her industrial population are engaged in every variety of mechanical labour; whole towns increase in prosperity from the wealth circulated there by the Government. The evil is particularly glaring in this instance from the fact that the Scotch are famous throughout the world for their skill in shipbuilding of every description; yet not one of the vessels of the naval force has been built by them. Has this been done without sectional legislation? The army is stationed mainly in England and Ireland; and, as a matter of course, victualled and paid there; so that these countries respectively are benefited by these necessary disbursements, which cannot fail to augment their imports and give a stimulus to trade. The same statement equally applies to our naval armament. National facilities are overlooked when Government has a purpose to serve. The iron ore of England is not equal to that of Scotland, and the forges of the latter are the finest in Europe; yet the whole of the cannon belonging to the Crown, the land and field batteries, the shot, shell, cannon, and mortars, are all made in England, notwithstanding the superior facilities for the like manufacture possessed by Scotland. Not content with this swinging patronage of English labour, they descend to pettinesses quite ridiculous. Fancy them bringing the stationery required for the Government offices all the way from the Thames! Even the uniforms of the Edinburgh letter carriers are contracted and paid for in London, as if it were impossible to find a tailor in Scotland equal to the task of making them. In the matter of the income tax we have just reason to feel ag grieved. It is high time to call attention to this "distinctive" manner of legislating. Scottish landlords are charged upon the gross rental, whereas the landlords of the other two countries pay only upon the nett rental. This shows clearly that the notions which our legislators have of justice to Scot land are lamentably confused.

These are merely a few instances of a system of mal-legislation which has been carried on by our rulers, who, it must be evident, have adopted a foolish and centra