Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Politics.

CAN SCOTLAND REASONABLY COMPLAIN OF INJUSTICE FROM ENGLAND?

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

Ir is a humiliating fact, that reasonable men should now be called on to discuss such a question as this. So long, however, as there are those whose sophistry or declamation is harmful, the irksome task will be imposed of combating the errors which they endeavour to disseminate. A few individuals have united in Scotland, to stir up the embers of national animosity, in imitation of the repeal agitation in Ireland. Their language is more extravagant, bombastic, and inflammatory than is usual even at the commencement of a revolutionary campaign. There can be no doubt that the leaders of the Scottish Rights movement look forward with pleasure to a general agitation, for the consequences of which they would not hold themselves responsible. There is indeed nothing more natural than the expectation that we shall soon have tradition, if not treason, as prevalent here as was the case in Ireland. We believe there is no grievance of which Scotland can possibly complain, greater than that her loyal and dutiful sons may probably have to submit to the alienation of the English people, in consequence of the declamation of a few agitators. The awakening of national hatred, which the Scottish Rights movement is sure to cause, if adopted by the population, would prove a curse to Scotland, as certainly as such aniImosity has blighted Ireland. We live in extraordinary times: witness a groundless agitation suddenly raised in the midst of a peaceable and contented people. The times are extraordinary enough to render it not improbable, that although now writing articles against each other's views, we may, if this tumult be allowed to increase, be drawing swords against each other. This would be a backward movement, it is true, but the progress of society is not always unchecked. Backward and forward the pendulum swings which marks the slow progress of human affairs. There is a villanous tendency in such an agitation as we condemn, to gather new strength as it proceeds. The prosperity

of Great Britain depends upon the three kingdoms maintaining a cordial sympathy, instead of raising questions of real or pretended national grievance, which would constantly suggest the idea of these being united only by a weak bond, and having a number of separate or opposing interests. Such a course would arouse the suspicions of foreign powers-would take away our unity of sympathy, which is the source of our national strength-and would be the forerunner of Britain's fall. It is undeniable that Scotland has received immense benefits from the union with England,-benefits in comparison with which her grievances are as nothing. Her commerce has been largely increased; much of English wealth flows in upon her; many government offices are held by Scotchmen. Scotchmen find their way in England to an opulence which their own country could not give them. It is dangerous to raise, by means of agitation, a few paltry cases of grievance, as such agitation would go on even after these had been remedied, and lead to an examination by England, as well as Scotland, of the principles on which the union is based, and either to a separation of the countries, or to conditions less advantageous to Scotland.

We submit that we have now stated very strong reasons for refusing to commit ourselves to an agitation which, if it once gains sufficient prominence, cannot be bridled. We add, that such an agitation cannot possibly obtain the objects sought for. The reason is obvious. By the union we have merged much of our national power in that of England. For example, the members of parliament returned from Scotland are only a small portion of the House of Commons. It is clear, therefore, that it must be either from the good will of England, or from national menace or rebellion, that we can obtain the redress of any of our grievances; and we do not believe that Scotland is strong-or at all events united-enough, to enable her to dissolve the union, or to force

England to yield to her demands. We observe, as a reason against the Scottish Rights agitation, that Scotland is flourishing, and her population comparatively happy and contented. Till the year now closed, we had no such complaint of injustice to Scotland, since the union. There seems reason to suspect that men are here annoying themselves about trifles. None felt that any grievances existed, until the population were told so by a few individuals. We have not the excuse of poverty and distress, which the Irish had for the repeal agitation. It is evident, therefore, both from our prosperity, and the long time which has elapsed since the union without such agitation, that it is now too late to attempt to raise it, and is groundless in point of equity.

We cannot now enter into an examination of all the charges made by our opponents against England. The utmost ingenuity and diligence have been exerted to discover cases of grievance. We shall only animadvert on the leading grievances alleged; and it is proper to observe, that our remarks on these are generally applicable to those we do not notice.

1. The agitation began by an unscrupulous procedure. It was first a complaint, made by memorials and otherwise, by a few obscure persons, not of a social grievance, a religious grievance, or a pecuniary grievance, but a heraldic grievance! At this time, however, the great design of a general agitation against Scottish grievances was carefully concealed. It was decided at once by the competent authorities, and it is now generally acknowledged, that the complaint was groundless. Yet this decision was kept back by those who made the complaint, we suppose, in "justice" to the community. It appears that the lion has all along been in its proper place in the national arms, and that the unicorn has, except during a short interval, been without a crown. In the

The principle upon which wise men act, is not doggedly to carry out abstract principles, but to support those political institutions which work well, and are suited to the age. At the same time, their abstract principles may be wisely set forth, and gradually adopted. Great Britain condemned the chartist agitation, as ignoring such policy. Our Scotch opponents are falling into the same errors, not omitting the error of need-twenty-fourth section of the treaty of union, less agitation. Notwithstanding the various inequalities which exist, the government of this country, on the whole, is wisely conducted. If we go into matters of abstract justice, we should require to touch upon various things maintainable only on account of their expediency. The cry of justice is here a miserable pretence. Scotchmen condemned the Irish agitation, and do not now pretend to uphold it. What injustice can Scotland complain of nearly so glaring as that which presses down Ireland-an ecclesiastical establishment, paid for by those of a different faith, who constitute a very large majority of the people? Why do our opponents not strengthen the cause of justice to Scotland, by supporting the dissenters of Ireland in attempting to rid themselves of this burden? They dare not. The fact is, there is no great principle involved in their agitation. The movement is destitute of all value, either as regards principle or expediency. The objects desired by the Chartists are being gradually secured without agitation; and we may be assured, that if Scotland has any proper grounds of complaint, these will be remedied without popular clamour.

it is expressly stated, that "the quartering of the arms, and the rank and precedency of the Lyon King of Arms of the kingdom of Scotland, as may best suit the union, be left to Her Majesty." The complaint, frivolous as it was, is thus shown to have no foundation.-2. It was complained that the Free Library Act, and other acts of public utility, were not extended to Scotland. The public were led to believe that the Scotch people were taxed for the maintenance of free libraries in England. Certain English towns wished the Free Library Act, and it was passed. Not having been asked for in Scotland, it was not extended to that country at the time. It might be considered as an experimental measure, and thus was properly limited at first in its application. It is possible that such legislation might prove injurious; but in this view Scotland would be free from it. At the same time it is perfectly possible for Scotch members to introduce and pass measures for Scotland alone. Thus the tests in the Scottish universities have been virtually abolished, whilst the English universities are closed against dissenters. The Scotch are likely

с

to have the benefit of a national education sooner than the English. A new free library act would have required to be introduced applicable to Scotland, as Mr. Ewart's act could not have been well adapted to our municipal institutions. The writer of the present article vainly endeavoured to induce the town council of Edinburgh, or the general population, to take up the subject, after the act had been for some time in force in England. Only one petition was sent from Scotland in favour of the extension of the act-a petition which emanated from a society with which he is connected, and the act was soon afterwards extended. The hollow agitators never pressed the subject, and now that the act is extended, have made no effort for it to be carried out. We would here make a remark sufficiently significant. Mr. Ewart, the author of the act in question, assured us, that when he introduced it, he made a strong attempt to have it applied to Scotland; but that this was opposed, and his object defeated by certain members of parliament returned from the northern part of the United Kingdom. The preceding views have been stated at some length, as they apply generally to the whole question of the passing of measures of public utility, applicable at first to only one part of the kingdom.-3. It is urged that London and Dublin have various charitable institutions, supported or assisted by government, while those of the Scottish capital receive no such aid. London, from its immense population, and Dublin, from the poverty which prevails there, have probably greater need of government endowments than Edinburgh, which abounds with hospitals which are made an improper use of.

We contend, however, that all such grants should be withdrawn. That these are given to two of the capitals, is no reason why they should be extended to the third. -4. It is alleged that large sums are expended by government in the endowment of English colleges, but that Scotland receives a much smaller sum for her universities; also, that Ireland alone has received the benefit of the Queen's Colleges. As to the first point, it is sufficient to reply that the Scotch universities receive annually £7,560 from the state, while the English universities receive £6,000, although entitled to much more. Regarding the other matter,

66

England itself has no such universities as government gave to Ireland. The latter country was discontented, and Sir Robert Peel, amidst general clamour, built and endowed those colleges, and increased the endowment of Maynooth; and, in doing so, perhaps went too far in that direction. We think that because government, actuated by state policy, planted colleges in certain quarters, it is not bound to do so in other parts of the kingdom. To expend public money in that way, without the necessity of a large increase of taxation, we believe, after all, would be wise; and we have no doubt that, in connexion with a national system of education, our government will be soon willing, and indeed glad, to build and endow people's" colleges, both in Scotland and England.-5. Scotland, it is said, has reason to complain that she has no proper means of defence. Sir Archibald Alison states that the English have 40,000 regular troops, and 80,000 militia, and that the Irish have 22,000 troops, and 12,000 armed police. In Scotland, again, there are only two battalions of infantry, and one regiment of cavalry. Why should Scotland have soldiers? Because an invasion is feared! The alleged grievance is only an application of the invasion panic to Scotland, and the most liberal politicians have regarded such fears as groundless. A few years ago, the French, under Louis Philippe, were expected to invade England, and march upon London; more recently it was the French under Napoleon III.; now it is the Russians who are to attack Scotland! The fact is, the British army are chiefly placed round the seats of government, and in Ireland, where they are most needed; and to send them to Scotland, where they are not required, would be a palpable absurdity. The remark of Sir Archibald, that the troops are used for the defence of the "English" only, is a mere quibble. It is obvious that before an attack on Scotland could be made, the whole army in the two other kingdoms could and would be concentrated in Scotland in a few hours. We are gravely asked, under these circumstances, to submit to a permanent increase of the British army. As for a militia, we do not require such a burden. The militia existing are judged sufficient for the protection of the kingdom; and if a greater number should be needed, Scotland will

assuredly be called on to contribute her proportion. Meanwhile, we suppose there is nothing to hinder our patriotic opponents from forming rifle clubs, or enlisting in the army, if they prefer it. Nearly similar remarks might be offered as to the complaint that Scotland is destitute of proper arsenals. Those in England are situated where they are absolutely required.-6. Holyrood Palace and Chapel, it is complained, are allowed to go to ruins, whereas Hampton Court, and other English palaces, are carefully preserved. The latter are needed for state purposes: on the other hand, Holyrood is scarcely used; and we have no evidence that our Queen would abandon Balmoral, and reside at Holyrood Palace for a considerable part of each year, if the latter were repaired. We think all that a government should do with such edifices, is merely to keep them from decay. To expend large sums of money upon them would be a vain extravagance; and this evil, if it prevails in England, should be checked, not extended to Scotland. Various ancient buildings have claims as well as Holyrood. But our opponents either display ignorance or duplicity in pretending that government has done nothing for Holyrood. Some years ago they paid a large sum for plans to put a roof on the chapel, but it was discovered that the walls were too weak to support one. It appears from a parliamentary return issued in 1830, that during the previous nine years upwards of £29,000 had been squandered on the palace in question. Within a few years, £45,000 of public money have been expended on the adjacent park, all for the benefit of the Scottish metropolis: but of course our opponents quietly ignore these facts.-7. Scotland, it is said, requires a secretary of state. It had one before, but the office fell into disrepute, and there does not seem much encouragement to revive it. To make the office independent of changes of ministry would be adverse to the spirit of the constitution. What is here wanted would promote that very evil of centralization which our opponents affect to condemn. It is true that the Lord Advocate, who virtually fills the office of secretary of state, may be overworked; but the same remark applies to other members of the government, so that the grievance does not apply to Scotland in particular. Besides this law

officer, the Secretary of State for the Home Department acts for Scotland as well as England; there is also a Scotch lord at the Treasury Board, and a number of Scotch peers and members of parliament. If these cannot attend to the interests of Scotland in the legislature, it is absurd to expect that a secretary of state could do so. It appears to us that such an office would only lead to greater indolence on the part of those whose duty it is to co-operate in promoting Scottish interests in parliament.-8. The last complaint which we shall notice is that of an adequate representation of Scotland in the House of Commons. The Act of Union declares the number of members to be 513 for England, and 45 for Scotland. The Reform Bill, again, fixes the proportion as 493 to 53. It is urged that Scotland should have twenty additional representatives. In estimating the increase of members from Scotland as only nine since the union, our opponents forget that England has twenty members less than previously. We cannot avoid noticing the gross insincerity of the Tories, who are the leaders of the Scottish Rights movement. The Reform Bill was framed, allowing to Scotland exactly the number of members to which she was entitled according to the combined estimate of taxation and population on which the bill was founded, but all this, and much more, was defeated by the Tories. Sir A. Alison, and his friends, opposed the extension of the franchise, and, in terms of impertinent scurrility, attacked the character of the proposed ten-pound voters: his opinions, therefore, on all such matters, seem little worth. We deprecate any great increase in the number of the Scotch representatives, because it would be the means of introducing into the legislature a greater number of obstructive Tories, and nameless and incapable Liberals. As in Ireland there is a Romanist party, in Scotland we should have an anti-Romanist faction, each making the House of Commons the scene of ecclesiastical wrangling. We wish to see a British liberal party, not either an Irish or Scotch party. We feel it would lead to dissatisfaction in England if her representation were diminished, and the number of members taken from her shared between Ireland and Scotland, or given to Scotland alone. Scotland has never been refused any measure of justice by having a

smaller rather than a larger number of members. Half-a-dozen enterprising members could introduce and carry measures affecting Scotland, as well as a greater number. The whole matter of the national representation is soon to be taken up by government, and if any inequality exists, it may be removed. The legislature have never been asked for an increase of Scotch representatives, and, of course, it has not refused to give it.

It is evident, in reviewing the alleged grievances now adverted to, that the Scottish Rights movement is based on a number of gross fallacies. For example, it looks only to what government has not done, not also to what it has done, for Scotland alone. It forgets the claims of the English provinces. We may add, it implies that the grievances complained of, if just, will not be removed without agitation. It very improperly expects everything to be done at once. For example, if something has been promised, government commissioners sent down, and plans made, yet if any delay occurs in the final execution, the government are bitterly blamed. But every other part of the United Kingdom may make the same complaint.

It appears to us, that any grievances justly complained of are chargeable against Scotland alone. The Scotch think that their own members fail to do their duty; yet, in place of electing better, our opponents vulgarly seek a mere numerical increase in the number of representatives. Many of the members sent from Scotland never open their lips on Scotch grievances, or Scotch business in parliament; a considerable minority are given over to the most rabid toryism, and stand in the way of all improve To attach blame to England, under these circumstances, seems a wrong course. In conclusion, let us inquire what is the

ment.

proper issue for this question. Not certainly strife,―agitation. That would only alienate the two kingdoms, and diminish our means of improvement and redress. We have had enough of agitation in Scotland. We live here in the midst of an intense worldliness, met, alas! by an intensely controversial spirit, which pains and harasses all to whom Christianity is a spirit of gentleness and good will. Shrinking, as we do, from the popular doctrine of spiritual independence, we would be most unwilling to weaken the bond which unites us with noble England. We speak in these friendly pages to many Englishmen, and we feel assured that they mean to inflict no injustice upon us: hence agitation is a crime. Let Scotland use the means which the constitution allows for the removal of every abuse. There are no greater evils than those which men bring on themselves. Let us not expend our strength upon the removal of imaginary evils. Let us not fall into the vulgar error-that which stands on the very front of this movement-of ascribing too much to mere legislation. Did Scotland get everything our opponents wish, she would be no better, no happier. She would have learnt to repeat the cry, "Give," "Give," and idly relying upon government, would cease to exert the energies which have raised her so high amongst the nations. The cure of Scotland's political evils lies, we think, not in supporting an agitation led by men in whom we can have no faith-who never did us any good as politicians, but in promoting the cause of true, though gradual, reform of that great rational liberal party whose principle and desire it is to remove every political abuse. Our Macaulays, our Humes, and our Ewarts, are the men whom we ought to trust.

Edinburgh.

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

HAD we been at the framing of the above question, we should certainly have demurred to the wording of it, believing, as we do, that Scotland has no cause of complaint against England, but only complains against the partial government of Great Britain; however, as the question has been fixed, we cannot now pretend to quarrel with it, but

T. U.

must address ourselves to our task, and we expect to find that task a very easy one, convinced that no one who is at all acquainted with Scottish affairs, and the way in which these affairs are managed, will attempt to maintain the negative of this question.

We rejoice that it is our privilege to live in an age that delights in bringing all things,

« AnteriorContinuar »