The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-03-29

taken during the last fifteen years in the lrisl
movement for home rule II II surprising that s,
little IA known about the dissatisfaction witt
which the union Of England and Scotland wa,
long regarded by Sc%otchmen. and about the
rcsolute efforts made TO secure n repeal or disso,
luton oft. Scarcely did the union become opera.
tive in 1907 thsE n Jacobitc conspiracy 10 over.
throw II was formed in Scotland and n similar
aim was at the bottom of the rebellion OF 1915,
as we'll MS Of the great uprising Ia liI5, which
came near to pre- wing successful. In addition Ia
these attempts to SKATER the union by violence,
there we're constitutional cndeavors 10 bring
about the same result, one Of which cam near
obtaining a majority in the House Of Lords.
This curious incident Ia described at length In
the twelfth chapter OF this volume. The Earl
OF Findlater. II seems. was chosen in 1919 to
move for leave to bring In a bill to dissolve the
union. He was selected for the very reason
that he had been an advocate of the
union In the Scots Parliament. He succeeded
ia making out a pretty strong case for the de-
mand OF his compatriots. lie enumerated the
grievances OF the Scottish people, which COM
prised the abolition OF the Prlvy Council for
Scotland. the extension OF the En- Rlish treason
laws to Scotland. the refusal to recognize the
British titles of Scotsmen who had been
mhuo pttIs' hhu tie IropOStu lhposltlOh
of q malt duty. lie, therefore, moved that, rs
the union had not yielded the good effects ex-
pected Of 1t. 1t be dissolved. subject to the
maintenance OF the Protestant succession, and
the Queens prerogative In both kingdoms. The
motion was seconded by tho Earl OF Mar, and
the Duke Of Argyle supported 1t in an out
spoken and energetic way. He acknowledge
the active share which he had taken in bring
ing about the union. lIis principal motive, he
said. had been the security of the Protestant
succession. lie was satisfied, however. that
the passing OF the proposed bill would
not affect the succession, ard he was
convinced that It was in the interest both
Of Scotland and England. He spoke as a peer
OF both countries. and If his motion Was rejected
he could not long expect to have property in the
ono or liberty in the other. The malt duty. he
insisted. constituted as grea, an inequality and
injustice as II they were to propose to tax all
the land In England BY the acre, when it was
worth six pounds sterling in the nelehborhood
of London and not as many shillings in some
parts of the country. English malt fetched
three to four shillings n bushel. whereas tho
same quantity was not worth more than one
shilling in Scotland. On the question being nut.
tho vote was found to he equal, "a peers being
for the motion and the same number
against 1t. Tho motion was ultimately rejected
by q majority of 4 on the proxies. which
stood in the proportion Of II to IA. Not long
afterward. tho Malt bill narrowly escaped de-
feat In the House of Lords on the second read
ing. when the majority was only =. The Gov
eminent prevented the evaporation of the Scots
from breaking out In riotous defiance by waiv-
ing the collection OF tho duty. 1t was not till
ten years later that Scotland resounded with
tumult over the partial enforcement of the law.
There seems to be no doubt that 1t was the
want of evidence OF any satisfactory security
for the Protestant succession which chiefly
contributed to defeat tho motion for a di.solu-
tion of the union in the House OF Lords.
The romantic episode Of the AS temporarily
overturned the union. 1t may be said, indeed.
to have been a crusade against the union.
though this purpose vas no longer, as In the
case of the risings of 1908. 1715, and 1T1S. so
prominently put forward. Undoubtedly its ulti-
mate success must have destroyed the union,
since It would have annullod one of the funda-
mental articles of the treaty. How nearly the
rebellion escaped being a revolution the fact Of
the temporary conquest Of Scotland sufficiently
indicates. Nor should 1t be forgotten that the
army of Highlanders in its inva sion of England
got as far as Derby. which is but little moro
than a hundred miles distant from London.
The Fundamental cause of the retreat OF the
Highlanders and the subsequent collapse of the
rebellion was the refusal OF the Wing peasants
and weavers Of the south Of Scotland to assist q
Popish prince. They remained stanch to the
union and the Protestant succession. The rest
less Cameronians. indeed. took down their rusty
fints and broadswords, but, though they did
not declare their intention in decisive terms,
their resentment against sundry ecclesiastical
backslidings on the part OF the Established
Kirk was not equal to their AYERS ion Of Popery |
The collapse of the rebellion of 1745 afforded
an opportunity for harassing Scotland with
repressive legislation which. II prudence had
not interviewed, might have perpetuated discon-
tent and turned Scotland into a second Ireland. |
At this crisis, however. English statesmen were
wise, and limited retribution to the trial and
execution of several OF the leaders and their
followers, to the forfeiture of the estates of the
guilty. and to the abolition of the hereditary
jurisdictions. The result of this prudence was
that the year. immediately following the re-
bellion of 1745 saw the beginning of a closer
and more sympathetic intercourse between
Scot and Englishman. The legislative union
had hitherto resulted in a very meagre
growth of good feeling OF either side
toward tho other. Old contentious. kept
alive by discomfort in Scotland and an over |
weening sense OF superiority in England, left
their traces in national arrangement. After
the rebellion, however. tho abatement of re-
criminatory feeling shows that that unlucky
event had quickened In both peoples n sense Of
the mutual interests at stake in the union. |
Those who write or speak. however. In ~ecstatic
terms of the immediate benefits conferred by |
the union on Scotland are unacquainted with
tho facts. For nearly half a century the union |
effected but little improvement In the relations |
Of the two people. and but little amelioration Of
Scottish poverty. Writers like Ramsay, who
lived through the greater part of this critical
period, confess their establishment at tho
limited intercourse between England and Scot
land from 1907 TO l745. Complaints were fire.
quent enough of the growing absorption of the
Scottish nobility and gentry by the allurements
of the British capital, but there was nothing
approaching mutual knowledge during that
period. One English writer who attempted
to enlighten his countrymen on the state
of Scotland at the end OF tho first quarter |
of the eighteenth century prefaced his
account with the remark that there has