BOOKS.
THE UNION WITH SCOTLAND.*
THE very success of the Union of 1707 between England and Scotland has caused that triumph of statesmanship to be under-
rated. The measure which united the two peoples under a common Parliament has worked so well and so smoothly that it has been taken as a matter of course by later generations. Yet the Union was not popular in either country when it was carried, it was hotly resented for many years by a large section of the Scottish people, and it became at a later stage most dis- tasteful to English Whigs, who regarded the Scottish Members, not without reason, as George III.'s lackeys. A century had to pass before the essential wisdom of the Union was admitted by all parties. Thenceforth the compact of 1707 came to be regarded as a natural and inevitable step in the evolution of the English and Scottish nations, and its historical significance was obscured. This is the theme of an extremely able book which Professor Dicey and Professor Reit have just published. The English jurist and the Scottish historian, collaborating in an examination of the Union. its antecedents and its consequences, have thrown new light on one of the greatest events in our history.
The authors rightly emphasize the contrast between the English and the Scottish Parliaments before the Revolution of 1690. The Parliament of Westminster had shaken itself loose from Royal control, but the Parliament of Edinburgh, with all real power vested in the Committee of the Articles nominated indirectly by the King, had remained subject to the Crown. Thus, while our Parliament was a truly national Assembly before 1690, the Scottish Parliament was not. The real centre of Scottish public life was in the General Assembly of the Church, a thoroughly democratic body which in the course of a century had acquired the confidence and respect of the nation. The fall of .James II. and the establishment of a Parliamentary monarchy constituted the " Glorious Revolution." But while in England the settlement was essentially conservative, in Scotland it was revolutionary. For the Scottish Parliament, summoned as a Convention in 1689, abolished the Committee of the Articles, and for the first time became free to make laws without the previous sanction of the Government. This Parlia- ment and its successor of 1703 were the only genuine Legislatures, of the English type, which Scotland ever had. Nevertheless this liberated Parliament was so unfamiliar to Scottish minds that it could not rival the 'Church Assembly, endeared to all classes of Presbyterians by the memories of struggle and persecution from the days of Knox and Melville to the "Killing Time" that had just ended. The authors observe very shrewdly that the transformed Scottish Parliament with its life of seventeen years (1690-1707) presents a contrast rather than a parallel to Grattan's Irish Parliament, which endured for eighteen years (1782-1800). Grattan's Parliament, though composed entirely of Protestants in a country which was largely Roman Catholic, captured the Irish imagination because it had no rival like the General Assembly to compete for the interest of the public. Scottish Nationalism could express itself in the ecclesiastical body. Irish Nationalism had no outlet but. the Protestant Parliament. It may be said, of course, that the Scottish Presbyterians in 1690 were not such an overwhelming majority
• Thoughts on the Union between Ragland and Scotland. By A. V. Dicey and R. B. Bait. London : 31acmillan. [166. net.] of the nation as they appeared- to be Some writers indeed affirm that the majority leant the other way. But the Episco-
palians were too intimately associated with the Jacobites to expect much consideration from the triumphant Whigs, nor could William of Orange afford to quarrel with his supporters in the General Assembly, however harsh their retaliatory measures might seem. The religious settlement as carried out by the Assembly excited much more attention in Scotland than the political changes effected by the Parliament. Before Scotsmen could become habituated to the idea of a national political Assembly the Union had been effected.
It is obvious that each country had a most powerful motive for seeking union. England desired to be free from the old peril of an independent Scotland ruled by a hostile dynasty. The union of the Crowns had proved insufficient, and in Anne's reign it was clear that, if the Scots would not accept the Hanoverian as her successor, they would most probably revert to the Stuarts and give Louis XIV. a new ally. This danger had to be averted at all costs. On the other hand, Scotland, hard hit by the failure of the preposterous Darien scheme, realized that her infant industries could never thrive unless she were allowed to share the trade of the English Colonies. Freedom of trade was a matter of life and death to her, and could only be had at the price of union. But these fundamental con- siderations were concealed from the view of many people by old prejudices and recent quarrels. We may well suppose that, if universal suffrage had been known in those days, and demagogues had had the ear of the masses on either side of the Tweed, much more would have been heard of the temporary and senti- mental grievances and much less of the solid advantages of union. The statesmen who drew up the Treaty of Union, afterwards sanctioned by the Scottish Parliament and then confirmed by the English Parliament, were fortunately able to disregard the cries of the moment and to work for the future good of their countries. It is important to notice that the General Assembly threw the weight of its influence on the side of union. Its leaders were sagacious enough to foresee that the Union would constitute a solid guarantee of the liberties of the Kirk against any renewed Jacobite attempt to overthrow them as in 1660. Nevertheless the actual task of drafting the terms and securing the consent of the Scottish Parliament with- out offending English susceptibilities was extremely delicate. The authors point as an example to the ingenious vagueness of the clause under which, after the Union, appeals could be made from the Court of Session to the House of Lords. That clause was indeed a masterpiece of tact. The dangers of a long debate in Committee in the English Parliament were eluded by the ingenuity of Harcourt, who drafted a Bill reciting the Union Treaty as confirmed at Edinburgh in the preamble, with enacting clauses that could not well be amended. A similar device was adopted recently in the case of the Church Enabling Act. The authors' exposition of the Act of Union as at once a most revolutionary and a most conservative measure is admirably clear and instructive.
The Union was not out of danger when it became law. It is deubtleas true that the Whig motion in the House of Lords in 1713 for repeal, which was only rejected in a close division by four proxy votes, was a mere political manoeuvre. But the Jacobite insurrections of 1715 and 1745 were to no small degree fostered by Scottish dislike of the Union, and the Porteous riots represented the anti-Unionist feelings of the Edinburgh mob. After the accession of George III., while opposition in Scotland died away, violent prejudice against Scotsmen began to increase in England. Dr. Johnson and Wilkes had not much in common, but they both shared this prejudice. The Scottish Members were the most faithful of the King's followers. They voted with the Ministry of the day, whatever its programme or principles, and the Whigs resented such corrupt subservience. But, as the authors point out, the dislike of Scotsmen that was well marked in the early years of George III.'s reign rapidly subsided. It is significant that a crazy Scottish nobleman was the accepted leader of the London mob in the Gordon riots of 1780 against the Roman Catholics. After the French Revolution we hear no more of any grumbling against the Union. Its beneficence had been proved by experience. If Pitt had had a free hand with the Irish settlement in 1800, and if an English party had not been tempted in our own time to seek Nationalist votes, it is conceivable that the Union with Ireland might now be reaching the same stage of acceptance as the Union with Scotland attained after a century.
Previous page
