provincializing measure; and the Chevalier Johnstone, who held a high post in the Pretender's army, says, in his Memoirs, that, down to the year 1746, the Union was so generally abhorred in Scotland, even to the lowest peasant, that, had the Pretender identified himself with the AntiUnion feelings of the great mass of the population, by assembling a native Parliament in Scotland, and throwing himself upon the exclusive support of the Scotch, as their own king, instead of using them as mere provincial instruments to acquire the English throne, Scotland, with the assistance of France, would have had no bad chance of becoming a separate kingdom, as formerly, under the Stuarts.1 Sir Walter Scott, in one of his antiquarian tracts, relates, on the authority of an eminent preacher of the day, that, at a later period, or considerably within the latter half of the last century, a sermon was not considered complete, unless it contained some observation or allusion to the Union; and, when Smollet wrote his continuation of Hume, the patriotic Earl of Belhaven's enumeration of the evils which he said would attend a Union, in his impassioned speech. 1 Mr. Home, in his History of the Insurrection of 1745, records, though with the sentiments of a modern, as contrasted with an ancient, of an English as opposed to an Irish Scotchman, the following noble instance of enduring and determined Anti-Unionism in a Scotch gentleman. After describing Prince Charles's capture of Edinburgh, and entrance into his ancestor's palace of Holyrood House, he adds:"When he (the Prince) was near the door, which stood open to receive him, a gentleman stepped out of the crowd, drew his sword, and raising his arm aloft, walked up stairs before Charles. The person who enlisted himself in this manner was James Hepburn of Keith; . he had been engaged, when a very young man, in the rebellion of the year 1715, and, from that time, (learned and intelligent as he was,) had continued a Jacobite. But he had compounded the spirit of Jacobitism with another spirit: for he disclaimed the hereditary indefeasible right of kings, and condemned the government of James II.; but he also condemned the UNION between England and Scotland as INJURIOUS and HUMILIATING to HIS country; saying, (to use his own words,) that the Union had made a Scotch gentleman of small fortune nobody, and that HE would DIE α THOUSAND TIMES rather than submit to it! Wrapped up in these notions, he kept himself for THIRTY YEARS in constant readiness to take arms, and was the FIRST person who joined Charles at Edinburgh: idolized by the Jacobites, and beloved by some of the best Whigs, who regretted that this accomplished gentleman, the model of ANCIENT simplicity, manliness, and honour, should sacrifice himself to a visionary idea of the independence of Scotland." (p. 100.) This was, indeed, a glorious fellow-ultimus Scotorum! against it, was "looked upon as a prophecy by great part of the Scotch nation." From the cold and slurring manner in which such feelings of Scotch nationality are spoken of, when at all adverted to, by English authors-although such would be their own feelings had England been provincialized by France, as Scotland and Ireland have been by England, it is not easy to trace to a more modern period the exact extent and continuance of an Anti-Union spirit in Scotland. However, long subsequent to the time when the official information collected by Chalmers, in his Caledonia, shows, that Scotland was recovering the injurious effects of its Union, the lingering existence of aversion to that measure may be observed in the occasional vivid representations of the old Anti-Union feeling, which are given in the novels of those great "painters from nature," Smollet, Moore, and Scott. At present, and long since, every trace of that feeling has perhaps expired among the higher orders in Scotland. Yet as, in the language of Colonel Napier, "it is easier to oppress the people of all countries than to destroy their generous feelings ;" and "when all patriotism is destroyed amongst the upper classes, it may still be found amongst the lower," we see a remarkable instance of patriotic regret that Scotland should be a province, in the letters of her noble peasant Burns, so late as the year 1790. In writing to his friend Mrs. Dunlop, the patriotic poet exclaims: "Alas! have I often said to myself, what are all the BOASTED advantages which my country reaps from the UNION, that can counterbalance the ANNIHILATION of her INDEPENDENCE, and even of her very NAME!1 I often repeat the couplet of my favourite poet, Goldsmith, 1 In spite of the prevalent political notions respecting the " advantages" derived by Scotland from her Union, Burns's idea as to their being of a more "boasted" than substantial kind, is by no means without some appearance of foundation. The late Sir John Sinclair, after stating the Scotch revenue, in one of his letters, at about £4,500,000 a year, says, that from that sum, Scotland is annually obliged "to remit above 4,000,000 to the English Exchequer-a greater tribute than was EVER paid by one nation to ANOTHER. What, (asks Sir John,) would be the condition of this country, (Scotland,) if that great sum was laid out upon its INTERNAL improvement? What (he goes on,) would even England say, if it had a TRIBUTE of FOUR MILLIONS per annum to remit to FRANCE? And, were it not for this TRIBUTE to ENGLAND, (observes Sir John,) No distress COULD be experienced in Scotland! But Scotland, (he concludes,) must pay four millions in GOLD to the ... -States of NATIVE LIBERTY possessed, Nothing," continues Burns, "can reconcile me to the common terms, English ambassador, English court,' &c. And I am out of all patience to see that equivocal character, Hastings"-meaning Warren Hastings," impeached by the 'Commons of England.'" Such is the last perceptible English treasury-for no other species of money is receivable there." (Letter to Thomas Attwood, Esq., of Birmingham.) Sentimental or mere instinctive patriotism, is, after all, more sound and rational in itself than is generally imagined. See more on this subject in the Appendix from Tait's Magazine, at the end of this article. 'On another occasion, Burns is described, on beholding the ruined and roofless condition of the Hall of Stirling Castle, "in which the Scottish PARLIAMENTS had frequently been held,” as having given vent to his indignant national feelings, in what are termed "some imprudent, but not unpoetical lines, which," it is added, "had given much offence," and were, as such, suppressed! Burns was, in fact, a fellow of the right sort-an Irish Scotchman! What a pity it is to think, that such a man should, in Byron's language, have ever been obliged to "quail from his inspiration, bound to please"-that he should ever have been -"trembling to be wrong, For fear some noble thoughts, like heavenly rebels, to think, in a word, that such a real specimen of GOD ALMIGHTY's, as contrasted with man's nobility, should ever have been compelled to seek a gaugership from any descendant of the despicable aristocracy, who sold the independence of the land of Bruce and Wallace, for the wretched bribe, for the Iscariot compensation, of £50,000! The suppressed Anti-Union lines of the high-minded peasant, that gave such "offence" to the degenerate descendants of the heroes of Bannockburn, may be supposed to have been something in the spirit of the following patriotic effusion, by my friend, the author of "The Uninscribed Tomb": THE SHAMROCK, THE ROSE, AND THE THISTLE. I. The SHAMROCK, the ROSE, and the THISTLE combined, But oh! they regard not the emerald stem, Who tear it from earth-to entwine it with them. For the ROSE hath its thorns, and the THISTLE its sting, gleam of generous discontent at the extinction of Scotland as a nation—a feeling, so natural in itself, so truly noble in its source, so long in its continuance, and so recent in its expression, that if elegance of sentiment could communicate any of its softening influences to the rugged harshness of party politics, or if Lord Ormelie could care, as a mere Lord, to what country he belonged, one could hardly think that a countryman of Burns would have been the special mover of a Coercion Bill for the suppression of that feeling on the part of the Irish people. The best proof, however, of the paramount popularity of Anti-Unionism in Ireland is given in the following list of the amount of signatures attached to the most numerously-signed petitions presented to Parliament up to the close of the Sessions of 1834, when Anti-Union agitation became provisionally suspended : The ROSE and the THISTLE together may cling, IV. Oh no! in full freshness, unsullied 'twill blow, 1831. O'MORE. CHAPTER II. Inquiry, as regards the idea of maintaining a Union by force, into the number of Irish who died in the British army and navy during the last half century, and likewise into the comparative military qualities of the British and Irish people. THE petitioners against the Repeal were but 21,249! Thus, it appears that the Anti-Union spirit in Ireland was not only stronger than the national hatred of tithes, on account of which so many sacrifices of property and life have been incurred, but even stronger than the degree of interest evinced in reference to the most exciting questions, in England and Scotland. Whether that spirit is destined to subside into permanent submission in Ireland, as it did in Scotland, it is impossible to foretel. But if it does, such a submission can only be effected by the success of the present experiment of a liberal and popular government to convince the Irish people that a maintenance of the Union will be better for Ireland than its dissolution.' 1 The able French historian of the Norman Conquest,-in commenting upon the letter of Donald O'Neill, king of Ulster, in the commencement of the 14th century, to Pope John XXII., at the time that the oppressed Irish crowned Edward Bruce, as their king, and rose up against the tyranny of England, like the Poles, in our day, against the despotism of Russia, has instanced the native Irish as displaying a stronger and more enduring spirit of nationality than the people of any other country. I subjoin the concluding passage of O'Neill's letter-that Polish manifesto of its day-with a portion of the French historian's remarks on that interesting document, rather, as affording a lively description of old national feelings, and, as curious, from the view taken of those feelings by an enlightened foreigner, than as presenting ideas capable of influencing the conduct of the present generation. "We cherish," says this native Irish manifesto, "at the bottom of our hearts, an inveterate hatred, produced by lengthened recollections of injustice-by the murder of our fathers, brothers, and nearest kindred,— and which will not be extinguished in our time, nor in that of our children; so that, as long as we have life, we will fight against them, without regret or remorse, in defence of our rights. We will not cease to fight against and annoy them, until the day when they themselves, for want of power, shall have ceased to do us harm, and the Supreme Judge shall have taken just vengeance on their crimes; which, we firmly hope, will sooner or later come to pass. Until then we will make war upon them unto death, to recover the independence which is our national right: |