|
The old spirit did not die completely when Charles went off to the continent, never to return. How could it? The Highlanders had a long history of
fighting, winning some, losing some and then coming back for more. Many of the leading clans, despite their severe losses, still hoped for help from France. Even as late as l1it was reported that the Macleans were
anxious to renew the fight. Charles Edward, however, their "Bonnie Prince," preferred to spend his time in idleness in Rome or Florence, often hopelessly drunk as a pathetic "King over the Water."
When he died in 1788, his successor was his young brother Henry, Cardinal York, who assumed the rather ambitious title Henry IX. He did not claim the throne of Britain. Upon his death in 1808, the Stuarts were no more.
Scotland now was now fully accepted in, and for its own part, fully accepted the Union. It was ready to play a major role in the expansion of the British Empire. In particular, the fighting qualities and heroic
traditions of the Highlanders were put to good use in British armies sent to fight in Europe and further afield. The Seven Years War (1756-63) that closely followed the failure of the Jacobite Rebellion was the most
dramatically successful war ever fought by Britain. Success followed success (mostly at the expense of France) in Canada, India, West Africa and the West Indies. The tiny North Atlantic island of Britain found itself at
the head of a vast, world empire in which the Scots played a leading role. The Crown provided the strongest link between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. For one reason or another unknown to this author,
perhaps to assuage guilt, King George III of England erected a grand marble tomb in Rome to the memory of the unfortunate Stuarts. His son, George IV, dressed in the Royal Stuart tartan, or a reasonable facsimile
thereof, made a state visit to Scotland in 1822, the first by a reigning monarch in 172 years. After being greeted by Sir Walter Scott (in Campell tartan), he was then entertained lavishly by Lord Hopetoun, whose own
father had welcomed the Butcher Cumberland shortly after Culloden. It was Queen Victoria however; who was most anxious to make amends for the grievous harm suffered by her northern neighbors. Even Albert, her German
consort, took to wearing a kilt on their frequent visits to the Highlands, where he praised the inhabitants' "good-breeding, simplicity and intelligence." Royal interest in the traditions of the Highlands
apart, however, the peculiar situation that had created the Union did nothing to promote Scotland's political self-expression. Here the situation was one of stagnancy. Real power in Scotland, for the most part, resided
in the hands of a political manager. His personal influence and power of patronage allowed him to manipulate the votes of the 45 Scottish members that, after the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament in 1707,
perfidious England had so graciously allowed to attend its own Parliament at Westminster. Thirty of these members represented the counties and 15 the 65 royal burghs. This was hardly a democracy at work. The system of
franchise meant that in 1788 the whole country possessed fewer than 3,000 voters. Large new population centers were not royal burghs, and therefore had no representation at all. No wonder corruption prevailed; it was so
easy for the London Government to manipulate the all too-few voters through appointments, benefits and preferment's. In the early part of the 18th century, Scotland was governed by a succession of Lord Advocates,
including two Dukes of Argyll and later by Henry Dundas, Viscount Melville. For his efforts at keeping the majority of Scottish Members loyal to the Government, he was rewarded handsomely, progressing from Lord
Advocate, through President of the Board of Control for India, Treasurer of the Navy, to Home Secretary and Secretary of War. To his credit, in a position of authority lasting thirty years, Dundas attempted to put right
some of the grievous wrongs suffered by the Highlands at the hands of the Hanoverians. His efforts led to the repeal of the nefarious Act of 1746 that had forbidden Highland dress "the garb of sedition," and
the playing of the pipes. In 1784, he was able to have many of the forfeited Jacobite estates returned to their rightful owners. Apart from the occasional riot, usually occurring then as now, at the imposition of some
new tax or other, political apathy was the norm in Scotland. The 45 Scottish M.P.'s seemed to be content with their lot; after all, they were sharing the largesse of what was becoming the largest and wealthiest empire
on earth. It was convenient as well as lucrative for them to largely ignore the desperate needs of the constituencies of their own country. The native Scottish spirit of independence, however, broke through with the
widespread support of the American cause in the War of Independence, a sympathy for basic political rights that was repeated during the French Revolution. The authorities responded with cruel reprisals. Two outspoken
Scots, Thomas Palmer and Thomas Muir were exiled to many years of servitude in Botany Bay for their support of what they considered the natural rights of man. In Parliament, anti-Scots feeling was stirred up by the
notorious and nasty fop, John Wilkes, whose Scottophobia was based on his conviction that the English were a superior race. The spoils of victory in the Seven Years War, he preached, were for England. His invective and
the winning of the war in America by the patriots had the effect of once more stirring up feelings for Scottish independence. Wilkes no doubt felt his scurrilous attacks on his northern neighbors were justified.
There were many attempts on the life of this arrogant, chauvinistic Englishman. In many Scottish cities, he was burned in effigy. In England, on the other hand, he was popular as an exemplar of "little English
patriotism" with all its bigotry and narrow-mindedness. Such were the convictions of the scoundrel Wilkes, former felon, that he defended frequent death sentences and public executions in his own country as helping
accustom brave Englishmen to a contempt for death. For Wilkes, the Scots were inherently, unchangeable aliens "never, ever to be confused or integrated with the English." He insisted on using the term
England
to describe the entire island (a fault of many ignorant Americans to this day); and he gave his unqualified support to those who would warn the great Scottish Lords and even the King himself, of "melting the English name down to Briton." I do not know what he thought of the Welsh (who continued to think of themselves as the true "Britons"), but I can imagine that his complete lack of knowledge of their Cymric language put them completely out of reach of his and most Englishman's ken.
Naturally, there was a strong reaction in Scotland to the scandalous charges of Wilkes and his ilk, especially since the culmination of his attacks came in his assertion that the American rebellion had been fomented
in Scotland. "The ruin of the British Empire," he complained, "is merely a Scotch quarrel with English liberty, a Scotch scramble for English property." Alien men and alien attitudes from North
Britain, he said, had infected those in the seat of power in London, forcing other Englishmen in North America into rebellion. On one hand, Wilkes was expressing long-felt English contempt of Scottish civilization. On
the other, he was expressing the very great fears of increasing Scottish influence, especially in the seats of power. George III, in particular, had welcomed the Scots as loyal Britons. He intervened in a case involving
the mistreatment of a family of Scottish tollgate keepers by a party of English dragoons. He insisted the culprits be tried in a Scottish court and be severely reprimanded. In official eyes, particularly those of the
King, Scotland was no longer the old enemy but a useful, loyal and British domain. More important, perhaps, in view of Britain's overseas commitments, the Highland regiments of the army constituted the bulk of Britain's
arsenal. Such loyalty had to be rewarded. London had to open itself up to increasing Scottish participation in its affairs. More opportunities for Scots meant fewer perks for Wilkes and his Englishmen. In fact, only
one year after Culloden, the Prime Minister, Henry Pelham had conceded that "Every Scotch man who had zeal and abilities to serve the King should have the same admission with the administration as the subject of
England had." Thus Scots were allowed to compete for advancement in the state on favorable terms with the English (and Welsh, who had been flocking into London in such great numbers since the time of Elizabeth to
pick many a juicy plum from the veritable forest of lucrative government positions). Wilkes' very invective was a sure sign that the old barriers between Scotland and England were no longer extant, power and influence
within Great Britain was no longer confined to the English. The tail was beginning to wag the dog. One sure sign of this was the choice of Scotsman John Stuart, the Earl of Bute as the principal architect of King
George III's plan to rule as well as reign. Bute's determination to end the war with France led to the resignation of William Pitt. Under Bute's guidance, the Treaty of Paris (1763) gave Britain possession of Canada,
many island colonies and Florida, as well as strengthening its hold in India. Sad to relate, many Englishmen then reviled Lord Bute as not gaining more from defeated France and loyal Scots were treated with mistrust
(ever contempt and derision) in the streets of London. The reasons are not hard to find. |
