Saints Marcus and Marcellianus, martyrs, 286. St Armand, Bishop of Bordeaux. St Marina, of Bithynia, virgin, 8th century. St Elizabeth, of Sconauge, virgin and abbess, 1165.
Born. – Karl Wenceslaus Rodecker von Rotteck, historian, 1775, Frieburg, in Breisgau.
Died. – Caliph Othman, assassinated at Medina, 655; Gerard Van Swieten, eminent physician and teacher of medicine, 1772, Schoenbrunn, Vienna; Sir Thomas Picton, 1815, Waterloo.
On this Day in Other Sources.
The insurgent nobles, on the 18th of June , seized the Queen’s plate, jewels, and other moveables, in Holyrood-house: They coined the whole of her plate. On the same day, Glencairn went with his servants into the Queen’s chapel of Holyrood-house, and broke down the altars, and demolished the pictures, images, and ornaments. This outrage was highly commended by the preachers, as a work of great godliness: But, the other insurgent nobles were somewhat displeased; as he had done this mischief, without any order, and before they had resolved, how to deal with the Queen.
It is a curious circumstance, which marks the real design of the rebellious nobles: They immediately took the most decisive, and vigorous measures against the Queen, in violation of their public professions, and in breach of their solemn engagements, to serve, and obey her; while they did not pursue Bothwell, or take any measure to prevent his escape; though they always avowed one of their chief objects to be, to inflict condign punishment on Bothwell, for the King’s murder: Morton and Maitland, who were his complotters, knew, that he could charge them with their guilty conduct, in that abominable deed.
– Life of Mary, pp.155-184.
As a rule the provosts did not reside within the burgh, but on their own domains – coming only to the city on occasions of emergency or special business, and on these occasions, especially when they rendered any special service, they were usually rewarded by some present, generally wine. For example, under date 18th June, 1583, we find “given to Agnes Broune for wyne presentit to the proveist in time of trublis, being caused to abyde in this toune for pacifeing thairof xiij li vis. viijd.”
– Old Glasgow, pp.215-237.
The 18th of June, this year, 1589, George [Keith], Earl Marischal, was sent [as] ambassador to Denmark, for the King’s marriage. He was well accompanied in his embassy, and by the King’s procuration, the business was ended in the month of July thereafter; and in September following, the ambassador, with the Queen and all her train, shipped in Denmark for Scotland, but by contrary winds were forced to land in Ypso sound, in Norway, where the frost did constrain them to winter.
– Historical Works, pp.340-416.
At the wedding of “Jeilliane Campbell” with the Laird of Buckie, which took place on 18th June 1626, we find notice of trouts, wild-geese (not easily to be had at that season), three whole red deer and ten furches (I fear not in very good condition), and seventeen roes; of claret, white wine, and “Spanish wine,” aquavitæ, vinegar, etc.; for spiceries, pepper and ginger, sugar, cloves, cannel (cinnamon), saffron.
– Sketches, pp.341-394.
“Item, given to Mr Johnne McLen, pedagogue to my Lord Lorne’s sone, in September 1633, ane hewit plaid, pryce xii. lib.” Item, the 18th of Junii, to be coat and brekis to him (my Lorde’s sone), x. quarteris of fyne skarlet, xviii. lib. the ell, xlv. lib. Item, ane pair of silk stockings, “and there are ‘French bever hats, orange ribband points, and a Spanish pistolet’ for the young lord.”
– Popular Tales, Vol. 4, pp.53-75.
The army of Montrose consisted of about 2,000 foot, and 300 horse, and a large train of artillery. The forces which Lord Aboyne had suddenly collected on the spur of the occasion, were not numerous, but he was superior in cavalry. His ordnance consisted only of four pieces of brass cannon. Montrose arrived at the bridge of Dee on the eighteenth of June , and without a moment’s delay, commenced a furious cannonade upon the works, which had been thrown up at the south end, and which he kept up during the whole day without producing any material effect. Lieutenant Colonel Johnstone defended the bridge with determined bravery, and his musketeers kept up a galling and well directed fire upon their assailants. Both parties reposed during the short twilight, and as soon as morning dawned, Montrose renewed his attack upon the bridge, with an ardour which seemed to have received a fresh impulse from the unavailing efforts of the preceding day; but all his attempts were vain. Seeing no hopes of carrying the bridge in the teeth of the force opposed to him, he had recourse to a stratagem, by which he succeeded in withdrawing a part of Aboyne’s forces from the defence of the bridge. That force had indeed been considerably impaired before the renewal of the attack, in consequence of a party of fifty musketeers having gone to Aberdeen to escort thither the body of a citizen named John Forbes, who had been killed the preceding day; to which circumstance Spalding attributes the loss of the bridge; but whether the absence of this party had such an effect upon the fortune of the day is by no means clear. The covenanting general, after battering unsuccessfully the defences of the bridge, ordered a party of horsemen to proceed up the river to some distance, and to make a demonstration as if they intended to cross the river. Aboyne was completely deceived by this manœuvre, and sent the whole of his horsemen from the bridge to dispute the passage of the river with those of Montrose, leaving Lieutenant Colonel Johnstone and his fifty musketeers alone to protect the bridge. Montrose having thus drawn his opponent into the snare set for him, immediately sent back the greater part of his horse under the command of Captain Middleton, with instructions to renew the attack upon the bridge with redoubled energy. This officer lost no time in obeying these orders, and Lieutenant Colonel Johnstone having been wounded in the outset by a stone torn from the bridge by a shot, was forced to abandon its defence, and he and his party retired precipitately to Aberdeen.
– History of the Highlands, pp.314-341.
There was another, an open draw-well, at the Barras yett, near the port of that name at the foot of Saltmarket. It is mentioned in a minute of council in 1664, which ordains that “in respect of the heighting of the calsay at the Barrazet the well there be heightit twa stones higher round about, for preservation of childerin falling therin.”1
– Old Glasgow, pp.289-299.
1 18th June, 1664.
On 18th June, 1685, a skirmish took place at Muirdykes, in the eastern part of the parish, between the Government troops commanded by Lord Ross of Hawkhead, and a remnant to the number of 75, of those who had joined in the rising under the Earl of Argyle. The latter, under the command of Sir John Cochran, having taken up a position within some enclosures, bravely repelled the enemy, and kept their ground till nightfall, after which both parties withdrew from the field. Sir John’s men then dispersed, and the Earl himself having been previously taken prisoner near Inchinnan, the unfortunate enterprise came to an end.
– Gazetteer of Scotland, Lochwinnoch, pp.295-297.
The prices at which the magistrates disposed of the common lands were very small. The agricultural value of the ground was certainly not great, as may be judged from the fact that in 1712 the whole of the muir known as the Wester Common, extending to about 100 acres – now part of the city – was let to one James Bell at the rent of “11, 8s. 6d. That was probably all that could be then got for it; but the magistrates were not justified in permanently alienating lands which they held in trust – if not for the Church, to which they really belonged, at least for the citizens – at prices which were merely nominal. On the 18th of June, 1730, they sold sixty acres of this Wester Common to James Rae, a merchant in Glasgow, at the price of £145, 16s. 8d. and an annual feu-duty of £5, 11s. Taking the feu-duty at even twenty-five years’ purchase, this is less than £285 for sixty acres of land. And in 1747 they sold the remainder of the common, extending to between thirty and forty acres, to John Young, a tailor, at the price of £130 and a feu-duty of £1, 13s. 4d.
– Old Glasgow, pp.175-181.
HUME TO DR. CLEPHANE.
“DEAR DOCTOR, – All our projects have failed, and, I believe, for ever. The Secretary-at-War persists in his scruples and delays; and Mr. Roberts, Pelham’s Secretary, says our applications will not succeed. I suppose he speaks in this the sense of his master. Mentor alone is positive we will infallibly succeed. The General goes off for Scotland to-morrow. I set out next week, as fully convinced as Seneca of the vanity of the world, and of the insufficiency of riches to render us happy. I wish you had a little more of the philosophy of that great man, and I a little more of his riches. Perhaps you would rather choose my share, and will reproach me with both dividing and choosing. But such a sentiment is the strongest proof in the world that you want a little more philosophy, and that the division I have assigned you would suit you best.
“The General made… effort for us, and would have made a stronger could he have met with Lord Sandwich, whom he called upon several times, and who is now gone to the country about elections. Your friend Mitchel stands for Aberdeenshire, and, I believe, will carry it. I hope Col. Erskine will also have a seat. I am afraid for Oswald.
“I could have wrote you a fine elaborate letter, which you might have shown as from a wit of your acquaintance; but being afraid that this would deter you from answering, I thought it better to scribble in this careless manner. Pray how do you like your situation in Flanders? Have you got any friends or confidents whom you can be free with in seriis et in jocis, – amici omnium horarum?
“If Cope’s dragoons be in Flanders, pray inquire out the surgeon, Frank Home, and make my compliments to him. and tell him that I recommend him to pay his court to you, and to acquire your friendship. You may say that I think it will be very well worth his while, even though it should cost him some pains both to acquire and to keep it. You may add, that the last is, in my opinion, the most difficult point. Seriously speaking, Frank Home is a very pretty young fellow, and well worth your acquaintance. So pray make him the first advances, in case his modesty should render him backward. Yours,
“LONDON, June 18, 1747.
“To Dr, John Clephane of the British Hospital at Osterhout, Holland.”
– Sketches, pp.437-490.
“When this measure was before proposed to the Scotch Peerage, it was considered a degradation, and in the discussion on the articles of Union between Great Britain and Ireland, many declared their hostility to the practice, and only tolerated it as an ancient custom. But the great objection which he had to this Bill was, that it was a violation of the articles of Union; he always considered that the Union was one of the most solemn compacts which ever was entered into, and ought to be inviolate. He knew it had been asserted that it had been very frequently violated; and some seemed, he thought, anxious to embody it in the form of a lady possessing all the loveliness of Lucretia, without that nice feeling of chastity which rendered her violation a prelude to her destruction. (A laugh.) He considered that the Articles of Union were unalterable, and without questioning the discretion which he was sure their Lordships would use, if they had the power of altering any part of them, he denied that they had that power. The contract was one in which the contracting parties could never again be placed in a similar situation to that in which they were when the contract was entered into. The Noble Lord had said that the opinion of the Scotch Peers was in favour of the Bill; but although he thought that the Bill might have been framed in accordance with the expressed with of those Peers assembled, their Lordships would admit that it was impossible ever again to consult the Scotch nation though their Parliament. Those Articles expressed the conditions on which they had surrendered their independence, and those articles should, he repeated, be inviolate. It had always heretofore been contended, that it was the interest of both countries that they should remain unalterable. When innovations were once authorised, there was no knowing where they would stop; and their Lordships should recollect, that if they had a right to alter the tenure by which the representative Peers held their seats, and introduce others into the House, it would tend to remove one great obstacle to the alteration of another and most important article – that which excluded Papists and those suspected of attachment to Popery.”
– London Courier and Evening Gazette, Wednesday 18th June, 1828.
– Treaty of Union Articles, 1800-1850.
To the Editor of the Perthshire Advertiser.
21 PARK LANE, LONDON,
June 18, 1853.
“SIR, – My attention has been directed to an article in the Perthshire Advertiser, of the 13th ultimo, in which a work, entitled Barriers to the National Prosperity of Scotland, is reviewed, and from which are quoted passages tending to give an impression of the management of my estates in the Highlands, which is inconsistent with the facts.
The extract from Mr. Alister’s work to which I more particularly allude is the following:- “At the present rate of depopulation, the Highlands must soon be one vast wilderness; and although their numbers were never great in the British Army, yet we aver that one-tenth of the men who fought in the last war could not be got in the Highlands. Many of the smaller glens are totally cleared, and any of the peasantry remaining do not calculate that they can obtain a home for many years longer. Glencoe, the Black Mount, and Lochtayside, where the Campbells flourished, are swept; and although no difficulty was experienced by the late Marquis of Breadalbane in raising three battalions of fencibles at the last war, we are sure that 150 men could not now be obtained.”
Glencoe does not, and never did, belong to me.
Mr. Alister appears to labour under a mistake as to the history of the Black Mount, inasmuch as he would seem to assert that it was formerly densely inhabited; whereas the fact is, that, as far back as the records of my family reach (for some centuries) till towards the close of last century, when it was put into very large sheep farms, that country was always a deer forest, and consequently uninhabited, except by the foresters. As I began to convert it again into a forest upwards of thirty years since, it is obvious that it could only have been in the hands of tenants for a (comparatively speaking) short period. The present population of that district is, I believe, as great as it was in the times to which Mr. Alister alludes, and, in point of fact, the number of families employed by me there now, as shepherds and foresters, is much the same as the number who lived there when the ground was tenanted by farmers.
On my Nether Lorne property, I believe the population to be greater than it was fifty or sixty years ago.
The population on the banks of Loch Tay is certainly not as large as it was twenty years since, and it is fortunate for all parties concerned that it is not, as a continuance of the old system would, before this, have produced disastrous results.
When I succeeded to the property, I found the land cut up into possessions too small for the proper conduct of agricultural operations, or the full employment of the occupiers. The consequence was, that habits of idleness were engendered, great poverty existed, and the cultivation of the land was in a most unsatisfactory state – the social, the moral, and physical conditions of the people being thus unfavourably affected.
A continuance of this state of matters was clearly inconsistent with the improvement of the country and the welfare of the inhabitants, subjects to which I at once, on my succession, directed my attention, and to which I have ever since constantly directed my best thoughts.
To carry these views into effect, it was absolutely necessary that the holdings should be so increased in size as to give sufficient employment to the resources of the occupiers, and this could only be done by consolidating some of the smallest possessions, retaining the tenants who appeared most likely to profit by the change.
In no case was this done in the way implied by Mr. Alister, as the changes were always made gradually, and so as to produce as little inconvenience as possible to those whom it was necessary to remove. Indeed, whenever, from the circumstances of the case, it was practicable, those who were removed were offered other houses.
In reality, there has been no depopulation of the district, in the sense in which the word is usually accepted. There is still a large population on both sides of Loch Tay, and almost all the land is still held in, comparatively speaking, small possessions.
The results of the system I have pursued speak for themselves. If any person who saw Lochtayside twenty years since were to see it now, he could not fail to be struck with the change for the better in the face of the country, in the state of the dwellings, and in the appearance and habits of the people.
A very satisfactory proof of the flourishing condition of the people may be found in the fact, that, while the inhabitants of many parts of the Highlands were suffering from famine in the years 1846-47, and were to a great extent indebted for mere existence to the charity of the public, none of the money so collected was expended on, or required by, the inhabitants of my estates, even on the west coast. All were supported by internal, not by external aid, although the failure of the potato crop was quite as complete there as in other parts of the Highlands. Indeed, money was raised in these districts in aid of the general funds collected for the alleviation of the famine.
In no part of the Highlands are the religious and educational wants of the inhabitants better provided for, nor are there fewer public-houses.
In looking over my factorial accounts, I find that, on my Perthshire property, I have expended, in employing the people in useful works, £188, 750; on Glenurchay, a part of my Argyleshire property, £19,402; and on the other part a similar sum in proportion – in each case from the period of my succession down to 1852 (eighteen years).
Having stated these facts regarding the management of my property, and my conduct towards those residing upon it, I fearlessly ask, am I justly obnoxious to the imputation of being regardless of the prosperity and happiness of the people upon it? Have I recklessly driven out from its mountains and its glens the interesting and gallant race that formerly resided there? – I remain, sir, your obedient servant,
[From part 1 of 2 of the fantastic response to the above letter]
When illustrating the evil effects of our feudalistic legislation, it was barely possible for me to avoid pointing to certain estates where the evils were most apparent. But I certainly did so as seldom as possible, and I think in only one instance have I condescended on a personal reflection. Your Lordship’s name is not mentioned at all, for although I state that Lochtayside had been cleared, I did not say by whom; and had you not published the letter of 18th June, your lordship’s name and character might have been forgotten altogether in connection with such a deplorable state of matters. Personally, I entertain no grudge towards your Lordship or any other laird, but on the contrary it might have been beneficial to me to retain the good favour of lairds rather than to excite their ill-will. But the letter referred to leaves me only two courses, – either to support the statements of my book, or stand arraigned before the public as guilty of circulating untruths. Your Lordship has dragged our dispute prominently before the public; let the public, therefore, be judge between us.
I have good right to complain that your Lordship’s contradiction of my statements are not brought out in a straightforward manner, but that by numerous shifts and fallacies you evade the facts altogether. Considering the high position of your Lordship, I think you might have condescended to have met such a humble antagonist as I am openly and frankly; excuse me, therefore, if I now ask you to answer my statements seriatim.
1st. Do you deny in general that the Highlands are being depopulated, and that one soldier could not now be raised for ten who fought in the last was? Your Lordship, I think, would hardly risk the denial of a statement which every person in this country knows to be correct. I have given the public an opportunity of denying my statements; but so far as I can judge, my figures are under rather than over the mark. I can point to a place where thirty recruits that manned the 92nd in Egypt came from – men before whom Napoleon’s Invincibles had to bite the dust, – and now only two families reside there altogether. I was lately informed by a grazier that on his farm a hundred swordsmen could be gathered at the country’s call; and now there is only himself and one or two shepherds. On his neighbour’s farm fifty swordsmen formerly lived, and it is now much in the same condition. The Sutherland and Gordon clearings are known to the world, and yet the fact of Highland depopulation is stated as being inconsistent with truth? Under this head your Lordship had ample opportunity of contradicting my statements, but no man with any regard to his standing could do so. But if I am labouring under a delusion here, I am not alone, as will be seen from the following quotation:-
“But in other and in too many instances the Highlands have been drained, not of their superfluity of population, but of the whole mass of the inhabitants, dispossessed by an unrelenting avarice, which will be one day found to have been as short-sighted as it is unjust and selfish. Meantime the Highlands may become the fairy ground for romance and poetry, or the subject of experiment for the professors of speculation, political and economical. But if the hour of need shall come, – and it may not perhaps be far distant, – the pibroch may sound through the deserted region, but the summons will remain unanswered.” – Sir Walter Scott, [‘Tales of a Grandfather’].
Let us hear what the great continental historian, Michelet, says:-
“The Scotch Highlanders will ere long disappear from the face of the earth; the mountains are daily depopulating; the great estates have ruined the land of the Gaul, as they did ancient Italy. The Highlander will ere long exist only in the romances of Walter Scott. The tartan and the claymore excite surprise in the streets of Edinburgh: they disappear – they emigrate – their national airs will ere long be lost, as the music of the Eolian harp when the winds are hushed.”
– Gloomy Memories, pp.148-154.
“THE Scottish members of Parliament who helped to ‘make a House,’ on Tuesday night last, for the discussion of Mr Anderson’s Bill to regulate the service of writs of the High Court of Justice in England upon persons in Scotland, deserve the thanks of their countrymen. Not only were they able to have the Bill read a second time, but they obtained in the course of the debate important recognition of the injustice under which Scotsmen at present labour, and which the Bill is intended to remove. That injustice, as has been already so frequently explained in these columns, arises in consequence of the Rules of Procedure passed by the English Judges, in virtue of the English Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, permitting service of the writs of the High Court of Justice in London to be made upon Scotsmen in Scotland. According to English practice, service of a writ gives the Court which issues it jurisdiction over the defendant, to the effect, at least, of compelling him to appear and state his pleas in defence, or, in default, of granting a decree against him. The awkwardness of such service to Scotsmen is increased by the provision of the Judgments Extension Act of 1868, which enables an English decree to be registered and summarily enforced against them as if it were a judgment of a competent Scottish Court. Before these rules came into operation, a Scotsman had to be sued by his English creditor in the Courts of Scotland. This is in accordance with the universally recognised rule of international law, and is founded upon obvious considerations of justice and expediency. For, inasmuch a a man is subject only to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the country where he is, and not of those where he is not, it seems both reasonable and natural that one having a claim against him should seek to establish it in the Court which has jurisdiction to entertain and enforce it. The recognition which the tribunals of one civilised country extend to the decrees of another depends upon the law of the country in whose Courts the foreign decree is sought to be enforced; and a French decree, for example, against an Englishman, or even against a Frenchman in England, would only be received and sustained by the English Courts if it would have been valid according to English law and procedure. It would, therefore, but for the provisions of the Judgments Extension Act already referred to, be perfectly competent for the Scottish Courts to refuse to recognise an English decree against a Scotsman following upon service of the summons upon him in Scotland. It may be doubted whether the Scottish Courts are even now bound to recognise such service as valid, if they were asked to suspend a decree in absence against a Scotsman obtained by means of it. When the Judgments Extension Act was passed, no service of English writs was allowed in Scotland. In the Common Law Procedure Act of 1852, by which power to order service outwith their jurisdiction was, for the first time, conferred upon the English Common Law Courts, Scotland was expressly exempted. Even now such power is not conferred upon them by express legislation; and the assumption by the English Judges, under the name of a mere Rule of Procedure, of a power which amounts to so serious and harassing an extension of their jurisdiction, is clearly a grave breach of constitutional law.
This question, however, has not yet been brought under the consideration of the Courts of Scotland, and Scotsmen having borne with the injustice till they could do so no longer, have now brought it under the notice of Parliament. The object of Mr Anderson’s Bill is to remedy the evil complained of, and to place Scotland and Scotsmen in the position in which they were before the Rules were issued. Nobody who opposed the second reading on Tuesday ventured to deny the existence of a grievance. It is, indeed, too plain for argument that for a Scotsman to be obliged to defend himself in England against an English plaintiff, with whom he has contracted, or to whom he is said to owe money, is, except in very special and exceptional circumstances, unjust. Even Sir Richard Cross had to admit it; and Mr Whitley was immediately contradicted, when he said the present law had worked well, and laughed at, when he said that in England there was a strong feeling against the principle of the Bill. Of course there will be such a feeling; for the Rules place a powerful compulsitor in the hands of every Englishman. A Scotsman, for example, may have bought goods from an English house by order given to their traveller in Scotland. He may find them disconform or inferior in quality, and may have a good answer to a demand for the price. But he has undertaken to pay that price to an Englishman, who gets an order for service of a summons upon him in Scotland, and will get a decree against him which can be summarily enforced there, unless he appears and defends himself in the English Court. Small wonder if, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, he prefers to abandon his claim, and suffer a small and certain loss, rather than engage in the losing speculation of an English lawsuit.
The Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General for England, while they admit the existence of the injustice and the necessity for the remedy proposed by the Bill, say it goes too far, and the Lord Advocate professes to think so too. Their idea seems to be that it will not only secure Scotsmen, but enable them to make reprisals, as it were, on Englishmen. Now, this is an entire misapprehension. The Bill consists of three sections, one of which contains only the short title, and the effect of the other two may be easily comprehended. Shortly stated, section 1 prohibits service of an English writ upon a defendant resident in Scotland, and who had no dwelling-house or place of business in England, in any action for recovery of any debt, damages, or costs. The obnoxious service is thus to be limited in two respects – first, as regards the class of action, and, second, as regards the person against whom it is raised. It will be observed, in the first place, that the Bill refers entirely to actions at common law. The Chancery jurisdiction of the English Courts is not in any way affected by it. As far as this Bill is concerned, the present obnoxious system, by which the Court of Chancery claims jurisdiction to administer the estates of deceased Scotsmen, and has recently ordered the transference to England of a Scottish trust estate worth nearly half a million, will go on unchecked. The present Admiralty jurisdiction of the English Courts is also fully secured to them by the Bill; for section 2 provides that actions in which they may have jurisdiction by reason of the situation of estate or effects, of the attachment of ships in England, shall not be affected by it. Again, the Bill in no way interferes with the jurisdiction or power of the English Courts in reference to actions regarding status arising out of the laws regulating marriage, legitimacy, and divorce. Now does it deal with that large class of common law actions, the object of which is to compel the performance of specific acts, or the specific implement of contracts. Actions, however, for ‘the recovery of any debt, damages, or costs,’ are those which may be enforced under the Judgments Extension Act – the enumeration is, indeed, in the very words of that statute; and in preventing service in such cases upon persons resident in Scotland and having no dwelling-house or place of business in England, the Bill simply seeks to secure for domiciled Scotsmen the protection of their own Courts and their own system of law. These differ from the English in many important respects. In England, as has been said, personal service within the jurisdiction always subjected a man to the jurisdiction of the English Courts; and before the Rules permitted service in Scotland, an English plaintiff used to lie in wait for his Scottish debtor’s visit to England, and have a writ served upon him in his hotel in London or elsewhere, if he thought he would gain his case more readily in the English than in the Scottish Courts. According to Scots law, on the other hand, the defender must have been a certain time in Scotland, have acquired a ‘domicile of citation,’ as it is called, before service can be validly made upon him. In Scotland, again, a man need not in general keep receipted accounts for more than three years; after that his oath of payment is a sufficient answer to a re-demand; but in England the corresponding period of prescription is six years. Many other differences between the laws of the two countries, as, for example, in sale and bankruptcy, might also be instanced. Indeed, it will not be doubted that Scotsmen have an interest as well as a right to be sued in the Courts of their own country; and actions for debt, damages, and costs include at least a fair proportion of those in which that interest is greatest, and that right consequently most important. The injustice, therefore, of trying such in England being admitted, the Bill as limited in this respect, even though not fully adequate to the complete not be regarded as an encroachment upon the privileges of Englishmen.
… Is it, then, as those who opposed the second reading seem to say, an encroachment upon the privileges of the English Courts to exempt such a one from their jurisdiction? The majority of Scotsmen are resident in Scotland, and have no residence or place of business in England; but nobody except the late Master of the Rolls was ever heard to say that the English Common Law Courts have jurisdiction over Scotsmen at all. The 19th Article of the Treaty of Union expressly provides for the maintenance of the Scottish Courts unimpaired in the character and independence of their jurisdiction, and the exemption of Scotsmen from the jurisdiction of the English Courts. The well-known maxim of international law, actor sequitur forum rei, teaches us that the plaintiff must sue the defendant in the Courts of the country where the defendant resides. The Imperial Parliament has not only never subjected Scotland to the jurisdiction of the English Courts, but has taken care expressly to exclude that country from it. It is, therefore, no encroachment upon the powers of the English Judges to take from them what they never had by law, and what they have only assumed since they were permitted to become a law unto themselves…”
– Scotsman, Monday 18th June, 1883.
– Treaty of Union Articles, 1875-1900.
“SCOTTISH HOME-RULE ASSOCIATION.
LETTER FROM MR. GLADSTONE.
The following correspondence has been forwarded to us for publication:-
Scottish Home-Rule Association,
5 St Andrew Square,
Edinburgh, 18th June, 1886.
The Right Honourable
William Ewart Gladstone, M.P.
Sir, – I have the honour to bring under your notice the Scottish Home-Rule Association, which, although recently formed, has already a considerable roll of members. Its object is to obtain for Scotland, while retaining undiminished her voice in the Imperial Parliament, a national Legislature for the management of purely Scottish affairs. These aspirations have been for many years earnestly cherished by the Scottish people, and the proposal to grant such autonomy to the sister kingdom has their hearty sympathy. If you gave them the hope of a twin measure for Scotland it would evoke an unparalleled enthusiasm and support. From the enclosed pamphlet, published in 1878 (sent merely as a specimen of others), you will perceive that this question has long been agitated while the enclosed publication on the Treaty of Union, and the pamphlet on National and Local Self-Government, show its historical grounds. The Earl of Dalhousie, while recently referring to the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland, said that the bargain entered into by the two peoples was a fair and reasonable one, and was equally approved by both; but this is an entire mistake, as the historical introduction to the enclosed copy of the Treaty of Union will clearly show. What our ancestors desired then was a federal and not an incorporate union with England. We appeal to you as the friend of the people, the first British statesman who has embraced the great principle of Home Rule; and we hope that as you draw all your blood from Scotland you will not withhold from us the aid which your great name would confer. We hope and believe that our association, as you have yourself said, ‘will serve to help your movement on behalf of Ireland,’ and it would add zeal to our endeavours in that direction if you would allow us as a proof of your sympathy to inscribe your name on the programme of our association as its patron. Some members of committee attend daily at our offices in 5 St Andrew Square, between the hours of two and three, and if you will honour them with an interview they will be happy to wait upon you and explain further. – I have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
CHARLES WADDIE, Hon. Sec.”
– Greenock Telegraph and Clyde Shipping Gazette, Wednesday 23rd June, 1886.
– Treaty of Union Articles, Collection of Charles Waddie, AKA Thistledown’s, Correspondence.