regiment of cavalry and two or three companies of artillery at Leith Fort, in all about 3,500 men. We have only four Scottish yeomanry regiments, which, if required on any emergency, would not muster in toto 1000 men. The rest of the yeomanry regiments were reduced some years ago on the plea of economy; and there is no militia in Scotland, except depots of nine or ten men in each of the Scottish county towns; but there is a militia in England, for John Bull takes good care of himself and leaves poor Saunders almost friendless and alone. We now therefore call upon the government to assign, and that without delay, the reason for leaving Scotland utterly defenceless, neither militia, nor a supply of regular troops, nor the full number of yeomanry regiments. A war is evidently about to commence, and we tell the British government we are in danger. The reply we anticipate is, We have no regular troops to give you. Well then, why not allow Scotland to trust to itself, and allow us to raise our militia, which I have no doubt could be done in Scotland in two months to the extent of 10,000 men? But no; we the government cannot allow the militia to be raised in Ireland, because we cannot trust the Irish, and therefore because the Irish cannot have a militia neither shall the Scotch have one.*

We do not think that one of Her Majesty's ministers would venture to assert that the militia in Scotland could not be trusted. Fidelity to the sovereign and to their country has never been wanting in the Scottish nation. Therefore, why should Scotland be denied the benefit of a militia? If the English wont defend us, why not allow us to defend ourselves? which we are willing to do, but which it appears is not to be allowed. With regard to the opinion entertained that the Irish could not be trusted, I hold a very different opinion. The writer of this treatise knows that country well, and firmly believes that the great majority of the people in Ireland would come cordially and manfully forward to defend their country against invasion. But, supposing that the Irish cannot be trusted, is that any reason why the Scotch are to be exposed to be plundered and massacred? Besides, Scotland, not having 22,000 regular troops nor 12,000 armed police, nor a large body of metropolitan police chiefly paid by the British Government, requires militia regiments to

Since the above was written, it has been rumoured that the Irish are to be allowed to raise 20,000 militia, and the Scotch 10,000. Query, When?

put her on an equal footing with Ireland at the present moment. Now the reasons assigned by the British Government only realizes what was said by Sir Walter Scott when he made the bold stand in the letters of Malachi Malagrouther against the apprehended destruction of the one pound note currency which was sound, and the English had been suppressed because it was unsound. Sir Walter remarked that it recalled to his remembrance the feudal baron who, having hung one guilty man on one side of his gate, hung up an innocent man on the other side, and when asked why he did so, replied that it was just for the sake of equality, and to preserve a balance.

V.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

We now leave the national defences and proceed to consider the subject of Harbours of Refuge. Now, how does Scotland stand against the violence of the tempests of the German Ocean and the Atlantic, which beat with such awful fury on our iron-bound coasts? Here, again, we behold that the English have taken admirable care of themselves, but none for Scotland. In England, at the present moment, harbours of refuge are now building on the coast, on which no less a sum than £2,400,000 is in the course of being expended, while in Scotland there is only one that can be designated a harbour of refuge from Berwick to the coast of Caithness, and that is the harbour of Leith. There is no other one that can be called a harbour of refuge on a coast which is so very dangerous. With regard to the navy of Scotland, Scotland has 30,000 seamen, whose lives, it may well be said, are as dear to their families and to their country as those of England. There are 26,000 vessels which every year enter Scottish harbours, including among them tonnage to the amount of 2,600,000 tons; and all this immense tonnage, and these numerous seamen, are exposed to the most imminent danger, because Scotland has no money voted to it for the purpose of constructing harbours of refuge, notwithstanding what we have already noticed that £2,400,000 is about being expended in English harbours, while the sum allowed to Scotland is nothing but £2,200, which is given to Portpatrick; but that is not a harbour of refuge,, for no vessel can enter the rocky narrow channel. It is merely a packet station

in the carriage of the mails from Scotland to Ireland, and the sum expended is more for the benefit of Ireland than Scotland. At Howth, a poor fishing village in Ireland, government has expended half a million of money in making a harbour into which, now that it is constructed, no vessel can enter. There is no harbonr of refuge for ships in distress to run into from Cape Wrath to the Mull of Cantyre, one of the most dangerous coasts in the world, where the Atlantic waves frequently roll twenty-five feet high, at which time no vessel is safe, although the ship and her ground tackle is of the best description. If Scotland had harbours of refuge, such an appalling shipwreck as that of the "Annie Jane," with the loss of 340 persons, would have been prevented on that dangerous coast, and much valuable property would have been saved. A vessel belonging to John Mitchell, Esq. of Moorpark, Glasgow, a few years ago was wrecked on the same spot, and was dashed to a thousand pieces, and all on board perished. But had there been a harbour of refuge, many valuable lives and much property would in both cases have been saved, and the widow and fatherless would not have been deprived of their only support. The harbour of Aberdeen is one of the most dangerous on the coast, as the recent wreck of the Sutherland steamer from London fully demonstrates, and on this occasion 16 persons perished. Government, therefore, should order a report to be made relative to the dangerous state of this harbour, so as to prevent so appalling a shipwreck as that which recently occurred at the mouth of the harbour of Aberdeen. With regard to the pier of Granton, if a descent was to take place from Russia, the emperor, who has always in the summer thirty ships of the line ready equipped, with 30,000 men on board, could sail out of the Baltic with these vessels and men to the Firth of Forth, and land them in ten hours, at the pier of Granton-a harbour which has just been made to his hand. Let the government mark this assertion, and send protection to Scotland immediately. We would suggest to government, if they will not grant a sum sufficient to rear harbours of refuge, the money received by the Trinity House is £30,000 yearly; but what becomes of this large sum nobody seems to know. Why not apply this for the important purpose suggested? The Trinity House appears at present to be an irresponsible body. They should be compelled to spend that money, drawn from Scottish shipping alone, in building harbours of refuge. The saving to life

B

and property would be immense. The sum that is in the course of being expended on the naval establishments of England amounts to £711,000. There is not One Shilling in the same year's accounts given to Scotland. This is any thing but Justice to Scotland.

VI.

THE GREAT FAMINE IN 1846.

THAT trying disaster for the poor fell with as much severity on the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland as on any part of Ireland, and the "land of the mountain and the flood" had far fewer resources to meet it. But what did government do in this crisis? They gave no less than £8,000,000 to Ireland, and not One Shilling to Scotland. The poor Highlander was left to perish on his native heath, while the Irishman, possessing far greater resources, was generously and nobly succoured. Why was this mighty distinction made? Why was Scotland, which shared so largely in the national calamity, excluded from any share in the national relief? Was it because they had been unfaithful, because they had not stood by England in its distress? Was it because they had greater resources than Ireland? No. What, then, was the cause of the difference? I will tell you in one word-Ireland has 103 members, and Scotland only 53, and thus the Irish members had strength to prevail with the government, but not the Scotch. In fact, Scotland would be much better off if it had no representatives at all, and thus more attention would be paid to it by the English members, and a greater benefit would be conferred on Scotland than is done to her at the present time with so powerless a body of representatives.

VII.

SCOTLAND AT PRESENT WITHOUT A SPECIAL SECRETARY OF STATE.

THE Lord Advocate is quite unfit to discharge efficiently the various duties incumbent upon him-1st, as adviser of the Crown, or public prosecutor and overseer of the whole criminal proceedings of Scotland; 2d, as deputy Secretary of State and framer of bills for a country daily increasing in population and wealth, and consequently legislative business; 3d, of attendance to his private practice as an

advocate, besides being representative in Parliament for the Leith District of Burghs. Such, however, have been the arduous duties of this official since the days of Duncan Forbes of Culloden, in whom the functions of Lord Advocate and Secretary of State were first conjoined; and since whose time the management of our Scottish affairs has been entirely left to chance, or otherwise totally neglected. The time has arrived when the real Secretary of State must be restored, as a remedy for the numerous political evils which have arisen from the violations of the Articles of the Union on the part of the British Government, and even on a late occasion by the present Lord Advocate himself relative to the University Tests bill.

The Kingdom of Scotland had a Secretary of State before the Union, and the office was continued from the period of the Union down to about the year 1740, when it was discontinued. It was not, however, strange to say, abrogated by any legislative enactment. It slipped into abeyance, no one can tell how. Besides, a Secretary of State would administer justice to his countrymen impartially, which no Lord Advocate has done for the long period of 114 years, in consequence of his leaning to one side of politics. Suppose a church becomes vacant where Her Majesty has the power of presenting a presentee (designated a crown presentation), when application is made even by the most efficient person, such an one has no chance of being recommended by the Lord Advocate unless he or his friends have voted or procured the votes of others, so as to ensure his return to Parliament.

It is, therefore, absolutely necessary, from what has been stated, that a Secretary of State should be appointed, in order that Scotland may now have justice done to her.

It has been suggested by several judicious persons that the restoration of Secretary of State should be amalgamated with the Lord High Commissioner. This could easily be done. It may here be mentioned, however, that the first appointment of a Lord High Commissioner was in 1580, during the reign of James VI., who, becoming jealous of this court, placed a commissioner in his situation, to overawe those who were seditiously inclined. This state officer has been continued since that time, 274 years ago. If both offices are to be combined, the appointment of the Right Hon. the Earl of Eglinton would give universal satisfaction throughout all Scotland, and his Grace would of course require to remain chiefly in the Scot