Antifederalist No. 5

SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND-A CASE IN POINT


The ongoing Federalist essays appeared from October of 1787 to 
May of 1788. Rebuttals (Antifederalist in nature) to Federalist 
writers seldom were published. This selection was an answer to 
Publius [John Jay] Federalist No. 5. This article by "AN 
OBSERVER," was printed in The New-York Journal and was reprinted 
in the [Boston] American Herald on December 3, 1787. 



     A writer, under the signature Publius or The Federalist, No. 
V, in the Daily Advertiser, and in the New York Packet, with a 
view of proving the advantages which, he says, will be derived by 
the states if the new constitution is adopted, has given extracts 
of a letter from Queen Anne to the Scotch parliament, on the 
subject of a union between Scotland and England. 
     I would beg leave to remark, that Publius has been very 
unfortunate in selecting these extracts as a case in point, to 
convince the people of America of the benefits they would derive 
from a union, under such a government as would be effected by the 
new system.  It is a certainty, that when the union was the 
subject of debate in the Scottish legislature, some of their most 
sensible and disinterested nobles, as well as commoners! (who 
were not corrupted by English gold), violently opposed the union, 
and predicted that the people of Scotland would, in fact, derive 
no advantages from a consolidation of government with England; 
but, on the contrary, they would bear a great proportion of her 
debt, and furnish large bodies of men to assist in her wars with 
France, with whom, before the union, Scotland was at all times on 
terms of the most cordial amity.  It was also predicted that the 
representation in the parliament of Great Britain, particularly 
in the house of commons, was too small; forty-five members being 
very far from the proportion of Scotland, when its extent and 
numbers were duly considered; and that even they, being so few, 
might (or at least a majority of them might) at all times be 
immediately under the influence of the English ministry; and, of 
course, very little of their attention would be given to the true 
interest of their constituents, especially if they came in 
competition with the prospects of views of the ministry.  How far 
these predictions have been verified I believe it will not 
require much trouble to prove.  It must be obvious to everyone, 
the least acquainted with English history, that since the union 
of the two nations the great body of the people in Scotland are 
in a much worse situation now, than they would be, were they a 
separate nation.  This will be fully illustrated by attending to 
the great emigrations which are made to America.  For if the 
people could have but a common support at home, it is 
unreasonable to suppose that such large numbers would quit their 
country, break from the tender ties of kindred and friendship and 
trust themselves on a dangerous voyage across a vast ocean, to a 
country of which they can know but very little except by common 
report.  I will only further remark, that it is not about two or 
three years since a member of the British parliament (I believe 
Mr. Dempster) gave a most pathetic description of the sufferings 
of the commonalty of Scotland, particularly on the sea coast, and 
endeavored to call the attention of parliament to their 
distresses, and afford them some relief by encouraging their 
fisheries.  It deserves also to be remembered, that the people of 
Scotland, in the late war between France and Great Britain, 
petitioned to have arms and ammunition supplied them by their 
general government, for their defense, alleging that they were 
incapable of defending themselves and their property from an 
invasion unless they were assisted by government.  It is a truth 
that their petitions were disregarded, and reasons were assigned, 
that it would be dangerous to entrust them with the means of 
defense, as they would then have it in their power to break the 
union.  From this representation of the situation of Scotland, 
surely no one can draw any conclusion that this country would 
derive happiness or security from a government which would, in 
reality, give the people but the mere name of being free.  For if 
the representation, stipulated by the constitution, framed by the 
late convention, be attentively and dispassionately considered, 
it must be obvious to every disinterested observer (besides many 
other weighty objections which will present themselves to view), 
that the number is not, by any means, adequate to the present 
inhabitants of this extensive continent, much less to those it 
will contain at a future period. 
     I observe that the writer above mentioned, takes great pains 
to show the disadvantages which would result from three or four 
distinct confederacies of these states.  I must confess that I 
have not seen, in any of the pieces published against the 
proposed constitution, any thing which gives the most distant 
idea that their writers are in favor of such governments; but it 
is clear these objections arise from a consolidation not 
affording security for the liberties of their country, and from 
hence it must evidently appear, that the design of Publius, in 
artfully holding up to public view [the bugbear of] such 
confederacies, can be with no other intention than wilfully to 
deceive his fellow citizens. I am confident it must be, and that 
it is, the sincere wish of every true friend to the United 
States, that there should be a confederated national government, 
but that it should be one which would have a control over 
national and external matters only, and not interfere with the 
internal regulations and police of the different states in the 
union.  Such a government, while it would give us respectability 
abroad, would not encroach upon, or subvert our liberties at 
home. 
                                AN OBSERVER