It was this Blood and Soil that was the noticeable difference between Scotland and England, and for centuries had been used to define one another as ‘foreign’. Presbyterianism and Anglicanism were both born out of Protestantism: Related, but different bodies altogether. The common bond served as a British Identity, but equally legitimate is the claim that the Anglophobia of the Scots, and the Scottophobia of the English, created an entire sub-strand of identity. As early as 1701, Robert Fleming argued on the basis of common Protestant values of sinking denominational differences to create a united front. As has been seen with the introduction of the Hanoverian Monarchy, and as would later be seen in the British colonial expansions where a quarter of soldiers fighting for Britain were Scots, the difference in country mattered not. Britain was united in the sense of a common religion, even if they were of different strands, and a common goal, that of global empire and authority. The Darien Scheme in the 1690s proved that alone Scotland would struggle – as part of a greater Union though, Britishness and Imperialism gave Scotland an opportunity. Sour grapes felt by the English over the continued Jacobite uprisings became extinguished with the crushing of the 1745 rebellion, and relations flourished on a national level, if not some prejudice at a personal. It is no surprise that a united Scotland, once arguably the poorest nation in Europe gave birth to the enlightenment by 1750. This reversal of fortune preserved the idea of the benefits of being British, of having allowed the country to modernise. Britishness was celebrated with the building of New Town, Edinburgh in the 1770s. The common bond between Scotland and England outweighed the differences; indeed the few references made to the differences were done in satirical fashion when the rebellion of 1745 was crushed. Tensions between the two nations would always be present – indeed it always has. But the bond between them, the struggle to build empire together and the growing power of their united nation was enough to cement a strong sense of cohesive identity. Protestantism acted as the bind of all these subjects, stressing that although different, the same.
Yet by focussing upon the similarities, one ultimately searches for a common difference – even today, we see evidence of this from the multicultural hegemony of the British Isles that has continued to thrive since the Eighteenth Century. The often tyrannical approach to celebrating similarities often came interwoven with paranoia and hatred towards difference. The enemy in this time, the bad egg, were the Catholics not only in Britain but also across Europe. It was not to do with race, as we see the foundations of the Abolitionist movement occurring across the second half of the eighteenth century, but more the religion in question. Often a common enemy unites the public, indeed defines an identity for the period – the early part of the 20th century saw Britain united against the Hun of Germany as anti-German sentiment swept through. Catholics were the perceived threat during the eighteenth century, and thus received the expected treatment of indifference. Indeed, the colonial expansion of Britain introduced an array of new and interesting peoples, seen as savage- Tahitians and such discovered by Cook in 1784. It was soon considered a fine insult to compare a Catholic to one such savage, in order to create an entirely separate identity from their evident Protestant outlook. The settlement Act of 1701 was designed to keep Catholics off the throne, the head of the nation was required to be Protestant. Yet Historians such as Allan argue that anti-Catholic sentiment was high, but not as uniform as is claimed by Historians such as Colley. It was frequent amongst soldiers and dissenters, those who felt effected by the Catholics, and indeed Haydon points to the Catholic relief Act of 1776 to demonstrate the growing leniency towards this religion as the century went on. These changes though come from a minority of peoples though, indeed the law coming from a narrow margin at the top of society. The act caused the Gordon Riots of the 1770s, a hugely Protestant uprising. Also of significance was the republishing of John Foxes ‘Book of Martyrs’. Originally created in the 1580s, it was republished 4 times from 1761 to 1795 and became ‘One of the few books one might expect to find even in a working-class household.’ By focussing on the upper echelons opinions, numerous historians have failed to notice that identity is created from the bottom up: working class sentiments would ultimately define the nation. Britain was deeply opposed to Catholics after internal and external struggles that remained fresh in the mind. Setting them apart from this involved creating a Protestant identity that was synonymous with ‘British’.
As has been discussed, Protestantism represented a faction within British Identity. We must take into account that perhaps it was more the ever-increasing British authority abroad that acted as a vessel on which Protestantism was able to take an important role in our identity. As the Old Catholic powers of Portugal and Spain lost their supremacy to British and Dutch merchants at sea the authority of Protestant countries, Britain developed something of an Imperial Identity, legitimised by their religious, ‘godly’ aims. The thirteen colonies in America when lost dealt a hugely personal blow to a growingly patriotic Britain, demonstrating the important link between the colonies and identity. The aid provided to the US by the French only deepened the anti-catholic sentiments at ground level, further imprinting this on the national identity. The new worlds being discovered led to great interest from the public to learn more about these mysterious places, indeed the spate of travel books being published was satirised in Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift in the 1740s. Britain saw itself as the teacher of nations in the sense it was bringing a religious dynamic to an otherwise savage and crude world. This superiority complex, as suggested by Wilson stemmed from a cultural distinctiveness that was propelled by the national sense of Protestantism. There was a belief that it was the god-ordained right, command if you will, to spread the ideas of their own brand of Christianity on the new races. This legitimised the British expansive policy in foreign eyes, and prevented realisation of the contradiction of subsuming others for the sake of empire in the name of equality. This sense of godliness, and sense of entitlement was only fuelled further by the numerous battles won by Britain in the early parts of the eighteenth century – God was on their side, so why should they not spread his message? The Imperial Identity provided a hollow shell, filled with the musings and values of the Protestant masses. Rather than risk creating religious tensions, Britain acted in the name of Britannia, in the name of a homogenous unit of peoples. This part of British identity acted somewhat as a protective measure, to protect from scrutiny as to whether the Imperialist policies were really so, or if this was the prelude to a crusade.
The British Imperial Identity was one that took hold of the imaginations of the public, Britain becoming a powerhouse of the world. Yet this fire was stoked by the underlying Protestant overtones attached to this. The country itself had been formed on the basis of similarity between two different strands of the same religion. Wars abroad had been fought against Catholics in the name of Britain, in the name of Protestantism, colonial ventures were made in the spirit to civilise the savages of a non-Protestant world. Indeed it is clear that at the heart of the British man of the day, religion played a key role in knowing who he was. Yet this faith was aspirational in its outlook, still harbouring discontent amongst Scots and Englishmen. Yet this is the basis, indeed the joy, of Britishness. It is not one, single, and, identifiable idea. It is a multitude of differing, often conflicting, vanities. To use Britishness and Protestant interchangeably would be a foolish outlook. It is far more accurate to say Protestantism was and is a faction, albeit a vital one, of the British Identity.
Bibliography
Allan, D ‘Scotland in the Eighteenth Century’ Pearson, 2002
Claydon, McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Cambridge, 1998
Colley. L ‘Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837’London, 1992
Coward. B ‘The Stuart Age: England 1603 – 1714’ Longman, 2003
Davies. N ‘Europe: A history’ Pimlico, 1997
Galloway. B ‘The Union of England and Scotland’ Bell and Bain, 1986
Herman. Arthur ‘How the Scots Invented the Modern World’ three rivers, 2002
Parker. G ‘The Thirty Years War’ Routledge, 1997
Po-Chia Hsia. R ‘The World of Catholic Renewal 1540-1770’ Cambridge, 2005
Scott. P ‘1707 the union of Scotland and England’ Chambers 1979
Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg. 9
L. Colley ‘Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837’ Pg. 5
Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg. 9
Colley ‘Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837’ Pg. 195
G. Parker ‘The Thirty Years War’ Pg. 18
Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg.284
C. Haydon ‘I Love my King and Country’ in Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg.52
Colley ‘Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837’ Pg. 117
Robert Fleming ‘Discourses on several subjects’ In Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg.200
Colley ‘Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837’ Pg. 129
A. Herman ‘How the Scots Invented the Modern World’ Pg. 5
Colley ‘Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837’ Pg. 123
Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg.290
In ‘Scotland in the Eighteenth Century’
In ‘Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837’
C. Haydon ‘I Love my King and Country’ in Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg.52
Colley ‘Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837’ Pg. 26
R. Po-Chia Hsia ‘The World of Catholic Renewal 1540-1770
Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg.290
In ‘The Island Race: English National Identity 1760-1800 in Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg.265
‘The Island Race: English National Identity 1760-1800 in Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg.285
Claydon and McBride ‘Protestantism and National Identity’ Pg.28