whole of their capital was absorbed and lost. This great loss to a poor country added much to the troubles at home, and was widely and severely felt.27

When the definite intelligence of the final evacuation of the Darien settlement arrived in Scotland, the nation became aroused to a degree of frenzy rarely manifested. The Jacobites were extremely wroth, and exerted themselves to the utmost to fan the national indignation as a good means of opposition to the King and the government. The national pride of the Scots was deeply wounded. They were strongly disposed to attribute the failure of their colony to the jealousy and to the opposition of the English and the King, and they had some grounds for this; but the Scots forgot, or could not see, that the causes of the failure of their trading company and its colony were mainly within itself, and, in short, were the natural result of want of foresight, of defective organisation, and their own mismanagement.. But any thoughts of this kind were drowned amid the torrent of wrath which spread to every home in the kingdom.28

Early in the year 1700 the directors of the company and the representatives of the shareholders resolved to address the King. They selected Lord Hamilton to lay their appeal before his Majesty, but he was refused an audience, and reprimanded for

27 Darien Papers, printed for Bannatyne Club; A Collection of State Tracts published in the Reign of King William; A Defence of the Scots Settlement at Darien, 1699; Memoirs of Darien, 1714.

28" When the news of the total abandoning of Darien was brought over, it cannot be well expressed into how bad a temper this cast the body of the people; they had now lost almost two hundred thousand pounds sterling upon this project, besides the imagined treasure that they had promised themselves from it: so that the nation was raised into a sort of fury upon it, and in the first heat of that, a remonstrance was sent about the kingdom for hands, representing to the King the necessity of a present sitting of parliament, which was drawn in so high a strain, as if they had resolved to pursue the effects of it by armed force. It was signed by a great majority of the members of parliament; and the ferment in men's spirits was raised so high, that few thought it could have been long curbed, without breaking forth into great extremities."-Burnet's History of His Own Time, Vol. IV., p. 421.

his conduct. It was then proposed to present a national address to the King, requesting him to assemble parliament, and to submit the affairs of the company to it; but this was met by a proclamation against addresses. This still farther roused the spirit of discontent and opposition to the government. When the parliament met on the 21st of May, 1700, the Duke of Queensberry, the royal commissioner, and the Earl of Marchmont delivered speeches, and enlarged upon the good work which the Revolution settlement had accomplished, the gratitude due to the King for this, and his other manifold services to the Protestant religion and to Europe, and the imprudence of insisting on anything that was likely to weaken his Majesty's influence and power. This was followed by an address from the directors of the trading company and their Darien settlement, and also by petitions and addresses from many of the counties and the towns, all complaining bitterly about the Darien colony and the great loss which the nation had suffered. It was moved that parliament should resolve to maintain the new colony as a legal and rightful settlement, but the royal commissioner cut the discussion short by adjourning the parliament till he should get more instructions from the King 29

After this the opposition held a great meeting, and despatched an address to the King. The General Assemblies which met in 1700, and in 1701, proclaimed a national fast, with special reference to the calamity which the failure of the project had brought upon the nation. Another national address to the King was largely signed, but ere it reached him he emitted a proclamation of a vague description, and merely expressed his sympathy for the misfortunes of the Scots.30

Parliament reassembled in the end of October, 1700, but the members were not satisfied with the King's letter. It expressed sympathy and regret for the loss sustained by the

29 Acts Parl. Scot., Vol. X., pp. 183, 195, and App., pp. 33-42.

30 Carstairs' Papers, pp. 514-523, 525-531, 533, 538, 543-547, 551-580, 582, et seq.

African Company, and even offered aid, and promised to support any new projects calculated to promote the national prosperity. But the King stated distinctly that he could not agree to the assertion of the right of the company's colony in Darien, though most willing to assist them in other ways.31

Parliament was soon overwhelmed with addresses and petitions from all ranks and every quarter of the kingdom. The majority of the house supported the petitions, and moved and adopted resolutions condemning the interference of the English parliament, and the proclamations issued against the interest of the Darien settlement by the governors of the English colonies. Several pamphlets which appeared touching and reflecting on the Darien settlement, were denounced in parliament as scandalous and calumnious libels, and they were ordered to be burned by the hand of the common hangman at the Market Cross of Edinburgh. The indignation in parliament and outside continued, and after much debate the address to the King concerning the Darien settlement was carried by one hundred and one votes to sixty-one, on the 17th of January, 1701. It is a well-drawn and able paper, and contains a complete vindication of the company, and of the legality and lawfulness of their Darien settlement, a true and fatal impeachment of the proceedings of the King and his English parliament in the matter. It gave a concise résumé of the whole concern.3

31 Acts Parl. Scot., Vol. X., pp. 196, 201.

32

32 Acts Parl. Scot., Vol. X., pp. 208, 241, 242, 244-246, 248-251, and App., pp. 73-92. Besides other points, the address contained four resolutions: 1. The votes and proceedings of the English parliament touching the company, which were condemned as an undue interference in the affairs of Scotland, "and an invasion upon the sovereignty and independence of our King and parliament". 2. Touching the action of the English Envoy at Luxemburg, which was injurious to the interest of the company, "contrary to the law of nations and an open encroachment upon the sovereignty and independence of this Crown and kingdom". 3. Condemning the proceedings and the proclamations emitted by the governors of the English plantations against the Darien Colony. 4. Stating that though the settlement in Darien was formed in exact conformity with the company's act of parliament, the Spaniards had treated the colonists as enemies and pirates; "that our Indian and African Company's Colony of Caledonia in Darien, in the Continent of America, was and is legal and rightful."

The attitude of Scotland was becoming threatening and extremely troublesome to the English government. The plan of a complete union was again attempted, but the difficulties on both sides were great and constantly deepening. The relations between the two kingdoms were strained and pressing, and a bill for appointing commissioners to treat concerning a union was passed in the House of Lords on the 25th of February, 1700, and sent to the House of Commons. But at the second reading in the Lower House it was thrown out. The King saw that the only mode of maintaining peace in Scotland was by a union of the two nations; and on the 28th of February, 1701, he reminded the House of Commons of his appeals regarding the union of England and Scotland. But King William died on the 8th of March, 1702.

The accession of Queen Anne was hailed with applause both in England and in Scotland. The Revolution parliament, which had lasted throughout the reign of William, reassembled at Edinburgh on the 19th of June, 1702, and passed resolutions touching the Darien concern; and appointed commissioners to treat with England on the proposal of a union between the two kingdoms. The English parliament passed a bill authorising the appointment of commissioners to treat of the union, and the commissioners of both nations opened their proceedings on the 10th of November, 1702; but it soon became manifest that the admission of the Scots to equal trading rights was the chief difficulty on the other side of the Tweed. The first point concerning the succession to the throne was shortly agreed to, and the second, stipulating that there should be only one legislature for the United Kingdom. But when the Scotch commissioners insisted on equal trading advantages the old difficulty reappeared; the Scots wanted free trade between the two kingdoms, and that this should be considered without reference to existing companies. They held many meetings, but could not agree on the trading privileges; and on the 3rd of February, 1703, they were adjourned by the Queen, and met no more.

In the spring of 1703, Scotland was agitated with the elections for the new parliament summoned by the Queen. The Jacobites exerted themselves to the utmost, and succeeded in returning a considerable number of their party. The new house met on the 16th of May. The Duke of Queensberry presented himself as royal commissioner, and the business of this memorable parliament began in earnest. All the laws in favour of presbyterianism were ratified, and it was declared to be high treason to speak against the Claim of Right. The Earl of Strathmore proposed a bill for the toleration of all Protestants, but it was rejected.

Parliament then proceeded to handle the secular affairs which had filled the national mind for several years, and a series of rather alarming acts were passed. One act announced that the sovereign had no right to make war on the part of Scotland without the consent of the Scotch parliament; and another removed the restrictions upon the importation of French wines, thus opening up a trade with the enemy of England—and the Jacobites rejoiced. Some proposals of a republican description were mooted, and Fletcher proposed to take the patronage of office from the Crown and place it in the hands of parlia

ment.

On the act for the security of the kingdom, there was a long and vehement debate, from the 28th of May to the 16th of September, and at last it was carried by a majority. Its main points enacted that on the demise of the Queen without issue, the Estates were to appoint a successor from the Protestant descendants of the royal line of Scotland; but the recognised successor to the throne of England was directly excluded from their choice, unless such conditions of government were settled as would secure the honour and sovereignty of this kingdom, and free religion, and the trade of the nation from English or any foreign influence. The coronation oath was not to be administered without instructions from parliament, under the penalty of high treason. Another clause of the act commanded