Scotland's illicit
trade with the Plantations did not compensate for the drawbacks to
her European trade caused by William's wars, and to her English
trade by high duties on her imports. Her industries had developed,
and their production was increasing, so she felt more and more
keenly the want of markets for her goods. The Scots regretted and
bemoaned their poverty, and began to realise that "this Nation, of
all those who possess good Ports, and lie conveniently for Trade and
Fishing, has bin the only part of Europe which did not apply itself
to Commerce." Therefore, according to Fletcher, of Saltoun, "by an
unforeseen and unexpected change of the genius of this nation all
their thoughts and inclinations...seem to be turned upon Trade." It
was obvious that a colonial market of their own was what the Scots
really needed. The promoters of the New Jersey colony had pointed
out that their settlement would prove of great advantage to the
country, as increasing the consumption of Scottish manufactures. A
few years later (1691) the Commissioners for the burgh of Glasgow
declared "that it is the great concern of the royall borrows to have
ane interest in forraigne plantations," and suggested that
settlements might be made in Carolina and the West Indian Islands.
The Convention considered the matter, but at that time nothing came
of it. In 1693 the question of foreign plantations was brought
before the Committee of Trade, and in the same year was passed the
"Act for Encouraging of Forraigne Trade." This Act offered to all
companies which should be formed for carrying on foreign trade, all
the privileges and immunities which were granted to manufacturing
companies. These were to be confirmed by Letters Patent from the
King, and further, if attacks were made on the property of such
companies, restitution was to be enforced "by publick means and at
publick expense." -These privileges were more comprehensive than
those enjoyed by any English company, and they were also to receive
confirmation from Parliament.
The English commercial community was at
this time, and had been for some years, much agitated by a
controversy which raged round the East India trade. After the
Restoration, when the charter granted by Cromwell in 1657 was
renewed, this trade had flourished greatly, and those concerned in
it became extremely wealthy. But the profits were confined to
comparatively few, and the management of the company was entirely in
their hands. It was, in fact, a very close monopoly. The possibility
of such great gain induced private traders to fit out and send ships
to the East, and gradually these interlopers, as they were called,
became quite a numerous body. They were engaged in a continual
struggle with the company, who were determined to maintain their
monopoly. Sir Josiah Child, a "commercial grandee, who in wealth and
the influence that attends wealth, vied with the greatest nobles of
his time," governor of the company, was the leader in the contest
with the interlopers. By costly presents and judicious bribes he
made a place for himself high in Court favour, and secured from
James II a charter maintaining the
monopoly. Just after this, a quarrel between the Mogul government
and the company agents led to war in India. While this was going on,
the Revolution deprived Sir Josiah of Court support, and made an
opportunity for his opponents, of which they were not slow to avail
themselves. They were for the most part anxious rather for the
formation of a company which should be governed neither by a despot
nor by an oligarchy, than for an entirely unregulated trade. These
persons formed themselves into a society known as the New Company,
which now carried on the struggle against the Old, Child's, Company.
Both were most anxious to obtain parliamentary powers, but though
the latter secured a renewal of its privileges by charter in 1693,
authority from Parliament was still denied.
After the charter was
obtained, the company dealt very harshly with the interlopers, and
the question was in consequence referred to the consideration of the
House of Commons. The result was that, in 1694, the Commons passed a
resolution declaring "that it was the right of all Englishmen to
trade to the East Indies or any part of the world, unless prohibited
by Act of Parliament." Trade, though nominally free, was still
largely controlled by the Old Company, who had factories and offices
in India. The New Company, in spite of their efforts, were not able
to procure a charter. The position of affairs in 1695, therefore,
was that in England there were many merchants most anxious to obtain
parliamentary privileges for their trade, and that in Scotland
extensive parliamentary privileges were offered, and there were few
merchants who had sufficient capital or knowledge to take advantage
of them. The idea of combining the two, with great advantage to
Scotland, was conceived by a certain William Paterson. He was a man
of considerable commercial and financial genius. He had drawn up a
scheme for a national bank, which was accepted by the English
Parliament in 1694, and for a short time he was a director of the
thus formed Bank of England. He had travelled a good deal,
especially in the West Indies, and from his knowledge of those
regions sprang his scheme for an international entrepot on the
Panama Isthmus. He is said to have tried to push this scheme in some
continental trading centres, without success. Then he came to
London, but there seems to have contented himself with suggestions
for carrying on the East India trade, under cover of an Act to be
secured from the Scottish Parliament. Doubtless he intended, when
the company was formed, to bring forward his plan of trading to the
East Indies via the Isthmus and the Pacific, but this was kept in
the background for the present. Some English merchants took up the
scheme warmly. Then the projectors went to Scotland, where, as has
been pointed out, the nation was anxious to establish some new trade
connections. The instructions given to Tweeddale, Lord High
Commissioner, for the current session of Parliament, included
directions to pass an Act "for the encouragement of such as shall
acquire and establish a plantation in Africa or America or in any
other part of the world where plantations may be lawfully acquired,"
with "such rights and privileges as we grant in like case to the
subjects of our other dominions the one not interfering with the
other." These instructions were given in April.
Early in May,
according to Paterson, a London merchant informed him that there was
"great Encouragement given for an East Indian Company in Scotland;
upon which he" (i.e. Paterson) "gave Mr Chiesly a Scheme for
creating the same; but that was not entirely followed." Perhaps
Paterson's original plan laid some stress on his Panama scheme. Two
merchants then proceeded to Scotland, and in June 1693, the "Act for
a Company Tradeing to Affrica and the Indies" was passed. Twenty-one
persons, some of whom were English, were constituted a corporation,
receiving certain great privileges. They were empowered to trade
with Asia, Africa, and America; to plant colonies in places not
already possessed by any European power; to defend their trade and
colonies "by force of Arms"; to make reprisals for any damage done
them; to conclude treaties with foreign powers; and to have all
rights of government and admiralty in their colonies. All their
ships and goods were to be free from customs and duties for
twenty-one years. The Scots Navigation Act of 1661 was suspended in
their favour, and they were granted a monopoly of trade to Africa,
America, and the Indies, "excepting and without any prejudice to any
of the Subjects of this Kingdom to trade and navigat...to any part
of America where the Collonies plantations or possessions of the
said Company shall not be setled," that is, of course, reserving the
Scots trade to the English Plantations. Lastly, His Majesty promised
to interpose his authority to have restitution made for any harm
done to the company. This Act was clearly the work of an independent
Scots Parliament. In pre-Revolution days, when Court influence was
supreme, through the Lords of the Articles, such an Act could not
have been passed. The official who now represented the Court,
Tweeddale, Lord High Commissioner, obviously went beyond his
instructions. Burnet says that the King " drew an instruction
impowering the commissioner to pass a bill promising letters patent
for encouraging of trade, yet limited, so that it should not
interfere with the trade of England: when they went down to
Scotland, the king's commissioner either did not consider this, or
had no regard to it; for he gave the royal assent to an act, that
gave the undertakers either of the East India or West India trade,
all possible privileges." The King's answer to the English
Parliament's address on the subject: "I have been ill Served in
Scotland," is well known. Tweeddale was dismissed from office for
this piece of work.
The Act required that
half the capital should be raised in Scotland, and amongst the
promoters there were ten Scotsmen. The English merchants, however,
were really the moving influence of the concern, and accordingly the
first attempts to float the company were made in London. The
probability of jealousy and interference on the part of the English
Parliament and merchants was recognised from the first. Paterson
wrote on 9 July from London (the Act was passed on 26 June): "the
Gentlemen here...thinke also that we ought to keep private and close
for some months that no occasion may be given for the Parliament of
England directly or indirectly to take notice of it in the ensueing
Session, which might be of ill consequence and especially since a
great many considerable persons are already allarum'd at it."
Paterson seems to have realised distinctly at this time that
Scotland could not hope to carry out the scheme alone: "We must
engage some of the best heads and purses for Trade in Europe
therein, or we can never do it as it ought to be." Unfortunately,
neither the "best heads" nor the "best purses" had any share in the
undertaking in its final form. Paterson's prophecy, written at the
same time, was unfortunately fulfilled: "we may be sure, should we
only Settle some little Colony or Plantation and send some ships
They would looke upon them as Interlopers and all agree to
discourage and crush us to pieces."
The meetings of those
concerned in the company were held in London, beginning on 29 August
1695. At first only the English promoters were present, and the
meetings were called meetings "of Gentlemen concerned in the Company
of Scotland trading to Africa and the Indies." The dilatoriness of
the Scottish members in coming to London, or even in writing, was at
first a great source of trouble to the English undertakers. Paterson
wrote repeatedly urging them to hasten, but they did not arrive
until 9 November. Henceforward the meetings were styled "Meeting of
the Company of Scotland trading to Affrica and the Indies." The
subscription books were opened on 6 November, and the company met
with so much encouragement that the capital, originally fixed at
£360,000, was raised to £600,000, of which the £300,000 to be raised
in England was speedily subscribed. The sum paid up was £75,000.
There was much anxiety that the books should be closed before the
opening of Parliament, and this was done on the same day, 22
November, that the session of Parliament began. The English East
India Company had already (11 November) taken notice of the Scots
company, by voting that any of its members who were concerned in the
Scots company would break their oath to the English company. They
also petitioned the King for assistance.
On 2 December, the
Lords resolved to consider the Scots Act. Next day they ordered the
merchants trading to the East and West Indies, and the Customs
Commissioners to attend the House, "to give an Account wherein the
Act of Parliament lately made in Scotland for a Company trading to
Africa and the Indies may be prejudicial to the Trade of this
Kingdom into those parts." They appeared next day, and pointed out
the extent of the Scots privileges, their exemption from customs and
other duties, the exclusion of interlopers, and also their power of
making reprisals. On the 4th the directors of the company met, and
resolved that "one or more Ship or Ships be fitted out for the East
Indies from Scotland with all convenient speed." Their last meeting
was on 7 December, and on the same day the subscription books of the
company were ordered to be laid before the House of Lords, and some
of the directors were ordered to appear before the House1. On the
13th the Lords agreed to an address on the subject of the Scots
company to be presented to the King, in which the Commons concurred.
In this it was pointed out that the company's freedom from all
duties and customs would make Scotland the staple for Indian and
colonial goods, and that thereby England's trade would be ruined.
Also that his Majesty's promise to enforce restitution for any
damage done to the company's possessions "does seem to engage Your
Majesty to employ the Shipping and Strength at Sea of this Nation,
to support this new Company to the great Detriment even of this
Kingdom." In. the MSS. minutes of the House of Lords for the same
day, this entry stands: "Moved that a day may be appointed to
receive what may be proposed in order to have union between England
and Scotland." Even in the very heat of the controversy, it was
realised by some that a union was the only means by which the
interests of the countries could be made identical, and the dangers
from an independent Scots Parliament obviated. A few days later it
was suggested that certain bills should be prepared, dealing with
the different points brought up in the address. "The first was to
discourage all Englishmen" under severe Penalties from engaging in
the Stock and Management of the Scots East India Company; and
another was to prohibit English seamen from serving the Scots
company, and English shipbuilders from building for them. The Lords
now dropped the matter, but in January it was taken up again by the
Commons. The East India Company complained that those concerned in
the Scots company were fitting out ships for the Indies, and the
House ordered an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of
the founding of the company. Accordingly, on 21 January 1696, the
secretary and several of the directors were examined. The books had
been sent off to Scotland, and therefore could not be brought before
the House. One director said he had "resolved to act no longer,"
when he heard that Parliament had taken up the matter. Another, a
member of the English East India Company, subscribed £3000, but when
he heard it was resolved to send out a ship, he refused, saying: "It
was against his Oath to the English East India Company. And further
That if the Ship was lost, the Scotts might refuse to bear their
Parts." On the same day it was resolved to impeach all the
directors. Nothing came of this resolution, but parliamentary
inquiry was fatal to the interests of the company, and almost all
the English subscribers withdrew.
In agitating against
the Scottish company, the great English companies had a twofold
object in view. No doubt they were honestly alarmed at the prospect
of a company with such extensive privileges, largely financed and
managed by Englishmen, making Scotland an emporium, and greatly
damaging their trade. But in addition, both the East India and
African companies intended to make capital out of the general alarm.
The East India Company seized the opportunity of pointing out that
their trade was "in Danger of being lost, by means of the great
Privileges granted to Joint Stocks of neighbouring Nations," and
praying for leave to bring in a bill to establish their company. The
Lords suggested on 20 December, that bills should be prepared to
establish the East India and Africa Companies in England, "with such
Powers and Privileges as shall be proper to obviate the
Inconveniences that may otherwise arise by the Scotch Act." But
excitement over the Scots Act soon died down, and the Company was
not successful in its attempt to obtain parliamentary authority. On
the other hand, those who were anxious that the trade should be open
to all, drew another moral from the Scots Act. "And if all
Englishmen have the freedom of trade to India it'cannot be supposed
any of them will joyn with the Scotch, but everyone will rather
imploy his own money." This, the writer declared, would ruin the
Scots company. "Now if all the English decline the Scots Company,
they will want both Stock and Experience to carry it on, and will
sink of themselves"—a true prophecy.
The matter was also
considered in relation to the Plantation trade. Randolph, government
agent in the Colonies, wrote soon after the Act was passed, that the
Scots, "under pretence of Erecting an East India Company in yer
King-dome...do Engage themselves with Great Sums of money in an
American Trade; a Trade which has already for Several Years been
carried on by Scotchmen." He feared that they might make a
settlement in some unappropriated spot near Pennsylvania, or in an
island near the coast, which might become "a staple not only of all
Sorts of European Manufactures, but also of the Enumerated
Plantation Commodities." Like the East India Company, Randolph used
the Scots project as a stalking horse for impressing on the
government the necessity for those measures which he desired, the
tightening up and stricter enforcement of the Navigation Acts, and
the necessity of joining small proprietary colonies to the
government of some province directly under His Majesty's authority.
The Lords, influenced by the Customs Commissioners, also paid some
attention to this aspect of the Scots Act. They ordered the
Commissioners to attend the House, "to give an Account, whether as
the Law now stand there be a sufficient Power, in Carolina,
Maryland, Pennsilvania and other Plantations where there are
Proprietors to collect the King's Duties there: and whether there be
the same Security to prevent the Inconveniences that may arise to
the Proprietors and Planters there, from the Act of Parliament in
Scotland." These inquiries were followed by the "Act for preventing
Frauds and Regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade." Besides
making the regulations more stringent, with a view to checking the
existing Scottish trade, the Act took some precautions against a
Scottish settlement being founded, by declaring that no land in the
colonies was to be sold to any but natives of England, Ireland, or
the Plantations. The agitators against the Scots Act connected with
the Plantation trade were therefore more successful than the traders
to the East. Parliament considered the Plantation trade of greater
importance to England than the Indian trade, as in America there was
a better market for England's chief product, woollen cloth; and also
the returns from the colonies were esteemed of more value than the
goods which were brought from the East. They were therefore anxious
both to stop the Scottish trade with the West, which already went
on, and also to prevent the Scots from securing any land near the
colonies, where they might establish a depot for colonial goods, and
from which, with the help of Dutch shipping, Europe might be
supplied.
English opposition
and parliamentary investigation converted the company from a
possible success into a probable failure. The promoters were now
dependent on Scottish support. This was most ungrudgingly given, all
the more because Scottish national pride was aroused by English
interference. "Scots humours seem no less warm in prosecuting this
business than the Inglish are in opposing it....T'was the notice the
parliament of Ingland first took of it made the wholl nation throng
in to have some share and I'm of opinion the resentments people are
acted by; are the greatest supplys (that) furnishes life to that
affaire." The books were opened in Edinburgh on 26 February 1696.
Over £50,000 was subscribed on the first day, and by the end of July
the whole amount, fixed now at £400,000 instead of £300,000, was
subscribed. The largest subscribers were the Duke of Hamilton, Lord
Belhaven and Stewart of Grandtully, who each subscribed £3000.
Landed proprietors, merchants, shipowners and masters,
manufacturers, advocates, writers, doctors, craftsmen, all invested,
the sums varying from £2000 to £100.
But as the capital
had been originally fixed at £600,000, it was felt that efforts
should be made to raise the additional £200,000. Accordingly
delegates were sent by the company to Holland, and to Hamburg, where
rich and adventurous merchants were likely to be found, and where
the Scots had considerable trade connections. But in Amsterdam the
opposition of the Dutch East India Company prevented any merchants
from joining. In Hamburg the money was promised, but in April 1697,
Sir Paul Bycaut, the English Resident there, presented an address to
the Senate, declaring that the Scots agents had no authority from
the King, and that His Majesty would consider any engagement made by
the Hamburg merchants with the Scots "an affront" to his authority.
The merchants opened a subscription list, but stipulated that no
money should be paid until the company should procure a declaration
from the King authorising their proceedings. The company, and
Parliament on their behalf, presented petitions and addresses to
William, begging him to order that all opposition be withdrawn.
Although he promised to consider the matter, and to order that his
name should not be used to hinder the projects of the company, the
Hamburg agent did not withdraw his opposition. No capital was
subscribed there, and the Scots were therefore forced to begin
operations with their own £400,000, of which only £219,094. 85. Id.
was actually paid up.
Wherever possible,
English opposition thwarted the company. Considering the attitude of
England towards Scottish trade since 1660, it was to be expected
that a potential rival to the great English companies, with Scottish
authority, and with its headquarters in Scotland, would not be
allowed to be financed with English capital. Interference abroad,
however, was unwarrantable, and deprived Scotland of the last hopes
of making the project a success. In the later conduct of the
company's affairs, England could not interfere, until the settlement
was made which endangered her foreign relations. Then William's
alarm was justifiable, but not so the measures which were taken
against the company and its colony. Although ruin was then
inevitable, the conduct of the colonial authorities, acting upon
instructions from England, did something to increase the horrors of
the desertion of Darien, and much to influence public opinion in
Scotland against England, her government, and her people.
When the English
voice in the management of affairs was removed, Paterson was able to
push his own scheme for a settlement on the Isthmus of Panama, to be
a depot for East and West Indian goods, and to "carry on a Commerce
in two vast Continents." The advantages of the scheme to Scotland
were said to be many. A settlement would be provided for her surplus
population, to which they should emigrate instead of going to fight
on the Continent, or to settle in the English Plantations. Then the
trade which would be attracted to such a settlement would provide a
market for Scottish goods, greatly enrich the country, and make her
a depot from which Europe should be supplied with both East and West
Indian commodities. Both silver and gold mines were supposed to
exist on the Isthmus; wealth from these was to pour into the
country, and Scotland, at one bound, by virtue of this scheme, was
to take her position as one of the leading commercial powers of
Europe. Unfortunately there were many weak points in the project.
For one thing, the amount of capital was utterly inadequate for
carrying out a grandiose plan of this nature. Then, too, the Scots
were inexperienced in the work of colonisation; and also, but for
their trade with the American colonies, they knew nothing of trade
with any countries but those which were near at hand. Also the spot
where they designed to settle was very near the Spanish settlements
of Carthagena, Panama, and Porto Rico. Paterson, at any rate, ought
to have realised that the exclusive Spanish policy was not in the
least likely to tolerate an alien colony in the midst of their
sphere of influence. The country itself was far from being the El
Dorado of their hopes. The climate was bad, and the land unfit for a
settlement, and the gold and silver mines were non-existent.
Amongst golden dreams
of Scotland's future wealth, three ships set sail from Leith on 26
July 1698. Early in November they arrived at the Bay of Acla, in the
Gulf of Darien, where they intended to begin their settlement.
Experience on the voyage had already shewn, what a short time on
shore soon confirmed, the inadequacy of the regulations made for
governing the colony. The supply of provisions was insufficient;
because of carelessness and dearth no more were sent out from
Scotland; and the goods which had been brought out, including large
supplies of blue bonnets, bibles, and periwigs, were not
particularly suitable for trading with the natives. Pestilence
attacked the small force, and in June 1699, these combined
difficulties caused the colonists, now reduced in number from 1200
to 900, to abandon the settlement. The refugees made for New York,
but before they reached that colony, proclamation had been made, by
William's orders, that his subjects there were to "forbear holding
any correspondence with or giving any assistance to" any persons who
had been engaged in making a settlement from Scotland. They were
able, however, doubtless helped by their fellow-countrymen settled
in New 'York, to get enough provisions to take them back to
Scotland.
Meanwhile the
directors at home had sent out a second expedition, leaving Leith in
May 1699. They arrived at New Caledonia, as the settlement had been
named, in August, to find the colony deserted, and after a short
stay they sailed for Jamaica. The third expedition, of about 1300
men, sailed from the Clyde in September of the same year. Although
they had heard rumours of the desertion of the settlement, they were
not prepared to find that the only remains of the colony, from which
they had hoped so much, were a few empty huts and a dismantled fort.
The first expedition
had already come into collision with the Spaniards at Carthagena. A
small vessel belonging to the company was wrecked in the bay, and
the commander and crew were seized as pirates and put into irons.
They were condemned to be executed, but owing to English
representation the sentence was not carried out, though they were
kept prisoners for a long time. Two or three months after the
arrival of the third contingent, the Spanish attack on the
intruders, which had been preparing for a long time, at last took
place, and on 31 March 1700, the settlers finally capitulated.
The disastrous end of
the first expedition had not damped the hopes of the Scots, who
still looked for success to crown their endeavours. The Scots in New
Jersey were said to be "growne to a very great hight... from the
Success that their Countreymen meet withall in their settlement of
Golden Island." In Scotland there was said to be "such an
earnestness and disposition towards that matter, without any
sparing, either of their persons or purses, that every observer must
think it wonderful." The news of the final desertion therefore came
as an unexpected and very bitter blow to the Scots. Nor had the
English expected their neighbours' enterprise to fail. The English
Parliament had directed their attention to the Scots Company in its
initiatory stages. Then they had feared that it might be a rival to
the East India Company. Four years later they were again alarmed.
This time they wished to inquire "how consistent the Colony at
Darien may be with the Treaties with Spain and the Trade of this
Kingdom," with special reference to the Plantation trade. An address
on the subject was sent to the King. In this the Lords expressed
their fears that the settlement might tend " to a disturbance of
that Peace and good Correspondency with the Crown of Spain, which we
conceive is very advantageous to us all"; and also that it must
"prove very inconvenient to the Trade and Quiet of this Kingdom4."
William, in his answer, pointed out the only solution of the
difficulty: "His Majesty does apprehend that Difficulties may too
often arise, with respect to the different Interests of Trade
between His Two Kingdoms, unless some way be found to unite them
more nearly and compleatly." This proposal of union bore no fruit,
but it certainly would not have been a favourable opportunity for
approaching the Scots.
The whole nation was
seething with indignation at the ruin of their cherished scheme,
which they attributed to the malign influence of England. Parliament
met in May 1700, and was overwhelmed with addresses, petitions, and
remonstrances from all parts of the country, begging that the
company's right to the colony of Caledonia might be maintained, and
asserting England's responsibility for its downfall, and the
necessity for asserting Scotland's freedom and independence.
Parliament was adjourned several times, but national excitement did
not abate. In January 1701, Parliament drew up an address to the
King concerning Caledonia. They emphasised the "several great and
grievous hardships" put upon them by the kingdom of England. These
were, firstly, the interference of both Houses of Parliament in
1695, by which the company lost subscriptions to the value of
£300,000; and also the address of the Lords to the King, of February
1700, "persisting in the opposition made against our Company and
their Colony." Secondly, Parliament complained of the English
agent's interference at Hamburg. Thirdly, the Proclamations issued
in the English colonies were "injurious and prejudicial to the
rights and liberties of the Company." Later, an Act was passed
confirming the privileges and immunities of the African Company.
William never
directly answered the address, but in his last message to the
English Parliament a year later, "His Majesty is fully satisfied
that nothing can more contribute to the present and future peace,
security and happiness of England and Scotland, than a firm and
entire union between them," he again emphasised what he felt would
be the only solution of the difficulties of the two countries; In
1702 Anne answered Parliament's address in words of the same tenour:
"to avoid all occasions of misunderstanding or differences...we
shall think it our happiness to establish an intire Union betwixt
the two Kingdomes." With the unsuccessful negotiations for Union of
1702, the history of the African Company is merged into that of the
Union. From one point of view, the Darien episode was disastrous
indeed; but it was also of use, in that the failure precipitated the
crisis in the relations of the two countries. The conception of the
scheme, its parliamentary authorisation, the actual settlement in
Spanish territory, shewed England that her neighbour might, with
favourable conditions, prove a formidable rival. On the other hand,
its failure, through want of capital and experience, made plain to
the Scots the necessity for money, if their trading interest were to
flourish. They had already seen English capital invested in Scottish
undertakings; but the experience of the African Company shewed them
that the English Parliament would not allow such investments in any
scheme which clashed with English interests, and over which it had
no control.