A History of England, Period III. Constitutional MonarchyBright, J. Franck (James Franck)
History
A History of England, Period III. Constitutional Monarchy
Bright, J. Franck (James Franck)
Great Britain -- History
a war, and England would almost infallibly be drawn into it, and this on
behalf of a Company which, by changing Scotland into a free port, would
virtually make it an enormous centre for smuggling to the extreme
detriment of English trade. The attention of the King was drawn to the
subject. He expressed his entire disapprobation of the scheme, and
dismissed the Lord High Commissioner and the Secretary; but the law was
made and could not be rescinded. In 1698, in the midst of wild
enthusiasm, 1200 colonists set out from Leith, with Paterson among them,
and reached Darien in safety, and there established their colony, but
almost immediately came into contact with the neighbouring Spanish
governor, and the inevitable war began. At first, however, the reports
were favourable, and in the following year a new armament of four ships
and 1800 colonists left Scotland for Caledonia, as the new settlement
was called. They had not been gone long before news arrived at New York
that the colony no longer existed, and that the wretched remnant of its
inhabitants had sought refuge in New England. In fact, the climate had
proved eminently unhealthy, in spite of the assertions of Paterson.
Provisions had failed, and, worn out and enfeebled, the colonists,
feeling themselves entirely unable to repell the assaults of Spain,
determined to withdraw. After miserable suffering, a few of them reached
New York, and the second expedition arrived in Caledonia to find only
uninhabited ruins. They determined upon reoccupying these, rebuilt the
fort, and during the few healthy months continued, though with heavy
losses, to carry out their operations. But before long a Spanish fleet
appeared before the town, and an army, marching across the isthmus from
Panama, blockaded it on the land side. Resistance was impossible.
Already 300 of the new-comers had died, the survivors promised to depart
within a fortnight, and on the 11th of April left the colony for ever.
The disaster was regarded by the Scotch as a national injury on the part
of England. The Company had throughout excited great anger in the
Southern kingdom; the colonial governors had done all they could to
discourage the colony when it arrived, and the Scotch were ready to
trace this opposition to national jealousy,--to attribute it even to
William's partiality for his Dutch subjects, whose trade might have been
injured. In truth, the whole business was a proof, as William pointed
out to the House of Lords, of the difficulty of managing two countries
with different interests under one Crown, and the necessity of a closer
union between the nations.
[Sidenote: New Parliament Nov. 16, 1699.]
[Sidenote: Irish forfeitures.]
[Sidenote: Resumption Bill passed. April 10, 1700.]
[Sidenote: Parliament prorogued. April 11, 1700.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account