THE ENGLISH FISHING SETTLEMENTS. 321 



the band of Fife Adventurers who attempted to colonise 

 Lewis. They remained in the island seven years, when, 

 " on a sudden incursion," the petitioner lost his brother and 

 the estates of both, valued at 8,000, and was dangerously 

 wounded as well. Returning home to obtain redress from 

 King James, he was forced to go abroad to the war, and 

 after many travels apparently as a soldier of fortune 

 returned to England about 1621. By command of the 

 King, whose wishes were made known to Muir by the 

 Duke of Richmond and Sir William Monson, he was 

 ordered, under promise of a reward, to remain in England 

 to give information about the Long Island, in connexion 

 with fishing colonies which it was proposed to plant there. 

 This is the only intimation we have of any renewed attempt 

 on the part of James I., to tackle the thorny problem of 

 planting a colony in Lewis. Whatever plan may have 

 been suggested, the scheme evidently proved fruitless it 

 was probably shelved until a more convenient season. 

 About the time of the accession of Charles I., Muir was 

 again approached by Monson on a similar errand, from 

 which we may conclude that the great fishery scheme of 

 Charles I. was the outcome of deliberations extending over 

 a considerable number of years, and was suggested, in the 

 first instance, by the richness of the scaly spoils of the 

 Minch. Muir claimed to have spent 1,000 (which he had 

 earned in the foreign wars) during the time he was then 

 detained in England, and found himself so much in debt 

 that he " dare not walk the street.' 1 He therefore claimed 

 compensation, with what result does not appear. The 

 war-worn veteran certainly deserved some consideration at 

 the hands of those who had utilised his information.* 



The intention of Charles in respect of Lewis proved to 

 be no empty threat. Whatever arrangement the King had 

 proposed to make with his favourite, Colin, Earl of Seaforth, 

 it is clear that George, the second Earl was, notwithstanding 

 the previous declaration of Charles, treated with scant 



* Cal of State Papers (1635), Vol. CCXCL, No. 46. 



