The vessel in which Fletcher made his escape, was bound for Spain. Information having, by sonic unknown means, reached the English minister at Madrid, of his ar rival, he applied to the Spanish government, who caused him to be apprehended and put in prison, in order to his being transmitted to London. But he escaped in a manner s, extraordinary, that if it had not formed a part of his ac count of himself to the Earl Mareschal, it might have been deemed incredible. On the eve of his departure, a stran ger of a venerable aspect made signals to him through the bars of his prison. Fletcher, on looking around him, found a door unlocked ; and, on going out at it, was joined by his deliverer, who conducted him in silence through three guards of soldiers, who were, or appeared to be, asleep. He was then assisted in escaping from the place, by ano ther person equally unknown. He proceeded through Spain in disguise ; and, having credit on a house in Am sterdam, he spent a considerable time in examining the scenery and curiosities of the country, and purchased many curious books, which the Earl of Buchan, in his Essay on the Life of Fletcher, informs us are still preserved in the family library at Salton. During his journey he met with several singular and providential deliverances, which he used to recount to his friends with pleasing and pious emo tion, regarding them as proofs of the special protection of heaven.
We next find him serving as a•volunteer in the Hunga rian war under the Duke of Lorrain. Meanwhile he had not been an inattentive observer of the signs of the times in his native land ; but, having availed himself of such op portunities as occurred, of learning what was going on at home and in Holland, he gave up his prospects of military fame and promotion, and joined the baud of exiles and pa triots from Britain, who were preparing at the Hague for the execution of the grand enterprize on which the liber ties of his country were suspended. Haying declined to accept James the Seventh's act of indemnity, under which several persons of distinction had recovered their estates and honours, he came over with the Prince of Orange in 1633, along with Bishop Burnet, Sir Patrick Hume, kc. The success of this grand effort is detailed in its proper place. At present, we have to do with Fletcher, who, whilst in Holland, asserted the rights and liberties of Scot land previous to the Revolution, against William Prince of Orange, with a firmness and unbending zeal which made him appear as desirous of giving the crown without the sceptre, and prevented him from being a favourite of the prince.
In the Convention Parliament which met in Scotland af ter the Revolution, he was a strenuous advocate for popu lar freedom and regal limitations ; and it is a circumstance highly honourable to him, that, except regaining posses sion of his family-estate, which happened as a matter of course, he never seems to have enjoyed or desired any of fice, emolument, or pension, whatever. " Aron sibi sed pa trig" was the noble principle on which he acted. King William respected and feared him; but finding him " too fond of the right, to pursue the expedient," did not confide in him.
In Fletcher's Political Works, which were published in one 8vo. volume in 1737, we find seventeen speeches that
had been delivered by him in the Scottish parliament, most of them about the year 1703 ; and all except three on the great questions which then agitated the nation, relative to the settlement of the Scottish crown, in the event of the death of Queen Anne without issue. In these speeches, which are certainly a great historical and literary curiosity, he advocates with great boldness the cause of popular right against royal privilege ; laments the degeneracy of the no bility and people from the high spirit of their ancestors, and reproaches them for their servility to England. He brought in and supported a bill, entitled " Act for the se curity of the Kingdom," which, had it passed, would have lodged the whole executive power in the hands of the par liament, and rendered the king a mere puppet to be shewn at a procession. Against this alarming project, the Queen's commissioner exerted all hit influence, and even signified that as, without the touch of the royal sceptre officially given to the act, as the Scottish mode of expressing the royal assent, it would not have the force of a law ; so that assent must be withheld, even if the scheme should obtain the sanction of parliament. Finding this could not be car ried into a law, be formally moved, that " the proposed li mitations should be declared by a resolution of the House of Parliament, to be the conditions upon which the nation will receive a successor to the crown of this realm, after the decease of her present Majesty, and failing heirs of her body, in case the said successor shall be also king or queen of England." (Fletcher's Political Works, Speeches No. III. and IV.) Even in the present age of free discussion, we can hardly find an instance of greater boldness than this. From the close of this motion, his dislike to the union of the crowns sill be seen, as it evidently implies that if Scot land should choose a separate king, he would not consider so many limitations necessary. Yet even if this latter event had taken place, there is no doubt that Fletcher would have displayed his characteristic jealousy of princes in a man lier calculated sufficiently to fetter the power of the crown. Ile did not hesitate afterwards boldly to assert the consti tutional right of the Scottish parliament to separate the crown of Scotland from that of England, at the clone of the then existing entail of the crown, and to express his con viction of the necessity of this measure for the welfare of his native land. Happily for Great Britain and the world these projects proved unsuccessful ; and we cannot suffi ciently wonder, that one so well acquainted with the nature of man, and with the constitutional and political history of the two divisions of the island, should have calmly formed such a design. It seems to us a striking proof of the power of early prejudice over the wisest and best-intentioned minds. Had William and Mary, or their successor Queen Anne, been as bigotted and tyrannical, as they were in truth liberal and tolerant in their domestic and foreign policy, we could with less difficulty have explained the conduct of Fletcher on this occasion.