cxviii. 114, December 1620), and an unsigned and slightly altered copy

among those for 1623 (_State Papers, Dom._, clvii. 45). The original is endorsed, _Keymers booke of observac͠ons for your moste excellent Ma^{tie} touchinge trade and traffique beyond y^e Seas and in England wherein he certaynly findeth y^t your sea and land Commodities doe searve to inrich and strengthen other Cuntries agnst your Kingdome; w^{ch} were y^e urgent causes why he endeavoured himselfe to take extraordynarie paynes for y^e redresse: soe it maie stande w^{th} your Ma^{ties} good Likinge_. 1620. It is subscribed, “Your Ma^{ties} most loyall and true harted Subject, John Keymer,” and it is the same treatise as is published in Raleigh’s _Works_, with a few trifling verbal differences, while the concluding sentence is omitted in the printed form--viz., “To conclude, England is a great and famous body and would be farr greater, richer and stronger, if the ten fingers were rightly imployed.” Further proof exists that Keymer was the author of this much-discussed treatise. Its object was to show how the trade and revenue might be greatly increased, and the author begged the king to have a commission appointed to examine witnesses as to his proposals. This commission was appointed two years later, as appears from the following entry in the Grant Book in 1622: “20 Dec. Com̃ to Charles, pr. of Wales, John Bp. of Linc., Ld Keeper of y^e g. seale, Lewis Duke of Lennox, Geo. Marquis Buck., &c. to hear the propositions which shall be made by John Keymer and to consider whether they will tend to the good of y^e King, and commonwealth as is pretended” (_State Papers, Dom._, Jas. I. (Grants), vol. 141, p. 352). There does not appear to be any further mention of the matter. This John Keymer is supposed to be the same as a person of that name who was licensed by Raleigh about 1584 to sell wines at Cambridge. Among the MSS. at Hatfield are letters from him, dated in 1598, to Cecil and the Earl of Essex, in which he speaks of his services, of “his travels and labours to find out the practises used beyond the seas to their advantage and our great danger and how to prevent the same,” and of his works, one of which he said showed how to increase the Queen’s treasure above £100,000 a year. He also corresponded with Carleton in 1619. In his address to the king, prefixed to the treatise of 1620, he mentions that “about fourteen or fifteen years past” he had presented him with “a book of such extraordinary importance for the honour and profit” of his Majesty and posterity, which was doubtless the earlier tract referred to above, and would fix its date about 1605 or 1606. He was also engaged on the fishery question about 1612 (doubtless in connection with the proposed society), because Tobias Gentleman, whose work was published in the spring of 1614, tells us that he was visited “some two yeares past” by “Maister John Keymar,” who was collecting information about the fisheries, with the view of placing it before the Council (_Englands Way to Win Wealth_, 3).

The copy of Keymer’s tract, which is among the State Papers of 1623, is unsigned, and is simply calendared as “Tract addressed to the King, consisting of observations made by the writer in his travels on the coasts,” &c.; but the person who calendared the paper has written on it, in pencil, “q. By Sir Walter Cope (_ob._ 1614). See 1612, a letter or discourse to the King, to which this was attached,” and has added the name “Walter Cope” at the end. The paper referred to (_State Papers, Dom._, vol. 71, No. 89) has written on it in the old hand, “Sr Walter Cope to K.,” and “Anno Domini 1612. A present for the Kinges most excellent Maiestie.” It is only mentioned here because the draft of it, which is the next paper in the volume (No. 90) and has several corrections on the first page, bears the following note in one of the corners, “Nota Mr Chancellor and Malynes wife (?) the ... of Maye, Ralegh.” The meaning is obscure, but perhaps it may be surmised from the contents that Malynes, who was at that time concerned with the fishery society proposals, had submitted it to Sir Walter Raleigh, and that ultimately it was presented to the king by Sir Walter Cope, who was on intimate terms with him.

[244] _Englands Way to Win Wealth, and to employ Ships and Mariners; or, A plaine description what great profite it will bring vnto the Commonwealth of England, by the Erecting, Building, and aduenturing of Busses, to Sea, a Fishing: With a true Relation of the inestimable Wealth that is yearly taken out of his Majesty’s Seas by the Hollanders, &c._, by Tobias Gentleman, Fisherman and Mariner, London, 1614.

[245] _State Papers, Dom._, Jas. I., xlvii. 114.

[246] Keymer, _Observations on Dutch Fishing_; Gentleman, _op. cit._; Buchanan, _Rerum Scot. Hist._, lib. i. c. xlix; Leslie, _De Origine Moribus et Rebus Gestis Scotorum_, 39; _Register Privy Council of Scotland_, ii. 656; _MSS. Advoc. Lib._, 31. 2. 16.

[247] _State Papers, Dom._, xxxii. 31. Other accounts are as follows. In 1609 the Earl of Salisbury wrote (erroneously) that while fifty or sixty years before only one or two hundred foreign vessels came to fish on the east coast, they then numbered two or three thousand sail (Winwood, _Memorials_, iii. 50). Sir William Monson in the same year placed the number of Hollander busses at 3000 and the number of men at over 30,000 (_State Papers, Dom._, xlvii. 112, 114). Sir Nicholas Hales also estimated the number of men at 30,000 (_Ibid._, xlv. 23; cclxxiv. 67). In the following year the Dutch ambassadors admitted that 20,000 men were employed in the great herring fishery, as well as other 40,000 in connection with it on shore (_Ibid._, lxvii. 111). A little later, in 1616, the Secretary to the Duke of Lennox told the Dutch ambassador that in the previous June, 1500 or 1600 Hollander busses were at Shetland (_Add. MSS. Brit. Mus._, 17,677, J, fol. 160). In 1618 the number fishing on the east coast of Scotland sometimes exceeded 2000 sail (_MSS. Advoc. Lib._, 31. 2. 16). Malynes in 1622 placed the number of busses from Holland and Zealand at 2000 (_Consuetudo vel Lex Mercatoria_, 89). Two years later a Spanish agent described them as consisting of 2400 vessels, guarded by 40 men-of-war, and scattered over an area of 200 leagues (_State Papers, Dom._, dxxi. 30). In 1629 Secretary Coke, who derived the information from a Scottish source, said the Hollander busses sometimes amounted to 3000 sail; three years later he put the number in connection with the fishery off Yarmouth at “above a thousand”; at this time the French vessels numbered 40 (_Ibid._, Chas. I., clii. 63; ccxxix. 79). Beaujon (_op. cit._, p. 64) expresses the opinion that 2000 busses were the maximum number.

[248] To Pomerania, Poland, “Spruceland,” Denmark, Liefland, Russia, Sweden, Germany, Brabant, Flanders, France, “Lukeland,” England, Greece, Egypt, Venice, Leghorn, and all over the Mediterranean, and even as far as Brazil.

[249] _State Papers, Dom._, xlvii. 112.

[250] To the King’s most excellent Majesty: A Declaration of the fishing of Herring, Cod, and Ling, and how much the favour or disfavour of Your Royal Majesty concerneth the Hollanders. _Ibid._, xxxii. 30; cclxxix. 67.

[251] Misselden, _The Circle of Commerce, or the Balance of Trade_, 1623, p. 121. It may be said that the aggregate quantity of herrings now taken in the North Sea, and mostly by Scottish and English fishermen, equals about 3,500,000 barrels in a year.

[252] Manship, _History of Great Yarmouth_, 119, 121.

[253] Gentleman, _op. cit._, 7, 32.

[254] Keymer, _Observations on Dutch Fishing_.

[255] Manship, _op. cit._, 97, 120. The work was written between 1612 and 1619.

[256] Gentleman, _op. cit._, 36; Swinden, _History of Great Yarmouth_, 465; _State Papers, Dom._, xlvii. 112, 114.

[257] Meynert Semeyns, _Een corte beschryvinge over de Haring-visscherye in Hollandt_.

[258] Keymer, _Observations on Dutch Fishing_; Monson, _Naval Tracts_, in Churchill’s _Collection_, iii. 467; H. Robinson, _Briefe Considerations concerning the Advancement of Trade_, p. 50; _England’s Great Interest by encouraging the setting up of the Royal Fishery_, &c., &c.

[259] A Demonstration of the Hollanders increase in Shipping and our Decay herein. _State Papers, Dom._, xlvii. 112.

[260] _The Trades Increase._ Keymer, _Observations on Dutch Fishing, &c. Observations touching Trade, &c._, Raleigh’s _Works_, viii. 374. _State Papers, Dom._, xlviii. 114.

[261] _A Discourse of the Invention of Ships. Works_, viii. 325.

[262] In one of the most elaborate and detailed of the proposals for the building of busses, the daily allowance of beer for each man was to be a gallon, as in the king’s ships: the buss was to go to sea with 56 herring barrels full of beer. E. S.--_Britaines Bvsse, or a Computation as well of the Charge of a Bvsse or Herring fishing ship as also of the Gain and Profit thereby._ London, 1615.

[263] Keymer, _Observations on Dutch Fishing_. The industrious Hollander was held up as an example to the English. “If any be so weak,” said one writer, “to think this mechanical fisher trade not feasible to the English people, to him I may say with Solomon, Go to the Pismire! Look upon the Dutch! Thou Sluggard! learn of them! They do it daily in the sight of all men at our own doors, upon our own coasts.” “Shall we,” said another, “neglect so great blessings? O slothful England, and careless Countrymen! Look but on these fellows, that we call the plump Hollanders; behold their diligence in fishing and our own careless negligence.”

[264] _State Papers, Dom._, James I., lxxi. 89. Malynes, who, as already suggested in the note on page 128, may have been the author of Cope’s tract, said exactly the same thing in 1622--that there had been a continual agitation for over thirty years to make busses and fisher-boats. _The Maintenance of Free Trade_, 42.

[265] J. Bowssar to Sir Julius Cæsar, 14th October 1607, _Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 373.

[266] A Project for to restore unto the King’s Majestie his Dueties of Fishing by re-establishing ye Auncient Manner of fishing for herringe, Coad, and Ling, for maintenaunce of Navigation and Marryners with greatt increase of Traffique, 22nd April 1609, _Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 371. _State Papers, Dom._, xlviii. 95.

[267] Treaty of Antwerp, 30 March/9 April 1609.

[268] A rubric in the copy at the Record Office says, “By Proclamation first, most convenient to all the world.”

[269] _State Papers, Dom._, xlviii. 94. It is written on parchment and imperfect, and endorsed, “Mr Rainsford’s Answeares.”

[270] See p. 64.

[271] To the King’s Most excellent Majestie: A Declaration of the Fishing of Herring, Codd, and Ling, and how greatly the favour or disfavour of Your Royal Majesty concerneth the Hollanders. _State Papers, Dom._, xxxii. 32. A Declaration how much the Favour or Disfavour of Your Royal Majestie doth concern the Prosperity or Adversitie of the Hollanders: and what inconvenience may ensue, and how to praevent the same to the honour and safety of your Majesty and the tranquillitie of the Netherlanders. _Ibid._, xlv. 23.

[272] A Demonstration of the Hollanders Increase in Shipping and our Decay herein. _Ibid._, xlvii. 112. Particulars of the Lawes observed by other Nations touching fishing, and the Advantages that would accrue from establishing an English Fishing fleet. _Ibid._, 114.

[273] _Records of the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland_, ii. 203, July 2, 1605.

[274] _State Papers, Dom._, xxxii. 31.

[275] _State Papers, Dom._, xlv. 22. The petition was signed by fishermen of Yarmouth, Dover, Hastings, Rye, Hythe, and Folkestone. It is said in the petition that they had previously craved both the king and the Council for redress, without avail.

[276] The author of _Britaines Buss_ had heard, but did not believe, stories of the “very foul and insolent dealing of their bussmen with our poor weak fishermen upon our coasts.” Tobias Gentleman, who admired the Dutch for their industry, said they scorned us only “for being so negligent of our profit, and careless of our fishing; and they do daily flout us that be the poor fishermen of England, to our faces at sea, calling to us and saying, ‘Ya English, ya zall, or oud scoue dragien,’ which in English is this: ‘You English, we will make you glad for to wear our old shoes.’” _Englands Way to Win Wealth_, p. 44.

[277] _Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 375. A copy of the letter of the Lords of the Council, in the handwriting of Sir Julius Cæsar, is as follows: After our very hearty recommendations. Whereas his Majesty hath of late been moved vpon many consyderations arising from the complayntes of his subiects, to take some course of restraynt of many inconveniences depending vpon the excesse of libertie, w^{ch} is taken by the subiectes of forraigne princes and states to fish vppon his coast; By which, not onlie his owne ffishermen receive wrong in their fishing, but the verie Coast-Townes themselves are much decayed for lack of meanes to sett their people on work. To w^{ch} end hee had resolved to set forth a proclamation to th’effect of that w^{ch} is hereinclosed:

Fforasmuch as vppon perusall of some Treaties from King Henry 7_{ths} tyme till this daye betweene the Crowne of England and the house of Burgundy, we fynde certeyne clauses, by which there maye arise some question how farre any such Prohibition maye concurre with the practice of the same for so much as shall concerne the subiects of that Estate; Of w^{ch} particulars it is necessary that some deliberation were taken, beefore his Ma^{tie} proceeded to a generall execution of the same: We have thought good to requyre yow ioyntly and severally to peruse all those Treaties, and to consyder of them, and all other thinges, by w^{ch} the lawfullnes or vnlawfulnes maye appeare of this proceeding; Which being don wee shall expect some report from you for his Ma^{ties} better satisfaction.

Wherein wee doubt not but yow will proceede w^{th} all convenient expedition. And so will bid yow hartelie farewell.

Ffrome the Court at Whitehall first of Ffebruarie, 1606.

Mr Secretary Herbert. Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer Sr. Daniel Dun. Sr. Thomas Crompton. Sr. Christopher Perkins.

Yo^r Verie loving friendes, Subscribed by the

1. L. Chancellor. 2. L. Treasour. 3. L. Admirall. 4. The Earle of Worcester. 5. The Earle of Salisbury. 6. The Earle of Marr. 7. The L. Stanhop.

This copy is dated 1st February 1606, and the copy of the report of the Committee is also dated 1606, which would imply that the matter had been before the Privy Council in that year. It appears, however, from other evidence that Sir Julius Cæsar made a mistake in dating the copies.

[278] _Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 377. In Sir Julius Cæsar’s handwriting, and endorsed, “A copy of a letter from Mr Secretary Herbert, myself, and others to the L^{ds} of the King’s P. Councell, touching the prohibition of strangers fishing on the coasts of England,” &c. This important paper reads as follow: Our humble duties dewe to y^r good LL^{ps}. We have according to y^r commandement, considered of the liberty w^{ch} is taken by the Subiectes of forreine Princes and States to fish vppon the kings Ma^{ties} coasts by w^{ch} not onely the English fishermen receive wrong in their fishing but the very coast townes themselves are much decayed for want of meanes to set their people on work; and we have considered likewise of the proclamation for the restraint of those many inconveniences depending vppon the excesse of such strangers fishing: We haue also pervsed the treaties frõ Henry the 7th time till this day betweene the Crowne of England and the House of Burgundy, and we have considered of them, and of all other thinges by w^{ch} (as wee conceave) the lawfulness or vnlawfulness may appeare of this proceeding. And are of opinion, that the K^s Ma^{ty} may w^{thout} breach of any treatyie nowe in force, or of the lawe, vppon the reasons specified in the proclamation sent vnto vs, restreine all strangers frõ fishing vppon his coasts w^{thout} license, in such moderation and after such convenient notice given thereof by publik proclamation, as his Ma^{ty} shall think fit.

And so we most humbly take our leaves. 14 febr. 1606.

Yo^r L^{dships} humbly at commandment,

J. Herbert. Jul. Cæsar. Daniel Dun. Christoph. Parkins. Tho. Crompton.

From the erasures and corrections (see Fig. 6) there seems little doubt that the paper is the original draft.

[279] _Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 379. In Cæsar’s handwriting.

[280] See Appendix F.

[281] Perhaps an oblique reference to _Mare Liberum_.

[282] _State Papers, Dom._, xlv. 24. _Proc. Coll._, No. 11.

[283] Salisbury to Cornwallis, 8th June 1609. Winwood’s _Memorials of Affairs of State in the Reigns of Q. Elizabeth and K. James I._, iii. 49.

[284] Muller, _Mare Clausum_, _Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Rivaliteit van Engeland en Nederland in de Zeventiende Eeuw_, p. 52. Bosgoed, _Bib. Pisc._, 347. Resolutiën ... van Vergaderinge van de Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende West-Vrieslandt, 2/12 June 1609. “Ter Generaliteyt’s lands recht voorstaan ter saake van het Engelsch placaat op het visschen op de kusten en zeeën van Groot Brittannien en Yrland.”

[285] “Ende oic Sijne authoriteyt eñ macht die hy in die See heeft voir de werelt manifest te maecken.”

[286] Sir George Carew to Salisbury, 20th June 1609. Acknowledges his lordship’s letter, “according the request made by the ffr. Amb^r for one year’s Respite longer for the ffishers of this nation,” and expressing his pleasure that other considerations of state so fell out as to give his Majesty cause to grant them that favour, “for it is like to increase the amity of the two crowns.”

[287] Caron to the States-General, 13/23 July 1609. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17, 677.

[288] Winwood to Salisbury, 6th September 1609. _Memorials_, iii. 64.

[289] The assize-herring was thus described by Skene, in _De Verborum Significatione_, annexed to the laws of Scotland, printed in 1597. “Assisa Halecum. The assise herring signifies ane certain measure and quantity of herring, quilk perteinis to the king as ane part of his custumes and annexed propriety, _Jac._ 6, p. 15, c. 237, for it is manifest that Hee shuld have of everie Boat that passis to the drave, and slayis herring, ane thousand herring of ilk tak that halds, viz. of Lambmes tak, of the Winter tak, and the Lentrone tak”--that is, of the summer, winter, and spring fishings. The assize-herrings appear to have been originally a contribution to the king’s kitchen. In 1526 James V. granted assize-herrings to Stuart of Ardgowane (_Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_, ii. 83). In 1593, in an Act of the Parliament of Scotland, entitled “Annexatioun of the Propertie of the Croun that wes nocht annext of befoir,” the assize-herrings were included (Jac. VI., 1593, c. 32. _Acta_, iv. 28), and an Act of 1597, entitled “Assysis hering may nocht be disponit,” ordained that no infeftment or alienation in few ferm or otherwise, and all rentals and dispositions whatsoever, past or to come, were to be null and void, because they pertained to the king as part of his customs and annexed property (_Acta_, iv. 131). Later the assize-herring was commuted into a money payment. An Act of Charles I. in 1641 (cap. 117), entitled “Act anent the Excise of Herring,” on the ground that the collection of the herrings was “very hard and difficult,” commuted the thousand herrings in the Firth of Lothian into a money payment of £6 Scots. In the eighteenth century, when it had been for the most part granted to individuals, or farmed, it took the form of a tax ranging from £4 Scots to £10 Scots per boat or per net, and was felt as a grievous burden. In the Firth of Forth each boat that was “size-worthy” (viz., that caught 3000 herrings during the whole season) had to pay ten shillings as “size-duty.” On the west coast it amounted to £10 Scots, or sixteen shillings and eightpence sterling, whether herrings were caught or not. With regard to the gross value of the tax, those of the great Dunbar fishings were leased in 1614 for five years for £1000 Scots, and a yearly rent of 2000 merks (_Reg. Privy Council Scot._, x. 282). In 1613 the value of the “duty of the tack of the assize-herrings,” amounting to fourteen lasts, which the Earl of Argyle rendered for Lochfyne, was estimated to be about £36 or £38 sterling (_Melrose Papers_, i. 124). In 1598 the assize-herring from the “east seas” was estimated to amount to 1120 dry “killing” (cod), which shows it was sometimes paid in other fish; in 1656-57 it was equal to £130 sterling (Chalmers, _Caledonia_, ii. 497); in 1629 Captain Mason claimed no less than £12,489, 7s. sterling as the value, with interest, of the assize-herrings of the Hebrides and North Isles granted to him by James for the years 1610-11, and not paid (_State Papers, Dom._, cliv. 13).

[290] Arguments for Collecting the Assyze herring from all Strangers fishing in the North Seas of Scotland, and Answers to some objections proponet be Sir Noel Caron. _State Papers, Dom._, xxxii. 31.

[291] Winwood, _Memorials_, iii. 105, 135, 146, 162. Muller, _op. cit._, 56.

[292] _State Papers, Dom._, xlvii. 111. “2. For that it is by the Lawe of nacions, no prince can Challenge further into the Sea then he can Com̃and w^{th} a Cannon except Gulfes w^{thin} their Land from one point to an other. 3. For that the boundlesse and rowlinge Seas are as Com̃on to all people as the ayre w_{ch} no prince can prohibite.” The paper is endorsed “Reasons vsed by the Hollanders for the Continuance of Fishing Contrarie to the proclamation made in May 1609 forbidding of strangers to fish,” and there is a note, apparently in Cæsar’s writing, saying, “This note was sent by Emanuell Demetrius who was present att the discourse.” It is misdated “Aug. 1609.” The endorsements appear to have been made after 1612, because at the end it is said, “It was answered by the _late_ Lord Treasr. Salisburie att a hearing,” &c. A list is given of those present at the conference--viz., the Earls of Salisbury, Northampton, Nottingham, Suffolk, Shrewsbury, and Worcester, Mr Secretary Herbert and Sir Julius Cæsar, the “Standers by” being Sir T. Edmondes, Sir Daniel Dunn, Sir Christopher Perkins, Sir William Wade, and Mr Levinus Emanuell Demetrius,--probably the Levinus Muncke of the Dutch and other records. It is to be noted that the argument as to the limitation of the territorial sea by the range of guns was not contained in the instructions to the Dutch, as printed by Aitzema (_Saken van Staet en Oorlogh_, ii. 406) and Vreede (_Vrijheid van Haringvaart_, 6; compare Muller, _Mare Clausum_, 58, 91), and is not referred to by them in their Journal, where, however, they say they put forward “other reasons” than those they recite (Muller, _Mare Clausum_, 59). Van Meteren, whose work was published in 1614 (_Historie der Nederlandscher ende haerder Naburen Oorlogen, &c._, fol. 650), reports, however, that there was a great dispute as to how far a country’s limit might extend into the open sea, and the brief note of Levinus seems to be the only record of it. (“Sy seyden mede, dat het een groote dispute ware, hoeverre elcx Laudts Custen ofte Limiten inde groote wijde Zee Oceane mochte strecken.”) The document is of interest not only from the clear enunciation of the doctrine at so early a period, but because there are grounds for thinking that the idea may have originated in the fertile brain of Grotius. Competent Dutch authorities believe that Grotius either himself drew up the instructions dealing with the fishery question or was consulted in their preparation; and the fact that the argument is not contained in the official instructions scarcely weakens the supposition. It was of so drastic and novel a character to be urged against the pretensions of King James that the Dutch, anxious to conciliate him, may have followed a practice not uncommon in diplomacy, and kept it in the background only to be made use of if a suitable occasion arose. It is, moreover, known that Grotius had a close personal relationship with Elias van Oldenbarnevelt, the envoy to whom the fishery negotiations were specially entrusted.

[293] Vreede, _Vrijheid van Haringvaart en Visscherij_. _Nota, in den Jare 1610, door de Nederlandsche Gezanten aan de Engelsche Regering ingediend (Bijdragen voor Vaderlandsche Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde, Derde Deel._ Arnhem, 1842). Muller, _op. cit._, 57; _State Papers, Dom._, xlvii. 111; _Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 362. Vreede thinks it probable that the instructions were drawn up by Grotius; Muller believes that he was at all events consulted on the matter.

[294] _State Papers, Dom._, xlvii. 111. Vreede, _op. cit._ Muller, _op. cit. Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 362. “Answers for prohibiting of strangers fishing upon the English coastes without the King’s license, 5th May 1610”--in the writing of Sir Julius Cæsar.

[295] “Niet door sollicitatiën van eenige courtisanen ofte hovelingen.”

[296] The Lords of the Council to Winwood, _Memorials_, iii. 166.

[297] _State Papers, Dom._, xlviii. 92.

[298] Sir Walter Cope to the king, _State Papers, Dom._, lxxi. 89. See note, p. 128.

[299] _The Maintenance of Free Trade_, 42 (1622). He mentions the reasons given by the powerful companies for their action, but it was caused by their fears for their monopolies.

[300] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxvii. 79. The Earl of Northampton to Sir Thomas Lake, 4th July 1613. _Ibid._, lxxiv. 23. The queen, who was fond of the banquet and the masque, was often in financial straits. Chamberlain wrote to Winwood in 1609 that she had been melancholy about her jointure, and that £3000 a-year had been added to it out of the customs, with a gift of £20,000 to pay her debts. _Memorials_, iii. 117.

[301] Gentleman, _Englands Way to Win Wealth, &c._; E. S., _Britaines Buss; The Trades Increase_.

[302] In 1609 Sir Nicholas Hales told the king that he had been informed “the Hollanders were petitioners to the Queen to grant them a term of years in the seas for the fishing of herring, cod, and ling.” _State Papers, Dom._, xlv. 23.

[303] Wotton to Sec. Winwood, Hague, 20th March 1614.

[304] Archbishop Abbot and Lord Chancellor Ellesmere to Thomas Wilson, 24th August 1614. _State Papers, Dom._, lxxvii. 80. It is endorsed, “The letter to me, 24th Aug. 1614, sending for me from Harford and for the transcribing an abstract of all things out of my papers which might concern his Majesty’s jurisdiction on the sea, which I did and delivered it to Mr Attorney-General, Sir Francis Bacon, by the commandment of the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

[305] Caron to States-General, 27 Aug./6 Sept. 1614. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17, 677, H.

[306] Muller, _op. cit._, 91, 92.

[307] 26th September 1614.

[308] _Records of the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland_, ii. 455. Anstruther Easter, one of the Fife villages, asked that the costs (£400 Scots) should be reimbursed to them for obtaining the decree against Mason “for exacting of thame certane excyse hering and fishes at the fishing in Orknay and Zetland.”

[309] _State Papers and Correspondence of Thomas, Earl of Melros_, i. 130.

[310] _Reg. Privy Council Scot._, x. 231. _Rec. Convent. Roy. Burghs Scot._, ii. 540.

[311] The Lords of the Council to the king, 17th May 1614. _Melrose Papers_, i. 130. “It wes fundin,” wrote the Lords, “by vniforme voices and consent, without ony kynd of contradictioun, that the assise dewytie aucht onlie to be payit for the hering brought freshe and greene to land, and that the hering whilkis ar maid, saltit, and barrellit vpoun the sea, and maid reddye for the transporte, hes nevir bene in vse to pay ony dewytie.”

[312] _Loc. cit._ The “patent” was the treaty of 1594. See p. 81. It may be mentioned that Mason, in his petition to Charles I. (see p. 153 _note_), stated that in 1611 he collected “some part” of the assize-herrings, but that upon the marriage of the Princess Elizabeth (February 1613) “the States ambassador made suit to the king for the remission of the said assize-herrings due by their nation, which was granted.” We have discovered no other evidence of this. Loose statements were often made on the subject by English writers and certain foreign authors, as Rapin (_Hist, d’Anglet._, vii. 58), and Wagenaar (_Vaderl. Hist._, ix. 318) following him, that the Dutch agreed to pay an annual sum for liberty to fish on the British coasts. The error was elaborated by others, as by Lediard in his great work (_Naval History of England_, i. 420), who says: “In the year 1608 (_sic_) King James published a proclamation prohibiting all foreign nations to fish on the coast of Great Britain. This prohibition, though general, was designed against the Dutch; and it occasioned the Treaty the year following whereby they engaged to pay an annual sum for leave to fish--an evident acknowledgment of the English Dominion of the Seas.”

[313] _Rec. Conv. Roy. Burghs Scot._, ii. 323, 350, 354, 374.

[314] Winwood to Carleton, 14/24 September 1616. _Letters from and to Sir Dudley Carleton, Knt., during his Embassy in Holland; from January 1615/6 to December 1620_, p. 52.

[315] Caron to the States-General, 25 Aug./4 Sept. 1616. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, J, fol. 152. In an account of the oppressions of Lord Robert Stewart in the Orkneys and Shetlands in the sixteenth century, it is stated that that nobleman laid heavy tolls upon the Dutch fishermen and the Norwegian traders. In 1575 the inhabitants complained that he compelled “the dogger boats and other fishers of this realm to pay to him great toll and taxis bye auld use and wont, to wit, ilk boat ane angel noble, ane hundreth fish, and twa bolls salt” (_Oppressions of the Sixteenth Century in the Islands of Orkney and Zetland_, xlviii. 4). It appears from a complaint of merchants of Bremen, in 1614, that it had been a custom “past memory of man” for each ship arriving at the Orkneys to pay six angels and one dollar for ground-leave and water-leave (_Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, x. 247); and the Dutch are said to have given to the agent of the Earl of Orkney a barrel of salt for his “oversight” of each ship, and to have offered the Earl for each ship “an angell and ane barrell of birskate (biscuit) bread,” while he demanded “no less than ane double angell or ane Rose noble at the least” (_MSS. Advoc. Lib._, 31. 2. 16).

[316] See p. 81. The treaty did not contain any stipulation of the kind; and, moreover, the Scottish copy was then amissing.

[317] Muller, _Mare Clausum_, 107. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, J, fol. 153 _et seq. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 410. _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xi. 605, 608.

[318] By the Scots Act, 1 James I., May 1424, regarding the “custome of horse, nolt, scheepe, had furth of the realm, and of herring,” it was ordained that the following should be paid: “of ilk thousand of fresche herring sauld, of the Sellar one penny, and of ilk last of herring, tane be Scottis-men barrelled, foure schillinges, of ilk last be strangeris taken, sexe schillinges.”

[319] Caron to the States-General, 25 Aug./4 Sept., 12/22 Sept., 19/29 Sept. 1616. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, J, fol. 152-166. The statement of Lennox that the tax was a barrel of herrings or ten shillings agrees with the statements of the Dutch skippers, who, however, added twelve cod-fish (“Een tonne harinck van elcke bu sse oft een Angelott daervooren met twelff cabillauwen”).

[320] Carleton, _Letters_, 156, 157. Muller, _op. cit._, 110. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, J, fol. 213_b_. _Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 410. _State Papers, Dom._ Collection, Charles II., vol. 339.

[321] Carleton, _Letters_, 156. Caron to the States-General, 3/13 Aug. 1617; Carleton to the States-General, 27 Aug./6 Sept. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, J, fol. 210, 213. _State Papers, Dom._ Collection, Charles II., vol. 339.

[322] Carleton, _Letters_, 168, 169, 172, 176, 186. Muller, _op. cit._, 111.

[323] _Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 398, 400. “The State of the Case between his Majesty and the States of the United Provinces, touching the remanding to his Majesty of a Delinquent,” 19th November 1617. In Cæsar’s handwriting. It describes the circumstances of Brown’s capture. The counsel whose opinion was obtained were “W. Byrde (? Sir Wm. Bird, Dean of the Arches), H. Marten, and Hy. Styward.” “Brown, his Majesty’s subject of the Kingdom of Scotland, was by authority from that State sent in a pinnace of the King to the subjects of the United Provinces, who were then fishing for herrings upon the coasts of Scotland, to demand a certain acknowledgment claimed by his Majesty, as due unto him in the right of that crown;” that “while delivering his errand he was arrested and carried prisoner to Holland by the Dutch commander, who pretended he had warrant and commission from the Lords the States so to do; that his Majesty (having represented this indignity by his ambassador there to the Lords the States, the latter disavowed the act of the captain) requireth the offender there, to be remanded unto himself here to receive as to justice shall appertain. _The Question_--Whether this offender ought to be sent herein to his Majesty as is required. _Answer_--There are good authorities that if a subject of one State commit a heinous crime within the territory of another State (though against a private person), the subject so offending ought to be remitted to the place where the crime was committed, if it be required.” There were also opinions to the contrary, but “two very particular circumstances about this offence seem necessarily to enforce the remission of the Dutch captain to his Majesty (1) taken from the person of Brown, who was a public messenger sent by the State of Scotland on the affairs of the Prince, and ought to have been inviolable by the Law of Nations, and therefore a wrong and abuse done to him was _contra jus gentium_; (2) taken from the manner of the wrong done, which was _nomine publico_--viz., by a pretended commission from the Lords the States.”

[324] Carleton, _Letters_, 219-263. Muller, _op. cit._, 113.

[325] Crail, Anstruther, and Pittenweem, in Fife, and Musselburgh and Fisherrow, on the opposite side of the Firth of Forth.

[326] 12th March 1618. _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xi. 329.

[327] Record imperfect.

[328] _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xi. 328, 330.

[329] Carleton, _Letters_, 259.

[330] King James to Sir D. Carleton, 4th May 1618. “For the other part, which is y^e ancient custom alleadged by O^r Subjects that they (the Dutch) should not fish within Kenning of Land, of which they make shew to be ignorant, and would understand what is meant by it: you may say that O^r Subjects do conceave that Custom to be that no strangers should fish either within the Creeks of O^r Land or within a Kenning of the Land as Seamen do take a kenning, and insisting upon this interpretation of O^r Subjects’ meaning, you shall observe curiously their reply, and what scope and liberty they do limit to themselves in their fishing, and whether they understand that they may fish where they list, near or far off, or that they may be confined to any reasonable bounds, for thereupon will depend a great part of that resolution which may be taken hereafter in a matter of so great moment as this is, and the answer you shall receive you may either advertise by writing, or bring with you, as you shall find O^r service to require.” _State Papers, Dom._ Collections, Chas. II., vol. 339. In a later communication to the States-General Carleton described the land-kenning thus: “Ce qui est une limite bien entendue par gens de Marine, et appellée en ces quartiers là _The Kenning of the Land_, et icy _de kennis vant landt_.” Dr P. P. C. Hoek informs me that “het land verkennen” is even now the technical Dutch expression when a sailor comes near the coast without knowing at what point he approaches it.

[331] Muller, _Mare Clausum_, 114.

[332] “Ane True Relatione of the Greifs and Wrangs qlks the Inhabitants of the Isles of Orknay and Schetland and Others his Ma^{ties} Subjects Fishars within ye Kingdome of Scotland sustains be the Hollanders and Hamburghgers and wha within these few Zears are associat to the Hollanders in the Fishing within his Ma^{ties} Seas in Scotland.” _MSS. Advoc._, 31. 2. 16. It may be noted that the custom referred to in the last paragraph was of Scandinavian origin.

[333] The Council to the king, 4th April 1618. _Melrose Papers_, i. 306, 307.

[334] 5th June 1618, _Groot Placaet-Boeck, inhoudende de Placaten ende Ordonnantien van de H.M. Heeren Staten Generael der Vereenighde Nederlanden, &c._, i. 707. In Fraser’s _Memorials of the Earls of Haddington_ (ii. 66) there is printed the copy which King James sent to Lord Binning. Sir Thomas Hamilton became Lord Binning in 1613, the Earl of Melrose in 1619, and the Earl of Haddington in 1627.

[335] Answer by the States-General of the United Provinces to the Propositions of the Ambassador of James VI. relative to the Herring Fishery on the Coast of Scotland, 5th June 1618. Fraser, _Memorials_, ii. 65. _Resol., St.-Gen._, 5th, 6th June. Muller, _op. cit._, 115.

[336] The king to Lord Binning, 11th June 1618. Fraser, _Memorials_, ii. 85. Nothing seemed to be known of this treaty. James complained that the States were not explicit. “This pointe” about the treaty, he wrote, “they leave obscure, seeing they neyther expresse which of our predecessouris it was, neyther whether he were our predecessour in Scotlande or Englande.”

[337] Carleton to Naunton, 19th August 1618.

[338] The king to the Privy Council, 29th August 1618. _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xi. 440.

[339] P. 131.

[340] Hakluyt’s _Voyages_, i. 246.

[341] M’Pherson, _Annals of Commerce_, ii. 213.

[342] Muller, _op. cit._, 118. In a memorandum drawn up by Sir John Coke in 1625, the Dutch are said to have first “intruded” in 1613. _State Papers, Dom._, Chas. I., dxxii. 136. See also _Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS._, 142, fol. 387 _et seq._

[343] Earl of Northampton to King James, August 2, 1612. _State Papers, Dom._, lxx. 23.

[344] Chamberlain to Carleton, 27th October 1613. _Ibid._, lxxiv. 89. M’Pherson, _Annals_, ii. 273.

[345] M’Pherson, _Annals_, ii. 274. Winwood, _Memorials_, iii. 480. M’Pherson speaks of fifteen Dutch, French, and Biscay whalers and four English “interlopers.” Muller (_Mare Clausum_, 120), quoting from a contemporary Dutch account, mentions three Biscayers, three Spaniards, two French, one Dunkirker, and two Hollanders. Both the Spanish and French Governments protested against the action of the English vessels. Digby wrote from Madrid (4th September 1613) that the English merchants at St Sebastian were threatened in person and goods on the return of the Spanish ships which had been prevented from fishing at “Greenland,” and they were forced to remain indoors.

[346] A Trew Declaracion of the Discoverie of the mayne Landes, Islandes, Seas, Ports, Havens, and Creekes, lyenge in the North-West, North, and North-East partes of the World, _State Papers, Dom._, lxxvi. 51. Muller, _op. cit._, 121, 123. Carleton, _Letters_, 7.

[347] _Groot Placaet-Boeck_, i. 670. Aitzema, _Saken van Staet en Oorlogh_, ii. 336. _State Papers, Dom._, xcix. 36.

[348] _Ibid._, xcix. 36-41. M’Pherson, _Annals_, ii. 287. Muller, _op. cit._, 131.

[349] Carleton, _Letters_, 312.

[350] They were Johan van Goch, Ewout van der Dussen for Gelderland and Holland, and Joachim Liens for Zealand. Holland had at first intended to send Grotius. _Ibid._, 306.

[351] Among the Cæsar papers in the British Museum (_Lansd. MSS._, 142, fol. 383) there is one dated 23rd December 1618, containing extracts “noted out of a book called _Mare Liberum sive de Jure quod Batavia, &c._, Lugd. Bat., 1609,” together with notes from Welwood’s _De Dominio Maris_, answering the assertions in that book. It was doubtless a memorandum to be used in the conferences with the Dutch ambassadors; and on the back of it are scrawled jottings difficult to decipher, headed, “The Kinges Speeche touching the Dutchemen’s fishing upon the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland,” to the following effect: “1. The treaty never so opportune as now when they fearest it most and their State least settled; in ill terms with France and Spain. 2. In the East Indies we can match them, and so in the north voyage (Greenland ?). The French King taketh part with Barnevelt. The King of Spain prepareth against Venice. What the King of Denmark, the Princes of the Union, the ... and the rest of the Protestants think of any falling out with the Low Countries.” It may be noted that this memorandum contains no reference to Selden’s _Mare Clausum_, which the author stated was submitted to the king this year (see p. 366).

[352] The king to the Council, 7th November 1618. _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xi. 631.

[353] _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xi. 462.

[354] Lord Binning to the king, 27th November 1618. _Melrose Papers_, ii. 631. The statement was to the same effect as that previously referred to. A Mr Bruce of Shetland stated that while of old the Hollanders used to carry on the greater part of their fishery forty miles and more from the land, yet they came usually within fourteen miles before shooting their nets; that in the time of the late Earl of Orkney they came still nearer, within six or seven miles; while now they came so close that their nets were sometimes torn on the rocks. Sir Gideon Murray to Lord Binning, 26th November 1618. _MSS. Advoc._, 31. 2. 16.

[355] Earl of Dunfermline to Lord Binning, 27th November 1618. _MSS. Ibid._ “Concerning the Hollanders fishing in our seas,” he said, “for all the search and tryall I have made, whilk has been my uttermost, I can wryte or send to you little more nor before, in effect nothing.” The Constable of Dundee searched all his records, the records of the Admiralty were explored, and all those in Edinburgh Castle and in the city archives, as well as many in the keeping of private persons, and every one likely to know anything about the matter was communicated with; but “nothing to the purpose” was found, “nor no recorde of any wryte made for the Hollanders’ use in 1594 or any other time.” The “wryte” of 1594, it is to be remembered, was a long treaty made by James himself. Copies were ultimately discovered of the treaties of 1531 and 1541, but nothing to the point. Copies of the treaty and of other documents referring to it were obtained, apparently from Holland, in 1619, and were ordered to be preserved in his Majesty’s Register in Edinburgh Castle (_Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xii. 22); but in 1630 and 1631, when they were again wanted, they could not be found. _State Papers, Dom._, Chas. I., ccvi. 46.

[356] This referred to the licenses to certain French boats to fish on the Sowe in the Channel. See p. 65.

[357] “Zijne ma^t was een coninck van de grootste insulen van de werelt ende seer wel wiste het rechte dat hij hadde opte custen van sijne drij coninckrijcken.” Commissioners to States-General, (24 Dec. 1618)/(3 Jan. 1619). _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, J, fol. 372.

[358] Note of Treatie with the Commissioners of the Estates annent the Fishing. Dec. 1618. _MSS. Advoc._, 31. 2. 16.

[359] Naunton to Carleton, 21st December 1618.

[360] In apprehending Brown, p. 171. Grotius was then in prison, and known to be the author of _Mare Liberum_.

[361] _State Papers, Dom._, xc. 65.

[362] The Dutch Commissioners to the States-General, (29 Nov.,)/(9 Dec.,) 17/27 Dec. 1618; (24 Dec. 1618,)/(3 Jan. 1619), 3/13 Jan., (23 Jan.)/(2 Feb.) 1619. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, J, fol. 364, 367, 370, 374, 380. Muller, _op. cit._, 140, 147, 148, 153. Aitzema, _Saken van Staet_, ii. 402. Carleton, _Letters_, 326. _MSS. Advoc._, 31. 2. 16. _State Papers, Dom._ Collection, Chas. II., vol. 339, p. 351, 361, 369, &c.

[363] The Dutch Commissioners to the States-General, (30 Jan.)/(9 Feb.) 1619. _Ibid._, 387. Naunton to Carleton, 21st January 1619. Carleton, _Letters_. Justice, _A General Treatise of the Dominion and Laws of the Sea_, 179. The States were desired “to cause proclamation to be made, prohibiting any of their subjects to fish within fourteen miles of his Majesty’s coasts this year, or in any time hereafter, until order be taken by commissioners to be authorised on both sides, for a final settling of the main business.”

[364] P. 223.

[365] Carleton to the king, 6th February 1619.

[366] Muller, _op. cit._, 156. “So verre van ’t Lant souden blijven als men met oogen konde afsien.”

[367] 2nd June 1619. Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, V. ii. 333.

[368] The English, who were the first to carry on the whale-fishing at Spitzbergen, had taken possession of the best fishing-places: whales then abounded in the bays close to the shore, where the “cookeries” were erected.

[369] Muller, _op. cit._, 160. _State Papers, Dom._, cv. 9. The Muscovy Company, now supported by the East India Company, fitted out nine ships and two pinnaces for the Spitzbergen fishery in 1619, but the voyage was unfortunate. After carrying on the fishing for a few years longer the company abandoned it, though it was carried on on a small scale by other English vessels, mostly from Hull. The Dutch, on the other hand, prosecuted the fishing with great vigour and success under the protection of men-of-war, and they rapidly made it one of the most profitable industries of the Low Countries. A full account is given by Zorgdrager, an old whaling captain, who wrote in the early part of the eighteenth century (_Bloeijende opkomst der aloude en hedendaagsche Groenlandsche Visscherij_). The Dutch factory on Amsterdam island grew to a village called Smeerenburg or Oil-town, which was fortified in 1636. In those early years the whales were taken by the ships’ boats, which lay moored in the bays; later, as the whales got scarce, they were flensed at sea and the blubber carried home. This was the case before F. Martens visited the island in 1671.

[370] The king to the Privy Council of Scotland, 16th June 1619. _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xi. 607.

[371] Since the records of the Scottish Council are silent as to the steps taken to collect the assize-herrings in 1616 and 1617 and the capture of John Brown in the latter year, while the Dutch and English records are equally mute as to the proceedings in 1618 and 1619, it at first appeared that a mistake might have been made in the dates of the former, a view that seemed to be supported by the remark in the first letter of the king to the Council, “to the intent that the Estaitis may not alledge that no suche dewteis had bene demandit”--a curious statement in face of the fact that Brown had been carried to Holland the year before. But the late Professor Masson, who was the editor of the _Register of the Privy Council_, obligingly informed me that the documents are the original _Acta_ and not copies; and among the English State Papers is a letter dated from Holyrood House, on 10th July 1619, in which it is stated that Captain Murray had been sent to claim the assize-herrings from the “Flemings” fishing in the northern seas, and that he was well equipped to secure his safety if his demands were refused (Raith to Abercromby, _State Papers, Dom._, cix. 127). The phrase in the king’s letter may be explained by the fact that the duty in 1616 and 1617 was demanded by the Duke of Lennox, to whom the assize-herrings had been granted.

[372] _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xi. 605, 608.

[373] See Appendix G. Fenton was one of those who were on intimate terms with Ben Jonson during the poet’s visit to Scotland. _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xi. p. clxvii.

[374] _Op. cit._, 606.

[375] _Op. cit._, 593, 603.

[376] Footnote, p. 195.

[377] Carleton, _Letters_, 437, 447, 448, 451. Bosgoed, _Bib. Pisc._, 352. The sum voted in 1620 was 22,000 gulden; in the following years it varied between 23,000 and 36,000 gulden.

[378] Muller, _op. cit._, 172, 173. Aitzema, _Saken van Staet_, i. 13, 17.

[379] Muller, _op. cit._, 174, 178.

[380] “Ghy sijt sangsues, bloetsuygers van mijn rijck, ghy treckt het bloet van mijne Ondersaeten ende souckt mij te ruineren.”

[381] Muller, _op. cit._, 191, 194, 203. Aitzema, i. 191, 193. Journal van de Ambassade van den Heere van Sommelsdyck naer Engelant, 1621-1623, _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 22,866.

[382] 2/12 May 1620. Verboth van Haringh binnen de Klippen van Yerlandt, Hitlandt, oft Noorwegen te vangen. _Groot Placaet-Boeck_, i. 752.

[383] 2/12 June 1623, _Groot Placaet-Boeck_, i. 708. Muller, _op. cit._, 206.

[384] _Rec. Convent. Roy. Burghs_, iii. 142. _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, xiii. 308, 317.

[385] George Lord Carew to the Secretary of State, Calvert, 8th March 1623. _State Papers, Dom._, cxxxix. 66. The Lord Mayor to Lords Grandison, Carew, and Chichester, 27th March, 3rd April 1623. _Ibid._, cxl. 47, cxlii. 21.

[386] A Project for the Encouragement of Fishing by passing an Act of Parliament for Building fishing-vessels, to be protected by a Fleet Royall of 20 ships, the expense to be defrayed by a Tribute of every Tenth Fish. _Ibid._, clvii. 46.

[387] A Discourse of the Invention of Ships. _Collected Works_, viii. 326.

[388] Naval Tracts, in Churchill’s _Collection of Voyages_, iii. 220, 224.

[389] Cecil to Parry, 10th June 1603. _Foreign Papers, France_, vol. 129. It is endorsed “Souverainty of ye Seas, 1603. Monsr. de Vicque beares ye armes of france in Dover road.” See also Sully, _Memoires des Sages et royales Oeconomics d’Estat_, ii. 173, and Kermaingant, _Le Droit des Gens Maritimes_, 3.

[390] Monson’s Naval Tracts, _ibid._, 222. The Spaniards to whom Monson refers were no doubt the troops which Don Louis Fajardo had attempted to carry to Flanders when he was attacked by the Dutch and took refuge in Dover. Monson, it may be said, was in receipt of a secret pension of £350 per annum from Spain. Gardiner, _Hist._, i. 215.

[391] Loccenius, _De Jure Maritimo et Navali_, 48.

[392] Thus in the Earl of Warwick’s voyage, in 1627, four vessels “stood with their forefoot and very earnestly” tried to weather the king’s ships off Falmouth, among them being a French man-of-war. The English then shot at the latter, and “soo brought him by ye lee” (_State Papers, Dom._, lxxix. 17). In 1637 Captain Straddling explained how he compelled Dutch vessels to take in their flags, lower their top-sails, and “lie by the lee” (_Ibid._, ccclxi. 41). In the historic encounters with the Dutch in 1652 the same rule was shown. When Captain Young met the Dutchmen on 12th May (see p. 402), their admiral came under his lee and took down his flag, but their vice-admiral, “contrary to navigation with us in the narrow seas, came to the windward of us” (_French Occurrences, Brit. Mus._, E, 665, 6). So also when Blake met Tromp, he “fired two shots thwart Tromp’s forefoot for him to strike his flag and bear down to leeward, and he taking no notice of it, the general ordered the third shot at Tromp’s flag, which went through his main top-sails” (_Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 11,684, fol. 5_b_).

[393] The Lords of the Admiralty to Plumleigh. _State Papers, Dom._, clvii. fol. 121.

[394] Meadows, _Observations concerning the Dominion and Sovereignty of the Seas_, 2.

[395] _State Papers, Dom._, Chas. I. ccxxix. 79.

[396] 17th October 1632. _The Earl of Stirling’s Register of Royal Letters_, ii. 627.

[397] _State Papers, Dom._, cxcix. 51.

[398] _State Papers, Dom._, cc. 5.

[399] _Ibid._, ccviii. 27.

[400] _State Papers, Dom._, dxxiii. 74, dxxix. 73. The proposal to utilise the tenth herring for maintaining a navy had been long before put forward by Dr Dee. See p. 101.

[401] The other half were exported as red-herrings.

[402] _State Papers, Dom._, 1629, clii. 57.

[403] Mason, who was intimately associated with the fishery scheme, proposed that the island should be purchased by a company of naturalised Scotsmen, and fishing stations established; and later he recommended the purchase of the island by the king, leaving complete freedom of fishery to all Scotsmen. Sir William Monson urged that a “government” should be established in the island as well as in Orkney and Shetland, and also a principal town; and that the children of the islanders should be taught English, and “correspondence” between the inhabitants and the Highlanders hindered, “considering the danger of their too great friendship.” _State Papers, Dom._, 1629, clii. 66, 67, 68. The subject of the Earl of Seaforth’s lease and the fishings is dealt with by Mackenzie, _History of the Outer Hebrides_, 290 _et seq._

[404] _State Papers, Dom._, clii. 63, 71; clxxx. 97. Dymes’ report is printed in full by Mackenzie (_op. cit._, 591). The master of one of the Dutch busses, who transported Dymes from Lewis to the mainland, told him that the herrings were in such great abundance that they were sometimes constrained to cast them into the sea again, they having more in half their nets than they were able to save, “and he was of opinion that if there had bene a thousand Busses more there was fish enough for them all.”

[405] _Rec. Convent. Roy. Burghs Scot._, iii. 257, 259, 291. The arguments against the Dutch were elaborated in a long document, which concluded thus: “Lastly, theis Netherlanders greatnes, strength, wealth, arts, and every happines doe originally proceede from their fishing in his Majesty’s seas of England, Scotland, and Ireland.”

[406] P. 77.

[407] _State Papers, Dom._, clii. 63; clxv. 201; clxxx. 100. _Rec. Conv. Roy. Burghs_, iii. 300 _et seq._

[408] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 220_b_. Captain John Mason, who was afterwards appointed “Admiral” of the busses belonging to the society, was apparently originally intended to lay the matter before the Council. The draft, in Coke’s handwriting, is entitled, “Instructions for Captain John Mason employed by his Majesty to treat with the Lordes of the Privie Council of Scotland about the erection of a general fishing,” and is among the _State Papers, Dom._, clxxx. 101.

[409] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 221. This ambitious scheme included the building of 200 busses of from 30 to 50 tons each, “for a considerable beginning,” besides the employment of the fishing vessels already engaged on the coast which were of suitable size. These were computed to number about 100 in Scotland and 200 in England (employed at Newfoundland and the north seas), while at least 300 “coasters” from Berwick to the Thames might also be made available; and it was suggested that more might be built by the company “in every town,” or bought from the Dutch. It was estimated that the cost of building and equipping the 200 busses, including casks, salt, wages, &c., would be £222,586, and that the total return the first year would amount to £388,000, made up as follows: (1) summer herring fishing, 20,000 lasts at £10, equal to £200,000; (2) winter herring fishing, 12,000 lasts at £12, equal to £144,000; (3) cod and ling fishing in spring, 1,200,000 fish at £30 a thousand, and 600 tuns of oil at £13, 6s. 8d., equal to £44,000. Several calculations were made about this time as to the cost of equipping herring-busses, the profits to be derived from their use, and the loss to the realm by the transport of cured fish by the Dutch; Monson put the latter loss at £621,750 per annum. _State Papers, Dom._, clii. 70, clxxx. 99, ccvi. 52; _MSS. Advoc. Lib._, 31. 2. 16; _Brit. Mus. Sloane MSS._, 26. The latter is a “Discourse on the Hollanders’ Trade of Fishing,” by Sir Robert Mansel, of the usual type.

[410] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 225. The committee consisted of fifteen peers, several bishops, and a large number of commoners. Mason, who had accompanied Sir William Alexander to Scotland, reported to Coke that the Council gathered in the Lord Chancellor’s chamber, “he lying sick of the gout,” to hear the king’s letter read, and that Mr John Hay “violently opposed” the scheme and attacked the Earl of Seaforth for bringing in the Hollanders. _State Papers, Dom._, clxxii. 19.

[411] At this time the herring-fishing on the west coast of Scotland, which began on 1st July and continued till Christmas, employed from 800 to 1500 fishing-boats of from 5 to 6 tons each, besides about 200 “cooper” boats of about 12 tons, which carried casks and salt and brought back cured herrings to the burghs: about 6000 “seamen” were employed in this industry. The herring-fishing on the east coast was for the most part carried on at Dunbar--as many as 20,000 people sometimes congregating there--and in the deep water where the Dutch fished in July, August, and September. There was also an important winter fishing for herrings in the Firth of Forth in November, and at the North Isles from 1st October till Christmas. The “keeling” or cod-fishing at the mouth of the Clyde in February, March, and April employed about 120 of the largest boats; on the east coast this method of fishing was carried on from 1st April till 24th June.

[412] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 226. _Rec. Conv. Roy. Burghs_, iii. 322, 323. The Earl of Seaforth, writing to the Earl of Carlisle on August 17th, said that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Treasurer had left no argument unuttered which might induce their countrymen, and especially the burghs, to concur in the king’s desire about the fishing. The burghs would not admit any association either with countrymen or strangers; “they like not,” he said, “that noblemen or gentry should understand matters of industry,” and they would do what they could to move the king to delay. _State Papers, Dom._, clxxii. 78. In another account of the proceedings of the Convention, it is said the burghs claimed as “absolutely theirs” the fishing within bays and lochs, and at sea for a distance of “two kennings” from the shore, and stated that they would admit no partners, either natives or strangers; that buss-fishing was distinguished by them to be “without two kennings from the land”; and they would not “on any condition” allow any busses to participate in the “land fishing” within two kennings, or to land at all, but only to “make” their fish (cure them) on shipboard, as the “Flemings” did. It is added that those who would have hazarded some means in the project were “absolutely discouraged” by the attitude of the burghs. _Ibid._, ccvi. 45.

[413] _Acta Parl. Scot._, iv. 369. _Statutes of the Realm_, 1 Jac. I., c. 2. _Reg. Privy Counc. Scot._, vi. _Nat. MSS. of Scot._, iii. No. 85. _State Papers, Dom._, 1604, x. No. 1. It is unfortunate that the reasonable delimitation of the territorial fishing waters proposed in the treaty was not carried out, for there can be little doubt that had it been it would have become recognised by other nations, and would have continued to the present day.

[414] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 228, 230. _The Earl of Stirling’s Register of Royal Letters_, ii. 478.

[415] The commissioners were the Earl of Morton (Lord High Treasurer), the Earl of Monteith (President of the Privy Council), the Marquis of Hamilton, the Earls of Roxburgh and Carrick, Sir William Alexander, Mr John Hay, and Mr George Fletcher.

[416] Among other things, the commissioners were instructed to represent to the king the prejudice which Scotland sustained by the use of the name “Great Britain” in the royal patents, writs, and records relating to Scotland, for, they reminded him, “there was no union as yet with England”; and Charles was to be requested to renew his seals under the terms _Carolus Dei gratia Scotiæ, Angliæ, Franciæ, et Hiberniæ Rex_. It must be remembered that at this time the Scottish aristocracy were smarting under the defeat which the king had recently inflicted on them in connection with the Act of Revocation, by which most of the church, property in the hands of laymen was re-annexed to the crown.

[417] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 232.

[418] _Rec. Conv. Roy. Burghs_, iii. 325. The foreigners from Hamburg and Bremen were chiefly engaged in trade and barter.

[419] _Fœdera_, xix. 211. _State Papers, Dom._, clxxxvii. 46. The commission was dated 8th December 1630, and the other commissioners were the Earls of Salisbury, Dorset, and Carlisle, Viscounts Wimbledon and Wentworth, Sir John Coke, Sir Francis Cottingham, and Sir William Alexander, who was Secretary for Scotland.

[420] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 235. _Rec. Conv. Roy. Burghs_, iv. 526. _State Papers, Dom._, clxxxviii. 72. In the record of the burghs the distance from the shore on the east coast, at the Orkneys and Shetlands, and on the north coast, is given as forty miles; but as the original records of the Convention between 1631 and 1649 were lost, and that printed is from an abstract prepared in 1700, it appears that an error was made in the transcribing.

[421] The Duke of Lennox had some time before this proposed the formation of a fishery society for the purpose.

[422] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 236. The Act referred to was passed in 1607 by the Scottish Parliament, but it was to be inoperative until a corresponding Act was passed by the Parliament of England, which was not done.

[423] _State Papers, Dom._, cxci. 7. Memorandum, dated 11th May 1631, by Secretary Coke, on “Matters in difference betwixt the English and Scottish Commissioners concerning the fishing.” From this paper it appears that the Scottish commissioners made the most of points relating to naturalisation; they objected to the natives being employed as fishermen by the association, and they would say nothing about the proportion of busses that might be set forth in Scotland.

[424] _Stirling Letters_, ii. 538, 544. _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 236. Charles, it will be observed, mentions 15 miles. The miles stated in the Scottish documents were Scots miles of 5929·5 imperial feet, 10 Scots miles being equal to nearly 11¼ imperial miles; the extent of the reserved waters was therefore very nearly 15¾ imperial miles (15·72).

[425] _Rec. Conv. Roy. Burghs_, iv. 534.

[426] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 238.

[427] _Rec. Conv. Roy. Burghs_, iv. 534, 535.

[428] “Whereat we ourselff for the most part were present,”--king to Council, 15th July 1632. _Stirling Letters_, ii. 604.

[429] _State Papers, Dom._, ccvi. 46.

[430] _State Papers, Dom._, ccvi. 50.

[431] _State Papers, Dom._, cciii. 53, 54, 19th November 1631. The draft appears to have been prepared and altered entirely by the king himself.

[432] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxix. 78, 83, 87, 89.

[433] The king to the Council, 15th July 1632. _Stirling Letters_, ii. 605, 606, 617. _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 245.

[434] The Act specified by the king was passed in 1491, but he seems rather to have been referring to the Act 6 James III., c. 48. “That Lordes, Barrones and Burrowes gar make Schippes, Busches, and greate Pinck-boates with Nettes,” which was passed in 1471, “for the common good of the realm and the great increase of riches,” to be brought from other countries in exchange for fish exported. The Act of James IV., “Anent the makeing of Schippes and Busches on the quhilk all Idle Men suld Laboure,” was an early attempt to carry out the policy advocated by English writers in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. It enacted that ships and busses, not under twenty tons burden, should be built in all the burghs and towns of Scotland, provided with mariners and nets: and power was given to compel “idle men” to man them.

[435] _State Papers, Dom._, ccvi. 47. “What is required from the Lords and Gentry of Scotland towards the fishing.”

[436] _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 236.

[437] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxi. 1 ; _Acta Parl. Scot._, v. 239.

[438] The councillors nominated by Charles were, for England and Ireland, Lord Weston, the High Treasurer (created Earl of Portland in February of the following year), the Earl of Arundel, the Earl of Pembroke, Viscount Savage, Lord Cottingham, and Secretary Coke; for Scotland, the Earl of Morton, the High Treasurer, the Earl of Stratherne and Monteith, President of the Privy Council, the Earl of Roxburgh, Viscount Stirling, Mr John Hay, and Mr George Fletcher.

[439] Martin, who visited the Hebrides about the year 1695, saw the foundation of a house, which, the natives told him, had been built by the Society as a store for salt and casks, on Hermetra, a small island in the Sound of Harris; and he saw a similar relic on a small island called Vacksay, in Loch Maddy. He was informed by the natives that “in the memory of some yet alive,” as many as 400 sail had been loaded with herrings in Loch Maddy in one season: at the time of his visit the fishing had been abandoned, though herrings were plentiful. _A Description of the Westerne Islands of Scotland_, pp. 51, 54, 55.

[440] Simon Smith, who was latterly Secretary to Pembroke’s association, afterwards stated that the Society had attained to the proper cure of herrings, and was likely to have been ultimately successful. This opinion was not shared by Dutch writers. The author of _The True Interest and Political Maxims of the Republic of Holland_, published under the name of De Witt, says the herrings the Society sent to Dantzic in 1637 and 1638, though caught at the same time and place as the Hollanders’ herrings, were “esteemed naught to the very last barrel”; and a contemporary author, Meynert Semeyns, a skipper of Enkhuisen, in a work written in 1639 (_Een corte beschryvinge over de Haring-visscherye in Hollandt_), says the same thing. “The Dutch,” he boasted, “catch more herrings and prepare them better than any other nation ever will; and the Lord has, by means of the herring, made Holland an exchange and staple-market for the whole of Europe.” No other nation, he added, ever tried the industry but to their loss, and the example adduced was the Society’s herrings sent to Dantzic.

[441] In August and September 1633, before the Council had met (busses having been purchased on the strength of subscriptions promised), two busses were taken by Dutch men-of-war and one by a Dunkirker. The former captures were doubtless made because the Dutch fishermen were acting contrary to the fishery laws of the United Provinces in taking service with aliens, and they were promptly disavowed by the States-General and the busses restored. The Dunkirkers made prize of some of the busses (there were ten or twelve of them) almost every year: one, the _Salisbury_, was taken twice, and in 1639 four were captured. Spain was then at war with the United Provinces, and the Dutch buss was a natural prey of the Dunkirk privateer.

[442] P. 309.

[443] _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxix. 48. Order of the King in Council, 29th September 1639. “Taking into consideration of what great importance it is and may be to the good of this kingdom to plant, increase and cherish the fishery in the North seas, and understanding that the Dutch, who reap an annual great benefit thereby, have and do not only privately underhand, but too manifestly also oppose the endeavours of his Majesty’s good subjects, who have of late years employed their industry that way,” it was ordered that the Lord Treasurer, the Earl Marshal, the Lord Admiral, the Lord Chamberlain, the Earl of Dorset, and one of the Secretaries of State, calling to their aid Sir Henry Marten (Judge of the Court of Admiralty), should forthwith “consult and advise what fitting course may be taken to advance and settle the said fishery, and particularly to consider whether it may not be fit to debar the exportation of lampreys, without which the Dutch cannot well, as is informed, continue their fishing for cod and ling, until his Majesty’s subjects be quietly settled in the herring fishing.” The Dutch obtained their lampreys for bait almost exclusively from England, and chiefly from the Thames. The above account of the proceedings of the Fishery Society is summarised (for the most part) from numerous State Papers. It was stated by Simon Smith, who was latterly Secretary to Pembroke’s association, that £10,000 was lost through the Dunkirkers.

[444] Oppenheim, _A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy_, i. 215, 217, 221.

[445] _Ibid._; Hannay, _A Short History of the Royal Navy_.

[446] Oppenheim, _op. cit._, 265.

[447] Oppenheim, _op. cit._, 275.

[448] _State Papers, Dom._, lvi. 66; lxi. 81; lxx. 8, 9; liv. 56; xc. 70, 119; clxii. 82, 45.

[449] _State Papers, Dom._, lix. 79; xci. 30, 45; xcii. 62; xciii. 82; xcv. 39; clxiii. 65; clxxx. 94. In 1630 a Yarmouth fisherman, owner of one of the Iceland smacks under convoy, petitioned the Council for relief from the payment of the twenty shillings, on the grounds that before the Order was made he had paid £5 for the assurance of his boat during that season to the assurance office in London, and that three boats belonging to him had been previously taken by Dunkirkers.

[450] Oppenheim, _op. cit._, 276.

[451] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxviii. 31, 88 ; cclxiv. fol. 20_a_; ccxciii. 107; ccxciv. 46.

[452] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxciii. 107; ccxciv. 46; ccxcv. 31, 69, 71; cclxiv. fol. 164. Many of the crew of the man-of-war were English, Scottish, or Irish. It was probably owing in part to the considerable numbers of British subjects serving on the Dutch men-of-war that they were always favoured by the country people.

[453] _Ibid._, ccxcvi. 5, 14, 30. Joachimi to States-General, (26 Aug.)/(4 Sept.), _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, O, fol. 380.

[454] _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, fol. 43_b_.

[455] Reglement for Preventing Abuses in and about the Narrow Seas and Ports, March 1633. _State Papers, Dom._, cclx. 127, 128; cclxxix. 18. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, fol. 44 (Pepys’ collections). Copies exist in _State Papers, Dom._, vol. 515, Nos. 38, 39 (1647), extracted from _Admiralty Book_, Liber E, and in _State Papers, Dom._, Jas. I., vol. 11, No. 40 (1604), wrongly calendered (see p. 119).

[456] _Ibid._, liv. 9, 33.

[457] Oppenheim, _op. cit._

[458] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxxvi. 73, 75; ccxxix. 102.

[459] Gardiner, _Hist._, vii. 349 _et seq._

[460] Gardiner, _op. cit._, 368.

[461] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxxvii. 55; ccxci. 14.

[462] _Ibid._, cclxxvi. 65.

[463] Rushworth, _Collections_, ii. 257. _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxvi. 64. Compare the language of Edward III. in 1336, p. 36.

[464] Rushworth, ii. 294, 353. Compare Windebank’s notes of the speech, _State Papers, Dom._, ccxc. 108: “The Judges at the Assizes to let the people know his Majesty’s care to preserve the ancient dominion (of the seas).”

[465] Gardiner, _op. cit._

[466] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxix. 51.

[467] _Resol. States-General_, 9/19 Nov. 1633; Muller, _Mare Clausum: Bijdrage tot de Geschicdenis der Rivaliteit van Engeland en Nederland in de Zeventiende Eeuw_, 229.

[468] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxxiv. 87; Nicholas’s _Letter Book_, Feb. 16, fol. 97. Muller thinks it was this revival of feeling about the dominion of the sea that caused the edition of Grotius’ _Mare Liberum_ to be published this year, with the Magnus Intercursus appended.

[469] Coke to Boswell, 16/26 April 1635. Needham, _Additional Evidences concerning the Right of Soveraigntie and Dominion of England in the Sea_; Justice, _A General Treatise of the Dominion and Laws of the Sea_, 181; Entick, _A New Naval History_, xvii. If, as is probable, the mention of discourses concerning _Mare Clausum_ referred to Selden’s work, it would show that the author was then known to be engaged in writing it.

[470] “Dessein de Sa Ma^{te} de la grande Bretagne p̄ sa flotte p̅r̅e̅nte,” 15/25 May 1635. Aitzema, _Saken van Staet en Oorlogh_, ii. 164; Muller, _op. cit._, 230. Boswell suppressed the reference to the Dutch fisheries and to the old troubles at Greenland and in the East Indies, and he toned down the part prohibiting the warships of other nations from keeping guard in the British seas.

[471] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxxvi. 100.

[472] They were as follow: _Merhonour_, admiral, 44 guns; _James_, vice-admiral, 48 guns; _Swiftsure_, rear-admiral, 42 guns; _St George_, 42 guns; _St Andrew_, 42 guns; _Henrietta Maria_, 42 guns; _Vanguard_, 40 guns; _Rainbow_, 40 guns; _Red Lion_, 38 guns; _Constant Reformation_, 42 guns; _Antelope_, 34 guns; _Leopard_, 34 guns; _Swallow_, 34 guns; _Mary Rose_, 26 guns; _Bonaventure_, 34 guns; and the First, Third, Eighth, and Tenth _Lion’s Whelps_, of 14 guns each. The merchant ships were the _Sampson_, _Freeman_, _Royal Exchange_, _William Thomas_, and _Pleiades_.

[473] The king to the Earl of Lindsey, _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxxviii. 84.

[474] Instructions for our very good Lord, the Earle of Lindsey, Admirall of his Majesties’ fflete, in his Majesty’s shippe the _Merhonour_, prepared for this present Expedic̃on for Guard of the Narrow Seas. 2nd May 1635. _State Papers, Dom._, clvii. fol. 135_b et seq._

[475] _Ibid._, cxcii. 3, 21st May 1631; clvii. fol. 117_b_. It was found that the French had a fleet of thirty-nine men-of-war, and two additional ships were building. _Ibid._, cxcviii. 84.

[476] 20th May 1631. _Ibid._, cxci. 80.

[477] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxxxvii. 1.

[478] _Ibid._, clvii. fol. 132, 26th April 1634.

[479] In the memorandum which Pennington submitted to the Admiralty, he said: “Sixtly, that if any stranger bee oprest by another stranger y^t is stronger than hee, within the jurisdicion of ye Narrow Seas, and y^t hee flyes for succor or refuge to any of his Majesty’s shippes imployed for the guard of the sayd Seas, and come under his lee, and craves protection, whether his Majesty’s ffloatinge ffortes shall not have ye same privelege in succoringe and defendinge them as ffortes a Land hath.” _Ibid._, cclxv. 23.

[480] Windebank and Cottington were two of the three in the confidence of the king as to the secret negotiations with Spain. _State Papers, Dom._, cclxv. 23, 25, 26, 41, 49, 78, 89; clvii. fol. 132.

[481] An equally obscure answer of Coke’s is recorded in the collection of papers for the ambassadors to Cologne in 1673 (_State Papers, Dom._, Chas. II., vol. 339, p. 513). “1636. Ea Leicester (_sic_) Query--What answer shall I give if I be asked what I mean by the seas of ye King my master, or our seas? The Answer returned by Mr Secretary Coke in his own hand: By the King’s or our seas you are not to understand or condescend to any restrictive sense but to answer ye Brittish Seas: and that the 4 seas mentioned in our laws are thereby meant, which you must not otherwise circumscribe or limitt; besides they are the same which in all antiquity have been acknowledged to belong unto us, as is sufficiently proved by authentic records.”

[482] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxxviii. 84, 85.

[483] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxxviii. 4; cclxxxix. 75. He had “no more than two blue and two white flags with six pendants to each of them; there are wanting two red flags and six pendants, one blue flag and one white.” The office of Lord High Admiral was in commission from the death of the Duke of Buckingham in 1628 until the appointment of the Earl of Northumberland in 1638.

[484] Gardiner, _Hist._, vii. 385.

[485] The inhabitants of the coast were apprehensive of the French fleet, and the Admiral sent a message to the Mayor offering to show his orders from the King of France, which bound him to honour and respect everything that belonged to his Majesty of Great Britain. _State Papers, Dom._, ccxci. 23.

[486] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxci. 58, 59.

[487] Gardiner, _op. cit._, 385; _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcv. 61. The English agent in France reported in August that two squadrons under French admirals, and bearing the French flag, were to ply, one along the coast of France from Belle Isle to Bayonne, the other at the mouth of the Channel. The remainder of the fleet, half French and half Hollander (which guarded the coast up to Calais and to the north of it), bore the States’ colours, and were under the command of the Hollander Admiral,--“an expedient to avoid acknowledging his Majesty’s right in the Channel, in case this squadron should meet his Majesty’s fleet and be constrained to vail the bonnet.”

[488] Gardiner, _loc. cit._

[489] It was from this Hollander, met off Beachy Head on 9th June, that Lindsey learned that the French fleet was at Portland.

[490] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxci. 80, 27th June 1635.

[491] _Ibid._, ccxcvi. 14.

[492] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxciii. 12.

[493] Gardiner, _op. cit._, 386.

[494] Lindsey to the king, 2nd August; Coke to Lindsey, 4th August. _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcv. 9, 42. The rumour that two of the king’s ships were to go north to the busses reached the ears of the States’ ambassador. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, O, fol. 376.

[495] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcvi. 5, 14, 16, 30. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, O, fol. 380. _Res. Holl._, 7th September, Bosgoed, _op. cit._, p. 358. Twelve busses and three of the convoys took refuge at Newcastle; others in the Firth of Forth. The skipper of a coasting vessel from Scotland to Scarborough saw seven busses in flames; the sky was red from the conflagration. The _Leopard_, one of Lindsey’s fleet, convoying merchantmen to Dunkirk, met eighteen of the privateers returning in triumph. The Dutch busses were the natural prey of the Dunkirkers, and the States were put to great expense and pains in guarding them. In 1625 a Spanish agent, Egidio Ouwers, submitted to Cardinal de Ceva, at Brussels, an elaborate plan for destroying the Dutch herring fishery, so as to “spoil their chiefest mine by which they maintained their wars.” _State Papers, Dom._, dxxi. 30.

[496] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcv. 44.

[497] The facts as to the movements, &c., of the fleet are mostly taken from the Earl of Lindsey’s Journal, written for the king’s information, and preserved in the Record Office. “A Relation of the passages that daily happened in this late expedition under my conduct, being by Your Majesty’s gratious appointment Admiral and General of your Majesty’s ffleet sett forthe for guard of your Narrow Seas, from the time that the ships mett all together in the Downes, 28^o May, untill the 8^o of October following, I making my first entrance aboard yo^r Royall ship the _Merhonor_, 16^o May, in Tilbury Hope.” _Ibid._, ccxcix. 28.

[498] Pennington to Nicholas, 3rd August 1635. _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcv. 18. Pennington, it may be said, lost no chance of sneering privately at the Earl of Lindsey, especially in his correspondence with his friend, Nicholas, the Secretary to the Admiralty. When Lindsey finally reached the Downs in October, and Pennington was appointed to command the winter fleet, he told Nicholas that he had hoped that “they” who had had the “sweet of the summer should have had a little of the sour sauce of the winter”; he had spent “twice as much as he, and more every way for the king’s honour.” Nicholas shared the feeling. On hearing that Lindsey had appointed a French cook on board the _Henrietta Maria_ he refused to believe it, “as it was never since his time known that any Frenchman was admitted scarce to go aboard, much less to be an officer in any of the king’s ships”; and he foretold great evils from it. _Ibid._, ccxcix. 19; ccxci. 61.

[499] Gardiner, _op. cit._

[500] _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, O, fol. 364.

[501] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxviii. 3. Roe’s reference was to the fishings at the Zowe or Sowe, where great numbers of gurnards were caught (see p. 65). The stipulation of Richelieu concerned the allied squadrons which were to blockade Dunkirk, as arranged by Article viii. of the treaty. Article xii., after providing for the size of the squadrons, continues, “Et au cas que lesdites esquadres viennent à s’assembler, comme il peut arriver qu’il sera necessaire pour le bien commun, l’Admiral desdits Seigneurs les Estats abaissera à l’abord son pavillon du grand mast, et le saluëra de son canon, et celui du Roi le resaluëre comme de coustume, et comme il en a esté use par le Roi de la Grande Bretagne.” Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, 83 (?).

[502] _State Papers, Dom._, lxxix. 17. “Athwart ye opening of Falmouth four sailes stood with their forefoot,” and very earnestly tried to weather the English ships. Among them was a French man-of-war of Rochelle, but they shot four or five pieces of ordnance at him, and “soo brought him by ye lee.” See p. 207.

[503] He reported, 16th September 1631, that two English merchantmen had met five French men-of-war, bearing the French king’s colours on the main-top, and the Malta colours on the poop, who saluted them with, “Amain, rogues, for the King of France”; but as the English ships refused to strike and prepared to fight, the French sheered off. He added that he had learned, through an interview between one of his lieutenants and one of the French commanders, that the latter had a commission to compel any English ships he could master to take in their flags and dowse their top-sails, and that three French admirals had been appointed for regaining the regality of the Narrow Seas, because, as the French officer said, the Pope had taken it from France and given it to England, but now that we had fallen from their religion it had been reassigned. _State Papers, Dom._, cxcix. 51.

[504] Nicholas to Pennington, 29th September 1631. _Ibid._, cc. 45.

[505] Pennington to Nicholas, 2nd October (_ibid._, cci. 7). Pennington, whose information about the French trying to make the English strike had given the Admiralty and the king “good content” (_ibid._, cc. 27), had been ordered westwards to retaliate, but “he hoped the Lords would not think that his two ships half-manned were able to encounter with twenty well manned”. _Ibid._, cci. 29.

[506] 14th October, 12th November 1631. _State Papers, Dom._, cci. 54; cciii. 32.

[507] _Ibid._, cclxiii. 75.

[508] _Ibid._, cccxvii. 102.

[509] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxv. 23, 25, 41, 49.

[510] _Ibid._, cccxvii. 102.

[511] _State Papers, Dom._, cci. 59; ccii. 17; ccciii. 71, 79; ccx. 58; ccxxxiv. 37; ccxlviii. 81.

[512] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxx. 25, 26.

[513] _Ibid._, ccxxxiv. 5, 32. “The Ambassador and the other Lords being at dinner in the great cabin, the gunner sent word that a Hollander was passing with his top-sails a-trip, to whom he gave order to make a shot. The Lords and gentlemen left the table to see the event, but the Hollander, neither for that shot nor two or three others, would lower the same one foot; whereupon he gave order to shoot him through, which was done, with as much speed as they could bring ordnance to bear, so as before she passed she had twenty shot in and through her sides, which they heard to crash in the same. They could perceive but one piece she had forth; to that fire was given twice. The shot came not near, but they might well hear the same. After her came the Admiral with his flag on the main-top.” Ketelby cleared for action and was giving orders for a broadside; but the ambassador twice desired him to give over and stand for Dover, and he submitted. If it had not been for his passengers, Ketelby did not doubt he would have brought them in to answer the contempt.

[514] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcv. 13; ccxcvii. 28; ccxcviii. 16. It was the usual practice to make the offender pay for the shot.

[515] _State Papers, Dom._, ccc. 43; ccci. 28; ccxcix. 21.

[516] _Ibid._, cclxv. 49.

[517] Ketelby and Viscount Conway explained that it was necessary to punish them in a public manner, since imprisonment in the bilboes and such corporal punishments were not effective. Conway recommended Scott’s fine to be remitted, owing to his worth and poverty, as well as from the fact that he had recently been taken captive by the “Turkish” pirates, and his ransom was not all paid. Bushell, as we learn from a petition “of divers poor men, women, and children, whose kindred are now in slavery at Argier and Sallee,” had redeemed and brought home thirty of the captives; and it is probable that neither of the fines was exacted. It is doubtful if Lindsey’s action was regular, for the vessels, according to his statement, had not come within gunshot. The _Neptune_ was one of the three ships fitted out by London for Northumberland’s fleet. _State Papers, Dom._, ccxv. 28, 65, 67; cclxv. 50; cclxiii. 75; ccxcvi. 30, 34, 37; ccci. 31.

[518] Molloy, _De Jure Maritimo et Navalis_, 149.

[519] _Regulations and Instructions relating to his Majesty’s Service at Sea_, 1734, 1766, 1790, Art. xi.; 1808, Art. xxiv. A case of the kind occurred in 1829. Phillimore, _Commentaries upon International Law_, ii. 58.

[520] Gardiner, _op. cit._, viii. 84.

[521] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcvi. 69; cci. 26, 97.

[522] _State Papers, Dom._, ccciii. 74; cccv. 36, 38; cccxi. 1. The total number of men in the first fleet, which included five of the “Whelps” and two pinnaces then building, was to be 4580; in the second, in which were included two “Whelps,” it was to be 1890.

[523] Hume (_Hist. Engl._, ch. lii. an. 1636), following earlier writers, places the number at sixty. Thus Frankland (_Annals of King James and King Charles the First_, 477 (1681)) speaks of “sixty gallant ships.” Baker (_A Chronicle of the Kings of England_, 455 (1679)) and others, including most of the naval historians of the eighteenth century, give the same number.

[524] Northumberland’s Journal, _State Papers, Dom._, cccxliii. 72. Pennington, on hearing of the appointment of the Earl of Northumberland, wrote in February 1636 to the Council expressing his satisfaction; verily believed he would carry himself like a general in all respects, unless led away, “as the last was, by such as neither knew the honour of the place nor the way of managing the service for the honour and safety of the kingdom.”

[525] _State Papers, Dom._, ccxcviii. 63.

[526] The Lords of the Admiralty to the king, 24th February 1636. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxiii. 24, 25. The documents are in Windebank’s writing; the first is endorsed “Fishing. Waftage. An excellent Piece.” See Appendix I.

[527] “Instructions for our very good Lord, the Earle of Northumberland, Admirall of his Majesty’s fflete in his Majesty’s ship the _Triumph_, prepared for this present Expedic̃ion for guard of his Majesty’s Seas.” _State Papers, Dom._, clvii. fol. 141.

[528] Gardiner, viii. 157. The English ships were “clogged with timber,” which, however, served them well in the first Dutch war when they were pitted against the slighter-built ships of the States. (Oppenheim, _op. cit._, 254.)

[529] _State Papers, Dom._, clvii. fol. 141_b_; ccxiv. 107. The Earl of Northumberland to the Lords of the Admiralty, cccxxi. 44, 45, 65, 78, 87; cccxxii. 16, 40; cccxxv. 78, 79; cccxxvi. 16, 38; cccxxvii. 42, 73. The Lords of the Admiralty to Northumberland, 14th June, cccxxvi. 32.

[530] Rowland Woodward to Francis Windebank, 16th December 1630. _State Papers, Dom._, clxxvii. 13. The writer said he “much feared the event if it should be put in execution.”

[531] _Ibid._, cclxxix. 67.

[532] Petition of the Governor, Assistants, and Fellowship of the Merchant Adventurers of England to the Council. _Ibid._, cclxxxix. 91.

[533] _Ibid._, cclxxxv. 84.

[534] _State Papers, Dom._, cccviii. 48; cccxx. 14.

[535] A Proclamation for Restraint of Fishing upon His Maiesties Seas and Coasts without License. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxx. 62. _Fœdera_, xx. 15.

[536] The form annexed to the Earl of Northumberland’s instructions, sent to him on 14th June from Hampton Court, and which he received at Plymouth on the 22nd, is as follows:--

“CHARLES R.

“We are gratiously pleased by these Presents to grant Lycense to ... to fish with the Men and Company belonging to a Ship or Vessel called the ... being of the Burthen of ... Tonnes, upon any of Our Coasts or Seas of Great Brittaine and Ireland, and the rest of our Islands adjacent, where usually heretofore any fishing hath been. And this Our Lycense to continue for one whole Year from ye Date hereof: Willing and requiring as well all Our subjects as others of what Nation, quality or condition soever that they give no Impeachment or molestation to ye said ... or his company in the said Vessell in the Execution of this Our Lycense, upon such Paines and Punishments, as are to be inflicted upon the Violators of Our Royall Protection, and the wilful Breakers of Our Peace, in Our aforesaid Dominions and Jurisdictions, further requiring and Commanding all Our Admiralls, Vice-Admiralls, Rere-Admiralls and Captaines of Our Ships, Castles, and Forts to protect and assist the said ... in ye quiet enjoying the benefit of this Our Lycense.”

Another form, dated in July, was as follows:--

“Charles by the Grace of God King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all his Admiralls, Vice-Admiralls, Rere-Admiralls, and Captaines of oure Shippes, Castles and fforts, and to all and every other our Officers, Ministers and subjects to whome it shall apperteyne, Greeting. Whereas Wee are gratiously pleased by these presents to grant License to ... Master of a Busse or Vessell called the ... beinge of the burthen of ... Tonnes, To fishe with the Men and Company belonging to the said Busse or Vessell upon anie of our Coastes and Seas of Great Brittaine, Ireland and the rest of our Islands adiacent where usually fishing hath bene, from the date hereof, to the last of December next. These are to will and require as well Yow our said Officers and Subjects, as others of what Nacion, quality, or condition soever That yow not onely give noe impeachment or molestacion to the said ... or his Company in the said Vessell in the Execucion of this Our License, upon such paynes and punishments, as are to be inflicted upon the Violaters of oure Royall Protecion and the wilfull Breakers of our Peace in oure aforesaid dominions and jurisdictions: But that yow protect and assist the said ... and his Company in the quiet enioying the benefitt of this oure License during the time before limitted: Given ...” _Ibid._, cccxxvi. 32; cccxxix. 77, 78, 79. It appears from copies without the names and particulars filled in, which are preserved at The Hague, that the first form was used in July, a certain Joost Bouwensz of Delfshaven having accepted one on the 24th (N.S.) of that month.

[537] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxix. 81; cccxxii. 40; cccxxvi. 32; cccxvii. 93; cccxxviii. 11, 41, 69.

[538] The herring-busses in ordinary course fished all night in fleets, with their drift-nets floating in the water; during the day the crews were employed in curing and packing the herrings caught.

[539] “Next day wee fetched in 4 more of them, and having caused their busses to be manned with English, and threatened the takeing away their nettes, they at last consented to take Licenses, and paying the acknowledgment I sent them all away very well satisfied.” These busses belonged to the Enkhuisen herring fleet, which was convoyed by a warship under Captain Gerrit Claesz. Ruyter, to whom Northumberland, after the licenses had been accepted, gave a written certificate and safe-conduct for bringing in the busses. Muller, _Mare Clausum_, 269, 377.

[540] These were the Delfshaven busses, the skipper of one being Joust Bouwensz, previously referred to. According to the Dutch accounts, money was scarce on the busses, but the English very willingly took herrings instead, a barrel of herrings being reckoned at from four to four and a-half florins.

[541] These were the _Victory_, _Repulse_, and _Swallow_. From a report of the Officers of the Navy to the Admiralty, on 20th August, we learn that the _Repulse_ had a great many sick on board--“some three or four having died within these two days; some thirty sick were landed at Margate and eight are ill on board. The surgeon is dead, as is said of the spotted fever, full of spots, and it is much doubted that the pestilence is amongst them.” The plague in this and the following year made great ravages in London and at the naval ports, partly from the want of simple precautions--_e.g._, in this case the sick men were to be discharged “for fear of infection (of the ship) and to cease a needlesse charge.” _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxx. 61.

[542] The account of the movements of Northumberland’s fleet is extracted from his “Journall of oure Summer’s Voyage in the yeare 1636.” _State Papers, Dom._, cccxliii. 72.

[543] Northumberland to Windebank, 16th August 1636 (from Scarborough). _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxx. 41. About 400 licenses in all, each signed by the king, had been furnished to the Earl.

[544] 20th Dec. 1628. “Clachten van de insolentien van’t bootsvolk en de visschers deser landen in Schotlandt.” Muller, _op. cit._, 232.

[545] The English Company and the king’s relation to it were considered by the States in January 1631, 25th Oct. 1632, 19th Nov. 1633, and 15th Sept. 1634. (Bosgoed, _Bib. Pisc._, 357. Oprichting eener Engelsche compagnie voor de Haring-visscherij, Muller, _op. cit._, 235.)

[546] _Verbaal van Beveren_, 1636-37. Muller, _op. cit._, 246.

[547] _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, P, fol. 67 _et seq._

[548] Van Beveren to the States-General, 15/25 Aug. _MSS. Add._, 17,677, P, fol. 88. In his letter he says the tax on each ton was “twee sixpenningen,” or an English shilling. Others placed it at two shillings a last.

[549] Aitzema, _Saken van Staet en Oorlogh_, ii. 409. Muller, _op. cit._, 263.

[550] Joachimi to the States-General, (31 Aug.)/(10 Sept.), 9/19 Sept. 1636. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, P, fol. 99, 100. _Verbael van Joachimi_, 1636. Muller, _op. cit._, 264.

[551] Elizabeth to Sir Thomas Roe, 15/25 Aug. 1636. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxx. 38.

[552] Roe to Elizabeth, 19th Aug., 20th Sept. _Ibid._, cccxxx. 50; cccxxxii. 1.

[553] Northumberland to the Admiralty and to Secretary Coke, Sept. 16. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxxi. 55, 56.

[554] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxxii. 39.

[555] Northumberland’s Journal, _Ibid._, cccxliii. 72; Northumberland to Nicholas, 6th October 1636. _Ibid._, cccxxxiii. 26. Dutch accounts vary somewhat from that given by the Earl of Northumberland. According to them, seven English men-of-war fell in with a hundred busses convoyed by five States’ warships, and the busses paid the tax and took the licenses. But when thirteen Dutch men-of-war, convoying a great herring fleet, arrived on the scene and put themselves in a position for battle, the English ships did not interfere any further and soon sheered off.

[556] An Accompt of the Convoy money, as it was delivered unto me by the Captaines emploied in that Service, vizt.: Captain Carteret, £657, Captaine Lindsey, £200, Captain Slingsby, £42, Captain Johnson, £20, Mr Skinner, £80.

[557] An Account of the Acknowledgment Money taken of the Holland Fishermen. The partiality for English gold is shown by the fact that £119, 13s. of the total was thus paid.

[558] The Dutch themselves appear to have acknowledged a payment of 20,000 florins (Muller, _Mare Clausum_, 274). Rapin (_Hist. d’Angleterre_, vii. 455) and Wagenaar (_Vaderlandsche Historie_, xi. 260) placed it at 30,000 florins; Larrey (_Hist. d’Angleterre, d’Ecosse et d’Irlande_, iv. 126) states that the Dutch concluded a treaty with Charles by which they agreed to pay him “dix mille ecus par an,” which is equivalent to the same thing; Hume (_Hist. of England_, ch. lii. an. 1636) says: “The Dutch were content to pay £30,000 for a license during this year.” The error is found in the earlier English historical writers. Rushworth (_Collections_, V. ii. 322) also states the sum as £30,000, and adds that the Dutch were willing to pay a yearly tribute for a like liberty in future. Frankland (_Annals of King James and King Charles the First_, 477 (1681)) says that Northumberland with his “sixty gallant ships” “commanded the Dutch busses to cease fishing until they had obtained permission from the King, which they seeming not willing and ready to do, he fired amongst them, sunk some and seized others, until they were forced to fly into his Majesty’s harbours, and desired the Lord Admiral to mediate to his Majesty for his leave for this summer, and they would pay unto his Majesty’s treasury therefor the sum of £30,000, which they did accordingly, and professed their readiness to become suppliants to his Majesty for a grant, under the condition of a yearly payment therefor for the future.” This writer seems to have confused Northumberland’s operations with those of Blake’s fleet in 1652 (see p. 406) or with the onslaught of the Dunkirkers in 1635. Kennet (_A Complete Hist. of England_, iii. 85 (1719)) repeats the mistake and puts the sum at £30,000, and so with almost all the historians, as well as the naval writers. Thus, Burchett (_A Complete Hist. of the Most Remarkable Transactions at Sea_, 379 (1720)) and Lediard (_The Naval History of England_, 526 (1735)) give the statement of Frankland; Entick (_A New Naval History_, 438 (1757)) drops one of the ciphers and makes the sum £3000, but otherwise retains the false account. Admiral Colomb, in his recent excellent work on _Naval Warfare_ (p. 33), no doubt founding on these naval authors, also refers to the “non-payment of the £30,000 annually, which had been fixed by Charles as license dues.” The writers of minor books embellished the error. In a mendacious treatise published in 1664 (_The Dutch drawn to the Life_, 146) it is said that Northumberland “scoured the seas of the Dutch busses, seizing some, sinking others, and enforcing the rest to flee; so reducing all to the precarious condition of entreating the favour of fishing by the King’s commission, which he was the readier to indulge them, because he looked upon them as the most likely instruments for his nephew’s restauration to the Palatinate.” John Smith, writing in 1670 (_England’s Improvement Reviv’d_, 257), said that “the composition of the Hollanders (for liberty to fish) was an annual rent of £100,000, and £100,000 in hand; and never having been paid or brought into the Exchequer, as I could hear of, there is an arrearages of above £2,500,000; an acceptable sum,” he adds, “and which would come very happily for the present occasions of his Majesty”--Charles II. would have been very glad of much less; he quite failed to induce the Dutch to pay him £12,000 a-year for a like liberty. Evelyn in 1674 (_Navigation and Commerce_) put the “arrears” at over half a million sterling, and he said that in 1636 the Hollanders paid £1500, 15s. 2d. for licenses; but this was only, as he explained later, “the sophism of a mercenary pen,” since he slumped the convoy and the “acknowledgment” money together (having had access to Northumberland’s Journal), and eight years later he wrote to Pepys his remarkable letter of recantation, in which he stated, “Nor did I find that any rent (whereoff in my 108 page I calculate the arrears) for permission to fish was ever fixed by both parties” (_Diary and Correspondence_, iii.)

The writers on international law have copied the erroneous statements from the historians and from one another. Wharton (_Hist. of the Law of Nations_, 154) says, “The exclusive rights to the fisheries within these seas (the Four Seas) and near the coasts of the British Islands had been occasionally acknowledged by the Dutch in the form of annual payments and taking out licenses to fish; and was again suspended by treaties between the sovereigns of England and the Princes of the House of Burgundy.” This statement, which outrages chronology as well as fact, is repeated (without acknowledgment) by Phillimore (_Commentaries upon International Law_, I., Part ii., c. vi. s. clxxxiv.), and by Travers Twiss (_The Law of Nations in Time of Peace_, 254), Hall (_Treatise on International Law_, 145), and others. Hall quotes Hume’s statement that the Dutch had to pay £30,000 for leave to remain, and a more recent author supposes that the great fishing of the Dutch on our coasts originated in the reign of Elizabeth, and that, growing strong, they refused to pay the “duties levied without question for generations within the British Seas” (Walker, _A History of the Law of Nations_, i. 167). As has been shown in the text, the Dutch herring-boats resisted the payment of the “acknowledgment” money as far as they could; the States-General equipped a fleet to prevent by force their molestation by the English men-of-war, and they dismissed their Admiral because he failed in 1636 to protect them.

[559] Aitzema, _op. cit._, ii. 408. “Op de bewaringhe ende bescherminghe van de groote ende kleyne Visscherij deser Landen tegen de Spaansche ende allen anderen die hun souden willen beschadigen,” August 5/15, 1636.

[560] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxxiii. 13.

[561] Muller, _op. cit._, 273.

[562] _Res. Holl._, 19th September; _Res. St.-Gen._, 8th November 1636; Bosgoed, _Bib. Pisc._, 360.

[563] Gardiner, _Hist. England_, viii. 160, 163, 202, 205.

[564] Roe to Ferentz, Oct. 15, 1636. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxxiv. 15. Goring to his father, Lord Goring, Feb. 4/14, 1637. _Ibid._, cccxlvi. 33. Goffe to Archbishop Laud, Feb. 2. _Ibid._, cccxlvi. 23. The Queen of Bohemia to Archbishop Laud, Feb. 4/14. _Ibid._, cccxlvi. 34. Laud to the Queen, Feb. 28. _Ibid._, cccxlviii. 62. Roe to the Queen, Mar. 17. _Ibid._, cccl. 16. The Queen to Laud, (Mar. 25)/(April 4). _Ibid._, cccli. 1. Goffe’s letter to Laud was as follows: “Your Grace will receive intelligence from other hands that certain edicts which were ready to be published by the States against paying any acknowledgment for leave to fish are now suppressed upon the hopes of his Majesty’s relinquishing that business for the present. But the Prince of Orange, not willing to content himself with probabilities, hath been very pressing with the Queen of Bohemia to have some assurance given him that the king would not interrupt their fishing this year. And if no other way might be afforded, he is very urgent at least that the Elector (the son of Elizabeth) would write to him and assure him so much. How much such an assurance would be prejudicial to the honour of his sacred Majesty your Grace can best judge. But I thought it my duty to add that though their edicts are suppressed, yet their book in answer to Mr Selden’s _Mare Clausum_ is ready to come forth: and the author is neither so modest nor discreet that the Elector should trust him [? the Prince of Orange] with any written assurance in that kind. The Prince of Orange hath been so much upon this that it hath given others cause to believe that the Elector will be moved in it.”

[565] Roe to Ferentz. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxxiv. 15.

[566] The “confident vrundt” was probably Roe, who was the confidential adviser of Elizabeth, and at this time had interviews with the Dutch ambassador in the Prince’s interests, which he “feared would come to nothing.” _Ibid._

[567] “Que durant le même temps les Pescheurs et preneurs d’hareng, subjects de leurs Seigneuries, pescheront librement et franchement, com̄e ils out tousiours faict du temps de la Royne Elysabeth et du grand Roy Jacques tous deux de très-glorieuse mémoire, s’approchants si près des bords de mer, et rivages des royaulmes, terres et ysles de sa Ma^{té}, que leur mestier, la course de poisson et hareng, et leur proffit portera, voire jusques à seicher leurs filets sur terre, sans que sa Ma^{té} directement ou indirectement leur fera ou fera faire aucun dommage, destourbier, ou empeschement en cela.” _Verbaal van Beveren._ Muller, _op. cit._, 279.

[568] Gardiner, _op. cit._, 218. _State Papers, Holland_, Jan., Feb. 1637.

[569] March 19, 1637. _State Papers, Dom._, cccl. 34.

[570] Gardiner, _op. cit. State Papers, Holland, Flanders._

[571] Windebank to Northumberland, July 3. _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxiii. 21.

[572] _State Papers, Dom._, clvii. 151_b_.

[573] Windebank to the Earl of Northumberland, 3rd July 1637. _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxiii. 21.

[574] Northumberland to Windebank, 4th July, _Ibid._, ccclxiii. 28.

[575] Windebank to Northumberland, 6th July. _Ibid._, ccclxiii. 41.

[576] “Diamentenring van tamelijcke groote,” _Verbaal van Beveren_. Muller, _op. cit._, 297.

[577] _State Papers, Dom._, cccliv. 16; ccclv. 22.

[578] Report of Fielding, 24th July. _Ibid._, ccclxiv. 45.

[579] Pennington to Nicholas, 10th July, _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxiii. 99; Northumberland to Sir Thomas Roe, 6th August, _ibid._, ccclxv. 28; Pennington to Northumberland, 20th May, _ibid._, ccclvii. 15, ii.

[580] Windebank to Fogg, Aug. 10. _Ibid._, ccclxv. 51. With reference to this letter of Windebank’s, the following note by Secretary Williamson was made on the copy in the volume prepared for the ambassadors going to Cologne in 1673 (_State Papers, Dom._, Chas. II., 339, p. 519): “This mentioned report appears by other letters and passages of that time to have been really the truth, but of that disadvantage to his Ma^{tys} right and title, as it was thought fitt by all means to stiffle it, and give out Captain Fielding went to ye Holland Busses onely w^{th} notice of ye Dunquerq^{rs} preparations to intercept them in their return and to offer his Ma^{ties} protection.”

[581] Windebank to Northumberland, 1st Aug., _State Papers, Dom._, Chas. I., ccclxv. 5; Roe to Countess of Northumberland, 20th July, _ibid._, ccclxiv. 22; Northumberland to Windebank, 1st Sept., _ibid._, ccclxviii. 1; Same to Admiralty, 6th Sept., _ibid._, ccclxviii. 43.

[582] Aug. 10. _Ibid._, ccclxv. 53. The king’s real feelings were shown in the instructions given to the Earl when he was ordered to the west on 1st August. “If any of the fishers of Holland which have refused his Majesty’s licenses shall be assaulted by the Dunkirkers, his Majesty will in no wise that you protect them.” _Ibid._, ccclxv. 5.

[583] Aug. 6. _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxv. 28.

[584] An example of the feeling is to be found in an incident of this summer. One, Richard Rose, a justice of the peace, on hearing that the fleet was going forth to maintain the king’s title of being Lord of the Narrow Seas, exclaimed: “What a foolery is this; that the country in general shall be thus much taxed with great sums to maintain the king’s titles and honours! For my part, I am £10 the worse for it already.” When information of this remark was laid before the Council, the Lords “thought it not fit to question these words.” _Ibid._, ccclxx. 1.

[585] The king to the Twelve Judges, 2nd Feb. 1637. _Ibid._, ccclxvi. 11.

[586] The _Sovereign of the Seas_ was the largest ship hitherto built for the navy; it was 127 feet long in the keel, 46½ feet in breadth (inside measurement), and 19 feet 4 inches in depth; the tonnage was by the “new rule” 1552 tons, by the “old rule” 1823 tons. She was also by far the most expensive. Her cost was £40,833, 8s. 1½d., besides her guns, which were estimated to cost, with engraving, £25,059, 8s. 8d. _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxi. 71; ccclxix. 44; ccclxxiv. 30; ccclxxxvii. 87. See also Oppenheim, _Hist. Administration Royal Navy_, 260. In 1637 a “description” of the ship was published by Thomas Heywood, dedicated to the king, and with a frontispiece representation of it: “_A True description of his Majestie’s Royall Ship Built this yeare 1637 at Wool-witch in Kent. To the great glory of our English Nation and not paraleld in the whole Christian World._ Published by Authoritie, London, 1637.” The description, apart from the verse, occupies a few pages at the end, the work dealing chiefly with the ships of the ancients. A second edition was published in 1638: “_A True Discription of his Majestie’s royall and most stately ship called the Soveraign of the Seas, built at Wol-witch in Kent 1637 with the names of all the prime officers in her_,” &c. Prynne (_Brief Animadversions_, &c., p. 123) says that Charles claimed and maintained the dominion of the seas by increasing the navy, &c., and “by giving the name of the _Edgar_ (with this motto engraven on it, _Ego ab Edgaro quatuor maria vendico_) and of the _Soveraign of the Sea_ to the Admiral of his fleet.”

[587] _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxxx. 61; ccclxxxix. 86; cccxc. 39.

[588] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxv. 21; cccxxxviii. 15; cccxli. 6; ccclxi. 41; cccliii. fol. 34. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, O, fol. 364.

[589] _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxxxii. 44; ccclxxxiii. 29.

[590] Smith to Pennington, 8th June 1639. _Ibid._, ccccxxiii. 56.

[591] Windebank to Pennington, 10th, 15th, 16th July, _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxv. 45, 72, 81; Northumberland to Pennington, _ibid._, ccccxxv. 76; Windebank to Hopton, 16th August, _Clarendon State Papers_, i. 1283.

[592] Pennington to Windebank, 13th July. _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxv. 61, 68.

[593] Gardiner, _Hist._, ix. 69; _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxviii. 52.

[594] Northumberland to Pennington, 12th September, _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxviii. 92; Windebank to Hopton, 29th September, _Clarendon State Papers_, ii. 71; Hopton to Windebank, October 12/22, _Cal. Clar. State Papers_, i. 1311.

[595] Gardiner, _op. cit._, 61.

[596] Windebank to Colonel Gage and Count Leslie, (28 Sept.)/(8 Oct.). _Cal. Clar. State Papers_, i. 1296.

[597] Gardiner, _op. cit._, 63.

[598] Smith to Pennington, 30th Sept. _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxix. 70.

[599] Northumberland to Pennington, 16th September. _Ibid._, ccccxxviii. 92.

[600] Pennington to the Master of the _Luke_, of London, 23rd Sept. _Ibid._, ccccxxix. 15.

[601] Smith to Pennington, 19th Sept. _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxviii. 111.

[602] “De Spaansche Vloot te vernielen sonder eenige aanschouw of reguard te nemen op de Havenen, Reeden, of Baayen van de Coningryken, waar de zelve zoude zyn te bekomen.” _Resol. Stat.-Gen._, 11/21, 20/30 Sept. 1639. Aitzema, _Saken van Staet en Oorlogh_. Bynkershoek, _Quæstiones Juris Publici_, lib. i.

[603] Northumberland to Pennington, 8th Oct., _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxx. 47; Same to Windebank. 9th Oct., _ibid._, ccccxxx. 55; Pennington to Northumberland, 11th Oct., _ibid._, 77; Suffolk to Windebank, 11th Oct., _ibid._, 66, 68; Pennington’s report, 11th Oct., _ibid._, 74; Hopton to Windebank, 20/30 Nov., _Cal. Clar. State Papers_, i. 1323; Tromp to Pennington, 11/21 Oct., _State Papers, Dom._, _ibid._, 80 (translation in Windebank’s writing); _ibid._, ccccxxxi. 4.

[604] Leslie to Windebank, 11th Oct.; Gage to Windebank, 19/29 Oct. _Cal. Clar. State Papers_, i. 1309, 1313.

[605] Northumberland to Pennington, 15th Oct. _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxxi. 18, 30; _Cal. Clar. State Papers_, i. 1324.

[606] Windebank to Gerbier, 18th Oct. _State Papers, Dom._, ccccxxxi. 35. Gage to Windebank, 9/19 Nov. Paper delivered by Hopton to King of Spain, 24th Nov. _Cal. Clar. State Papers_, i. 1321, 1324.

[607] _State Papers, Dom._, dxxxviii. 106. The paper is endorsed “Soverainty of the Seas: the Dutch attempt on the Spaniards in the Downs.”

[608] _Resol. St.-Gen._, 16/26, 20/30 Oct., (26 Oct.)/(5 Nov.) 1639. Instructie van Sommelsdijck, Muller, _Mare Clausum_, 309; Aitzema, _Saken van Staet_, ii. 618.

[609] _Secrete Resol. St.-Gen._, 11/21 Oct., “Dat hunne meeninge gantsch niet was, het recht van Visscherie in de Noortzee van ijemant te stipuleren, versoecken ofte reveleren.” Muller, _op. cit._, 312. In the following year Vice-Admiral De With refused to lower his flag to an English ship-of-war off Hellevoetsluis.

[610] Maine, _International Law_, 13, 75. Phillimore, _Commentaries upon International Law_, I. xxi. Wheaton, _History of the Law of Nations_, 54.

[611] Meadows, _Observations_, p. 3. Raleigh, _A Discourse on the Invention of Ships_.

[612] Cunningham, _The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Early and Middle Ages_, p. 418.

[613] _Le Droit International_, i. 20.

[614] _De Potestate Legis Pœnalis_, lib. ii. c. 14. Quoted by Nys, _Les Origines du Droit International_, p. 382, and by Grotius, _Mare Liberum_, c. vii.

[615] D. Fernandus Vasquius, _Controversiæ Illustres_, Venice, 1564, lib. ii. c. lxxxix. s. 30 (p. 356, ed. Frankfurt, 1668).

[616] _Mare Libervm sive de Jvre qvod Batavis competit ad Indicana Commercia Dissertatio._ Lugdvni Batauorvm. Ex officinâ Ludovici Elzevirij Anno 1609. The name of Grotius did not appear on the title-page until the second edition in 1618 (_Hvgonis Groti Mare Libervm sive_ ... vltima editio. Lvgdvni Batavorum, anno 1618), the year in which he was arrested; and that he was not generally known to be the author until this time is shown by Welwood referring to _Mare Liberum_ in 1613 as written by “an unknown author,” and by an English State Paper, prepared for the negotiations with the Dutch ambassadors in 1618, which contains excerpts out of a book called _Mare Liberum_ (_Brit. Mus. MSS. Lansd._, 142, fol. 383). Grotius was then one of the most prominent men in Holland. Another edition was published, also at Leyden, in 1633, together with Paul Merula’s _Dissertatio de Maribus_ and Boxhorn’s _Apologia pro Navigationibus Hollandorum adversus Pontem Hevtervm_, under the title, Hugo Grotius, _De Mare Libero_. It was also included in Hagemeier’s _De Imperio Maris, variorum Dissertationes_, published in 1663. A translation in the vernacular appeared at Haarlem in 1636,--no doubt in consequence of the publication of Selden’s _Mare Clausum_,--H. Groti, _Vrye Zeevaert, ofte Bewys van het Recht dat de Inghesetenen deser gheunieerde Landen toekomt over de Oost ende West-Indische Koophandel_. Hugo de Groot was born at Delft in 1583; he was appointed Advocate-General before he was twenty-four years of age, and settled at Rotterdam in 1613, where he became Pensionary of that town; he was sent to England as one of the Dutch envoys in that year. In 1618 he was arrested in connection with the Barnevelt troubles, and in the following year condemned to perpetual imprisonment; but he escaped to Paris, where he lived for eleven years, and then entering the service of the Queen of Sweden, he was employed as her ambassador at the Court of France. He died at Rostock in 1645. Some of his works were translated into almost all European languages, and even into Persian, Greek, and Arabic.

[617] Tiele, _Opkomst van het Nederlandsch Gezag in Oost-Indie_; Fruin, _Een onuitgegeven werk van Hugo de Groot_, in _De Gids_, Derde ser. zesde Jaargang, 1868, vierde del; M’Pherson, _Annals of Commerce_, ii. 209, 226.

[618] “Ante annos aliquot, cum viderem ingentis esse momenti ad patriæ securitatem Indiæ quæ Orientalis dicitur commercium, id vero commercium satis appareret obsistentibus per vim atque insidias Lusitanis sine armis retineri non posse, operam dedi ut ad tuenda fortiter quæ tam feliciter cœpissent nostrorum animos inflammarem, proposita ob oculos causæ ipsius iustitia et æquitate, unde nasci το ἑυελπι recte a ueteribus traditum existimabam. Igitur et universa belli prædæque iura, et historiam eorum quæ Lusitani in nostros sæue atque crudeliter perpetrassent, multaque alia ad hoc argumentum pertinentia eram persecutus amplo satis commentario, quem edere hactenus supersedi.” _Hugonis Grotii Defensio Capitis quinti Maris liberi oppugnati a Gulielmo Welwodo Iuris Civilis professore capite XXVII. eius libri scripti Anglico sermone cui titulum fecit Compendium legum Maritimaram._ This manuscript of Grotius was discovered in 1864, along with the work _De Jure Prædæ_, to which he refers, in a collection of MSS. brought to auction, which belonged to the family of Cornets de Groot of Bergen-op-Zoom, who had descended in a direct line from the great publicist (Fruin, _op. cit._) It was printed by Muller in 1872 (_Mare Clausum_, p. 331). The greater work, edited by Hamaker, was published in 1868, _Hugo Grotius de Jure Prædæ Commentarius_.

[619] “Hujus generis est Aër, duplici ratione, tum quia occupari non potest, tum quia usum promiscuum hominibus debet. Et eisdem de causis commune est omnium Maris Elementum, infinitum scilicet ita, ut possideri non queat, et omnium usibus accommodatum: sive navigationem respicimus, sive etiam piscaturum.” Cap. v.

[620] Cap. v. “Similiter reditus qui in piscationes maritimas constituti Regalium numero censenter, non rem, hoc est mare, aut piscationem, sed personas non obligant. Quare subditi, in quos legem ferendi potestas Reipublicæ aut Principi ex consensu competit, ad onera ista compelli forte poterunt: sed exteris jus piscandi ubique immune esse debet, ne servitus imponatur mari quod servire non potest.... Quod in aliis difficile videtur, in hac omnino fieri non potest: quod in aliis iniquum judicamus, in hac summe barbarum est, atque inhumanum.... In tanto mari si quis usu promiscuo solum sibi imperium et ditionem exciperet, tamen immodicæ dominationis affectator haberetur: si quis piscatu arceret alios, insanæ cupiditatis notam non effugeret.”

[621] Not improbably James had _Mare Liberum_ in view in the following sentence in his Proclamation of 1609: “Finding that our connivance therein hath not only given occasion of over great encroachment upon our regalities, or rather questioning for our right.” That it was believed in England that Grotius had James in view is shown by the following _précis_ contained in the volume of official records prepared for the ambassadors to the Congress at Cologne in 1673: “K. James coming in, the Dutch put out _Mare Liberum_, made as if aimed at mortifying the Spaniards’ usurpation in the W. and E. Indyes, but indeed at England. K. James resents it, bids his Amb^r S^r D. Carleton complaine of it.” _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxxix. p. 99. Chas. II., 1673-75.

[622] Cap. v. p. 29. “In hoc autem Oceano non de sinu aut fretu, nec de omni quidem eo quod e littore conspici potest controversia est. Vindicant sibi Lusitani quicquid duos Orbes interjacet.”

[623] Cap. vii.

[624] Hvgonis Grotii De Ivre Belli ac Pacis, Libri Tres.

[625] Lib. ii. cap. ii. s. iii. 1, 2.

[626] Lib. ii. cap. iii. s. viii. “Ad hoc exemplum videtur et mare occupari potuisse ab eo qui terras ad latus utrumque possideat, etiamsi aut supra pateat ut sinus, aut supra et infra ut fretum, dummodo non ita magna sit pars maris ut non cum terris comparata portio earum videri possit. Et quod uni populo aut Regi licet, idem licere videtur et duobus aut tribus, si pariter mare intersitum occupare voluerint, nam sic flumina quæ duos populos interluunt ab utroque occupata sunt, ac deinde divisa.”

[627] Lib. ii. cap. iii. ss. ix.-xii.

[628] Lib. ii. cap. iii. s. xiii. 2. “Videtur autem imperium in maris portionem eadem ratione acquiri qua imperia alia, id est, ut supra diximus, ratione personarum et ratione territorii. Ratione personarum, ut si classis, qui maritimus est exercitus, aliquo in loco maris se habeat: ratione territorii, quatenus ex terra cogi possunt qui in proxima maris parte versantur, nec minus quam si in ipsa terra reperirentur.”

[629] Calvo, _Le Droit Internat._, i. 348; Ortolan, _Règles Internationales et Diplomatie de la Mer_, i. c. v. See p. 156 referring to a State Paper of 1610, which seems to be misdated “August 1609.”

[630] Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, vol. V. ii. p. 99. The treaty was signed on (30 March)/(9 April) 1609.

[631] _Defensio_, 332 (_circa_ 1614); Letter to his brother, 1st April 1617. _Epistolæ_, 759.

[632] _De Justo Imperio Lusitanorum Asiatico adversus Grotii Mare Liberum._

[633] _Ivlii Pacii De Dominio Maris Hadriatici Disceptatio_, Lvgdvni M.D.C.XIX. Other works were Angelus Mattheacius, _De Jure Venetorum et Jurisdictione Maris Adriatici_, Venezia, 1617; Cornelio Francipane, _Alegazion in Jure, per il Dominio, della Republica Veneta, del suo Golfo, contra alcune Scritture di Napolitani_, 1618; Franciscus de Ingenuis, _Epistola de Jurisdictione Venetæ Reipublicæ in Mare Adriaticum_, 1619; P. Zambono, _Del Dominio del Mare Adriatico overo Golfo di Venezia_, Venice, 1620.

[634] M’Crie, _Life of Andrew Melville_, 206, &c. Selden describes him as _Jurisconsultus Scotus_; and Prynne “A Scot, Professor of the Civil Law” (_Animadversions_, 113).

[635] There is a copy in the Library of the University, Cambridge (Aldis, _A List of Books printed in Scotland before 1700_; Dickson and Edmond, _Annals of Scottish Printing_, 415), and I have found a MS. copy among the State Papers, entitled “The Sea Law of Scotland, shortly gathered and plainly dressed for the ready use of all seafaring men. Dedicated to James VI. of Scotland by William Welvod. At Edinborough, A^o 1590, by Robert Walgrave.” (_State Papers, Dom._, Jas. I., ccviii. No. xvi.) It was printed at Edinburgh by Waldegrave in 1590. There are fifteen chapters dealing with the freighting of ships, the powers and duties of the master, the relations between the master and the merchants, &c. In his preface to the _Abridgement_, Welwood refers to this earlier work as follows: “It pleased your M. some yeeres past most graciously to accept of this birth, in the great weaknes and infancie thereof. Therefore it is, that now being strong, and by all warrants inarmed, it most thankefully returnes, offring seruice to your M. euen for all the coasts of your Highnes dominions, vpon hope to merit your former grace.” His last work is dated 1622. It is probable that, like so many of his countrymen, he followed King James to London, where all his later works were published. He was of an ingenious mind, and, while teaching mathematics at St Andrews, obtained a patent for a new mode of raising water from wells, &c., on the principle of the syphon. M’Crie, _op. cit._

[636] _An Abridgement of all Sea-Lawes, gathered forth of all Writings and Monuments, which are to be found among any people or Nation upon the coasts of the greate Ocean and Mediterranean Sea: And specially ordered and disposed for the use and benefit of all benevolent Sea-farers, within his Maiesties Dominions of Great Britanne, Ireland, and the adiacent Isles thereof._ London, 1613. Tit. xxvii. deals with the “community” of seas. He refers to the work of Grotius as “a verie learned, but a subtle Treatise (_incerto authore_) intituled _Mare Liberum_.” Welwood’s _Abridgement_ was republished in 1636, without alteration; also in the edition of 1686 of Malyne’s _Consuetudo vel Lex Mercatoria_, but without his name.

[637] _De Dominio Maris Ivribvsque ad Dominivm praecipve spectantibvs Assertio brevis et methodica._ Cosmopoli, 16th January 1615. It was republished at The Hague in 1653, and replied to by Graswinckel. See p. 412.

[638] In Roman law a distinction was made between the sea and rivers in regard to propriety. The sea is “_communis omnium naturali jure_,” but the rivers are “_publicæ res, quarum proprietas est populi vel reipublicæ_.”

[639] Welwood’s _De Dominio Maris_ is not mentioned by Grotius, whose tract appears to have been written before it was published.

[640] _Jus Feudale, Tribus Libris Comprehensum_, lib. i., Diegesis 13, p. 103. Edinburgh, 1603 and 1655. The treatise was dedicated to King James. Craig was born in 1538 and died in 1608.

[641] “Quod ad mare attinet, licet adhuc ita omnium commune sit, ut in eo navigari possit. Proprietas tamen ejus ad eos pertinere hodie creditur, ad quos proximus continens adeo ut mare Gallicum id dicatur quod littus Galliæ alluit, aut ei propius est, quam ulli alii continenti. Sic Anglicum, Scoticum, et Hybernicum, quod propius Angliæ, Scotiæ, et Hyberniæ est. Ita ut reges inter se, quasi maria omnia diviserint, et quasi ex mutua partitione alterius id mare censeatur, quod alteri propinquius et commodius est; in quo si delictum aliquod commisum fuerit, ejus sit, jurisdictio qui proximum continentem possideat. Isque suum illud mare vocat.... Piscationes vero quæ in proximo mari fiunt, proculdubio eorum sunt qui proximum continentem possident. Itaque non sine summa injuria nostra Belgæ circa nostras insulas piscantur. Nam licet piscationes in mari non prohibeantur, tamen et hæ præscribuntur, et traduntur permissæ aut prohibitæ secundum consuetudinem.”

[642] _The Maintenance of Free Trade_, p. 42 _et seq. Consuetudo vel Lex Mercatoria._ The latter contains chapters on Navigation and Community of Seas, and The Distinct Dominions of the Seas. Many editions were published.

[643] Wheaton, _Hist._, 51, 153; Phillimore, _Commentaries_, I. xxxix.

[644] _Alberici Gentilis Juriscons. Hispanicæ Advocationis_, Libri Duo, Hanoviæ, 1613. Gentilis was born in 1551 and died, like Craig, in 1608. His most important works were _De Jure Belli_ (1588) and _De Legationibus_. Professor Holland has given an account of his life and works in _An Inaugural Lecture on Albericus Gentilis_, delivered at All Souls College, 1874. See also Alessandro de Giorgi, _Della Vita e delle opere di Alberico Gentili_, Parma, 1876.

[645] In a letter from the Earl of Salisbury to Sir Thomas Lake in 1606, referring to a dispute between the Dutch and Spanish ambassadors about prizes taken in the Narrow Sea, it is said that the king, in putting in force his proclamation about the recall of subjects in foreign service (p. 119), dealt as follows: if a prize had been taken and brought into the English limits (chambers), and Englishmen were aboard the taker, he dealt with them as having offended against his proclamation, and also released the ship as not being good prize. Even more, proceeds the Earl, “although there be no English but all Flemings, the king takes all from them and restores it [the ship] wherein, tho’ in effect it undoes the end of the States warr by sea, because they have no way to come home but by the narrow seas, where the least wind that can blow them can hardly keepe themself from the English coasts, and so a partiall jugement of ½ a mile more or less in a wyde sea looseth or winneth their right.” _State Papers, Dom._, xviii. 22.

[646] In 1604, between King James and Philip III. and the Archdukes. Dumont _Corps Diplomatique_, V. ii. 34.

[647] “Etiam non nocet, quod objicitur et longe antehac longo usu servatos in hujusmodi quæstionibus hos esse fines qui expressi nunc sunt Edicto,” p. 30.

[648] Gryphiander, _De Insulis Tractatus_, Frankfort, 1623, cap. 14, s. 46.

[649] Moore, _A History of the Foreshore and the Law relating thereto_, 1888.

[650] “Arguments prooving the Queenes Ma^{ties} propertye in the Sea Landes, and salt shores thereof, and that no subiect cann lawfully hould eny parte thereof but by the Kinges especiall graunte.” It is printed by Moore (_op. cit._, 185) from _Lansdowne MSS._, No. 100. Various copies exist; one in _Lansd. MSS._, No. 105, belonged to Lord Burghley, and is endorsed by him “Mr Digges. The Case of Lands left by ye Seas.” A copy is in _State Papers, Dom._, cccxxxix. 1.

[651] It may be said that this claim to “royal fish,” made also by Bracton, was not peculiar to the English crown. It was made on the Continent from an early period, as is shown by the ancient laws of Jutland and of Scania, and the practice in many parts of France and among the Normans. It may have been introduced into England by William the Conqueror, who granted Dengey Marsh to Battle Abbey, with the right to wreck and royal fish.

[652] _The Reading of the famous and learned Robert Callis, Esqr., upon the Statute of Sewers_, 23 Hen. VIII., c. 5, as it was delivered by him at Gray’s Inn in August 1622. 4th ed., 1824.

[653] Such as “A Collection of divers particulars touching the King’s Dominion and Soveraignty in the Fishings, as well in Scotland as in the British Ocean,” by Captain John Mason. (_State Papers, Dom._, 1590. _Admiralty_, Eliz., Jac. I., Car. I., No. 37, fol. 131.) A superior compilation, dealing with the opinions of the Civilians, as well as with the Dutch and native fisheries, and founded largely on Dee, Hitchcock, Gentleman, and Keymer, is entitled “The King’s Interest in the Sea and the Commodities thereof” (_ibid._, ccv. 92). Another treatise, also dealing with the opinions of the Civilians, the jurisdiction of the Admiral, and the rights of the crown of England to the dominion of the narrow seas, is in _State Papers, Dom._, ccviii., No. x., fol. 402.

[654] The original Latin copy bearing the date 1633 (confirmed by internal evidence) is in the British Museum (_Harleian MSS._, 4314). It is entitled _Dominium Maris Britannici assertum ex Archiuis Historiis et Municipalibus Regni Legibus_, per D. Johannem de Burgo, 1633; it is dedicated to the king. Other MS. copies in the British Museum are _Harl._, 1323; _Lansdowne_, 806, f. 40; _Sloane_, 1696; and _Harl._, 4626, the latter being very imperfect. There is also a fine copy in English among the State Papers, dated 1637, with this addition to the title: “Also a Perticuler Relation concerning the Inastimable Riches and Commodities of the British Seas” (_State Papers, Dom._, ccclxxvi. 68). It was republished in the third edition of Malyne’s _Consuetudo vel Lex Mercatoria_, in 1686.

[655] _Mare Clausum_, in dedication to King Charles, “Divi parentis tui jussu tentata olim adumbrataque, inter schedas sive neglectas sive disjectas per annos amplius sedecim mecum latuit; ut imperfecta nimis sic etiam ceu intermortua.”

[656] _Vindiciæ Maris Clausi_, p. 25. This was the explanation which Selden gave when, in 1652, he was taunted by a Dutch writer, Graswinckel, with having written his work to get out of prison. It is surprising that James, who was loquacious and fond of displaying his knowledge, never lectured the Dutch ambassadors on the themes in _Mare Clausum_--as from the rolls of the Edwards; nor was any use made of its facts and arguments throughout the protracted negotiations in his reign.

[657] A Proclamation concerning a book intituled _Mare Clausum_, 15th April 1636. _Fœdera_, xx. 12.

[658] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxiii. 30; cclxxvi. 58.

[659] Gardiner, _Hist._, vii. 330. Poor Prynne, who lost both his ears on this occasion, and had his books burned under him in the pillory, became later an ardent defender of the king’s dominion in the seas in the reign of Charles II., when he held the office of Keeper of the Records.

[660] _State Papers, Dom._, cclxxvi. 58; cclxxxiii. 96-98.

[661] _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 17,677, O, fol. 367. Joachimi to the States-General, 5/15 Aug. 1635. “Het boeck Seldeni getituleert, soo ich hoore, _mare clausum_, is onder den druck deur ordre van den Coningh.”

[662] Joannis Seldeni Mare Clausum seu de Dominio Maris, Libri Duo. _Primo_, Mare, ex _Jure Naturæ seu Gentium_, omnium hominum non esse Commune, sed Dominii privata seu Proprietatis capax, pariter ac Tellurem, esse demonstratur. _Secundo_, Serenissimum Magnæ Britanniæ Regem Maris circumflui, ut individuæ atque perpetuæ Imperii Britannici appendicis, Dominum esse, asseritur. Pontus quoque Serviet Illi. Londini, excudebat Will. Stanesbeius, pro Richardo Meighen, MDCXXXV. The Preface is dated at the Temple, 4th November 1635.

[663] _Vindiciæ_, “proceres apud regem præpollentes.”

[664] Proclamation, 15th April 1636.

[665] Rushworth, _Historical Collections_, ii. 320. Frankland, _The Annals of King James and King Charles the First_, 476. In the Exchequer Order Book, under date 5th May, the following entry occurs: “Whereas S^r William Beecher, K^t, one of the clerks of his Ma^{ts} most honorable pryvy councill, did this daye deliver in Court to the Lord Treasurer, Chauncillor, and Barons of the Courte, a booke lately published by John Selden, Esqr., entituled _Mare Clausum seu de dominio maris_, to be kept in this Courte as a faithfull and stronge evidence for the undoubted right of the Crowne of England to the Dominion of the Bryttishe seas, which saide booke the said Clerke of the Councill did deliver according to an order in that behalfe made by the King’s most excellent Ma^{tie} and the Lords of His Highness privy councell at Whitehall, the third of Aprill last past, a coppie of which said order is alsoe delivered with the said booke: It is, therefore, nowe ordered by the said Lord Treasurer, Chauncillor, and Barons that the said booke bee receaved by his Ma^{ties} Remembrancer of this Courte, and by him kypt of record amonge the Records of the Courte as his Ma^{ties} evidence. And as well the said order of the third of Aprill before mentioned as this present order to bee inrolled upon Record.” _Charles I. Decrees and Orders_, Series iii., No. 19, fol. 3_b_.

[666] Besides the Romans and the Carthaginians, he mentions as among these the Cretans, Lydians, Thracians, Phœnicians, Egyptians, Lacedemonians, and a great many more; but in most cases the evidence adduced shows merely that naval power was exercised.

[667] Lib. i. cap. xvii.

[668] Lib. i. cap. xx. “Quod ad genus primum attinet (commerce, travelling, navigation); humanitatis quidem officia exigunt, ut hospitio excipiantur peregrini etiam ut innoxius non negetur transitus.”

[669] Lib. i. cap. xxii. “Sed vero ex aliorum piscatione, navigatione, commerciis ipsum mare deterius Domino cæterisque ejus jure gaudentibus fieri non raro videmus. Scilicet minui, quod alias inde percipi posset, commodum. Quod manifestius cernitur in marium usu, quorum fructus sunt uniones, corallium, id genus cætera. Etiam minuitur in horas marium hujusmodi abundantia, non aliter ac sive metalli fodinarum ac lapicidinarum, sive hortorum, quando fructus eorum auferuntur.... Et similis sane ratio qualiscunque piscationis.”

[670] Lib. ii. cap. xiii.

[671] (1) _Ioannis Seldeni Mare Clavsvm sev de Dominio Maris Libris Dvo. Quorum argumentum paginâ versâ._ Juxta exemplar Londinense. Will. Stanesbeii pro Richardo Meighen, CIƆ IƆc xxxvi. (12^o); (2) with the same title and the following addition: _Accedunt Marci Zverii Boxhornii Apologia pro navigationibus Hollandorum adversus Pontvm Hevtervm et Tractatvs Mvtvi commercii et navigationis inter Henricvm VII. Regem Angliæ et Philippvm Archidvcem Austriæ_. Londini, juxta exemplar Will. Stanesbeii pro Richardo Meighen, MDCxxxvi. (8^o); (3) with the title as in the original London edition, and Lvgdvni Batavorvm apud Joannem et Theodorvm Maire, 1636 (4^o). The original London edition was a small folio. In all the Dutch editions the plates are badly copied. No. 1 is sometimes referred to by English writers as the original edition. No. 2 is the one alluded to by Charles in his proclamation of 15th April 1636.

[672] _Resol. Holl._, 11/21 Dec. 1635. Quoted by Arendt, _Algemeene Geschiedenis des Vaderlands_, iii., stuck 5, p. 8.

[673] _Resol. Holl._, (31 March)/(10 April) 1636. Muller, _Mare Clausum_, 283.

[674] “Ego, cum Suecia,” he wrote to his brother on January 14, 1636, “multum teneat oræ maritimæ, quid aliud præstare possum quam silentium?” Grotii, _Epistolæ_, 864.

[675] Digby to Lord Conway, January 21/31, 1636. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxliv. 58.

[676] The treatise was entitled, _Th. Graswinckelii, Jurisc. Delph. Maris Liberi Vindiciæ adv. virum clarissimum Johannem Seldenum_. Arendt, _loc. cit._; Muller, _loc. cit._ Goffe, writing from Holland to Archbishop Laud on 2nd February 1637, stated that the book in answer to Selden’s _Mare Clausum_ was “ready to come forth, and the author is neither so modest nor discreet that the Elector should trust him with any written assurance in that kind,”--that Charles would not interrupt the Dutch fishery that year (_State Papers, Dom._, cccxlvi. 23). We shall again find Graswinckel in the thick of the controversy during the first Dutch war, p. 411.

[677] _Joh. Isacii Pontani Discvssionvm Historicarvm Libri Duo, quibus præcipuè quatenus et quodnam mare liberum vel non liberum clausumque accipiendum dispicitur expenditurque, &c._, Harderwick, 1637.

[678] _Jacobi Gothofredi De Imperio Maris_, in Hagemeier, _De Imperio Maris Variorum Dissertationes_.

[679] _Mare Balticum_ (anon.), 1638; _Ante-Mare Balticum, scilicet, an ad Reges Daniæ, an ad Reges Poloniæ, pertineat_ (anon.), 1639; Azuni, _Systema dei Principii del Diritto Maritimo_.

[680] The Case of Ship-Money briefly discussed, according to the Grounds of Law, Policy, and Conscience. Presented to the Parliament, November 3, 1640. Stubbe, _A Further Justification of the Present War against the United Netherlands_, 76.

[681] Gardiner, _Hist. Engl._, x. 208. Clarendon, iii. 113.

[682] Rushworth, _Collections_, v. 312.

[683] Penn, _Memorials of the Professional Life and Times of Sir William Penn, Knt., from 1640 to 1670_, i. 224.

[684] _State Papers, Dom._, dxv. i. 37, 38, 39. There is also in one of the collections a quotation from Selden’s _Mare Clausum_, that it was treason not to acknowledge the King of England’s dominion in his own seas by striking sails.

[685] Instructions given by the Committee of Lords and Commons for the Admiralty and Cinque Ports, to be observed by all captains, officers, and common men respectively in this fleet, provided to the glory of God, the honour and service of the Parliament, and the safety of the three Kingdoms, March 30, 1647. _Ibid._, dxv. 40.

[686] Rushworth’s _Collections_; Penn, _op. cit._, i. 242.

[687] Loccenius, _De Jure Maritimo_, x. s. 10.

[688] _State Papers, Dom._, 27th Feb. 1649.

[689] 17th January 1650. _A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe_, i. 134.

[690] Penn, _Memorials_, i. 365, 379.

[691] Geddes, _History of the Administration of John de Witt_, i. 102, 106, 150-157. Gardiner, _History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate_, i. 353, 356.

[692] Geddes, _op. cit._, 157, 159, 165. Gardiner, _op. cit._, 359. _The Nicholas Papers_, i. 230.

[693] “Wee doe tender the ffriendshipp of the Com̃onwealth of England unto the High and Mighty Lords the States Generall of the Vnited Provinces, and doe propound that the Amitye, and good Correspondency which hath aunciently beene betweene the English Nation and the Vnited Provinces, be not only renewed, and preserved inviolably, But that a more strict, and intimate Allyance, and Vnion, be entred into by them, whereby there may be a more intrinsicall, and mutuall interest of each in other then hath hitherto beene for the good of both.” Submitted 25 March/6 April. “A briefe Narrative of the Treatie at the Hague betweene the hono^{ble} Oliver St John, Lord Chiefe Justice of the Court of Com̃on Pleas, and Walter Strickland, Esq., Embassado^{rs} extraordinary of the Parliament of the Com̃onwealth of England, to the great Assembly of the States Generall of the Vnited Provinces begun upon the 20th of March 1651 and continued vntill the 20th of June 1651 and then broke of _re infectâ_.” _State Papers, Foreign, Treaty Papers (Holland)_, No. 46, 1651.

[694] “We propound, That the two Com̄onwealths may be confederated friends, ioyned, and allyed togeather for the defence and Preservation of the Libertyes, and ffredomes of the people of each, against all whomsoever that shall attempt the disturbance of either State, by Sea or Land, or be declared enemyes to the freedome and Libertie of the people liveing under either of the said Governments.” Submitted, 17th April. _Ibid._, p. 7.

[695] _Narrative of the Ambassadors_ (ibid.) Geddes, _op. cit._, 157, 159, 165, 171. Gardiner, _op. cit._, 359, 362, 363. Tideman, _De Zee Betwist: Geschiedenis der Onderhandelingen over de Zeeheerschappij tusschen de Engelsche Republiek en de Vereenigde Provinciën vóór den ersten Zee-Oorlog_, 39-47. Thurloe’s _Collections_, i. 176, 179, 181-186, 188, 193. Aitzema, _Saken van Staet en Oorlogh_, 657-660.

[696] See Appendix K. _Narrative of the Ambassadors_, p. 23. Aitzema, _op. cit._, iii. 698-700. MS. of Duke of Portland in _Hist. MSS. Com. Thirteenth Report, App. I._, 605. Tideman, _op. cit._, 47, 48, 49. Geddes _op. cit._ 178.

[697] Articles 17-33, _Narrative of the Ambassadors_. These articles are given in Appendix K. Tideman, _op. cit._, 50. Aitzema, _op. cit._, iii. 695.

[698] “Over het strijken van vlaggen ende andere Ceremonieën daeruyt meenichmael differentien in zee coomen te ontstaen.” _Resol. der Groote Vergadering_, 15/25 May 1651. Tideman, _op. cit._, 52.

[699] St John and Strickland left The Hague on 20th June, and the Act was recommended to the Parliament by the Council of State on 5th August, and passed on 9th October (Gardiner, _op. cit._, ii. 82). The essence of the Act was to prohibit the importation of extra-European commodities into any territory of the Commonwealth except in English vessels, or from Europe unless in English vessels or vessels belonging to the country in which the commodities were manufactured or produced. The importation of salt-fish or fish-oil, and the exportation of salted fish, were to be permitted only in English vessels, but the importation of fresh fish was not forbidden. Early in the next year two Dutch doggers, driven into Yarmouth by contrary winds, exposed their cod and haddocks for sale and were seized by the bailiffs; their release was ordered by the Council of State.

[700] Geddes, _op. cit._, 192, 193. Tideman, _op. cit._, 89, 96. Gardiner, _op. cit._, ii. 108. Gardiner, _Letters and Papers relating to the First Dutch War, 1653-1654_, Navy Records Society. In the third volume (1906) of this valuable work the papers are brought down to 10th February 1653.

[701] Tideman, _op. cit._, 96. Aitzema, _op. cit._, iii. 696.

[702] They were Whitelocke, John Lisle, Bond, Scott, Viscount Lisle, and Purefoy.

[703] Cats’ _Verbael_. Tideman, 94-108. Geddes, 198.

[704] The conferences on the articles were on 3rd, 5th, 6th, 10th, and 13th May. The incorporation and union of Scotland with England was proclaimed at Edinburgh on the 21st of the preceding month.

[705] Cats’ _Verbael_, _App._, 21. Tideman, _op. cit._, 117.

[706] “De dispuyte over ’t recht hetwelck de Engelsche pretenderen privative over eenigh ghedeelte van de Zee te hebben, ende in allen ghevalle aan deselve geen soodanigh recht in eenigher wijse toe te staen, ende alleen te handelen over de vryheijdt ende seeckerheijdt van wederzijts visscherije.” Tideman, _op. cit._, 119. Aitzema, _op. cit._, iii. 708.

[707] Cats’ _Verbael_. Tideman, 118.

[708] Aitzema, iii. 713. Tideman, 124, 130, 132. The draft instructions were dated (April 30)/(May 10), and were approved on May 6/16. A translation of the 7th Article is as follows :“The superior officers and captains either already in command of the aforesaid squadrons or hereafter appointed, are to be charged to free the ships of this country from all search by any one whatever, and to defend them against all who try to do them injury, and to release them to the uttermost of their power from every one who may have captured them, and further to do whatever their ordinary instructions in their commission requires in a sailor-like fashion for the service of the country.” By the 5th Article, fifteen men-of-war were to be sent for the protection of the “great” (herring) fishery, “which is of so great importance to the State,” along with the ordinary national convoy-ships, and the ships which the towns of Enkhuizen, Delft, Rotterdam, and Schiedam were accustomed to add. Gardiner, _Letters and Papers_, i. 155.

[709] Tromp’s memorandum was dated (28 Feb.)/(9 March), 1651. The original is apparently lost (Tideman, _De Zee Betwist_, 68); but an account of it is given by his contemporary, Aitzema (iii. 731), and is printed in Appendix L. Tromp, in his _Rescript_ of 14/24 October 1652, justifying and explaining his conduct with regard to the meeting with Blake, refers to a memorandum on the subject of the flag which he presented to a committee of the States on “Jan. 6/16, 1650/1651,” and which they considered in arranging his instructions of “(Feb. 21)/(March 3), 1650/1651” (Gardiner, _Letters and Papers_, i. 422). The dates here are those given by Tideman.

[710] “Sonderlinge de swackste sijnde.”

[711] Tideman, _op. cit._, 68. _Resol. Holl._, 1/11 March 1651.

[712] _Hollantsche Mercurius_, April 1651, p. 49: “Seer jalours, omdat hij niet terstond gereedt was voor haar te strijcken.”

[713] _Resol. St. Gen._, 7/17, 12/22 Oct. 1651. Aitzema, iii. 731. Tideman, 68, 92.

[714] _Add. MSS. Brit. Mus._, 11,684, fol. 30.

[715] Bourne’s letter in _The Answer of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England to three Papers delivered to the Council of State by the Lords Ambassadors Extraordinary of the States-General of the United Provinces_: and also a _Narrative of the Late Engagement_, &c., _Brit. Mus._, (517, k, 15)/(36), p. 12.

[716] Letter to States-General, May 30. _Hollantsche Mercurius_, May 1652. _The Answer of the Parliament._ Geddes, 209. Tideman, 130.

[717] Blake’s letter, _The Answer of the Parliament_, p. 8.

[718] Tideman, 128, 129. Geddes, 210, 211.

[719] Young’s despatch, 14th May 1652, in _The Answer of the Parliament_, p. 20. Penn’s _Memorials_, i. 419. Tideman, 197. Gardiner, _Letters and Papers relating to the First Dutch War_, i. 178. _The French Occurrences_, &c., _Brit. Mus._, E, 665, 6. It may be noted that Tromp, in his _Rescript_ to the States-General (see note, p. 398), mentioned that Huyrluyt and van der Saen had received instructions to strike only to royal squadrons.

[720] In the Dutch writings the place was described as “Fairle,” “Fayrleigh,” “Virly,” “Vierly,” &c. Its position is shown, as Fairlee, in the reproduction of the chart from Selden in this book (Fig. 3, p. 121).

[721] _The Answer of the Parliament._ Gibson, Collections of Naval Affairs, _Add. MSS._, 11,684, fol. 5_b_. Geddes, _op. cit._, 212. Gardiner, _op. cit._, ii. 118; _Letters and Papers_, i. 172. Tideman, _op. cit._, 135. The Dutch accounts, which vary in certain particulars from the English and from one another, are unanimous in saying that the first broadside came from Blake’s ship, the _James_, which would have been according to custom, since Tromp did not lower his flag after the third shot.

[722] See his memorandum, p. 398. Tromp wrote to Blake from Calais four days afterwards ((23 May)/(2 June)), saying he had intended to salute him, and asking for the restoration of a ship taken. In reply Blake accused him of having sought out the English fleet, and “instead of performing those usual respects which of right belong unto them, and which yourself have often done,” had attacked him. In _The Answer of the Parliament_, p. 11, it is said that one of the Dutch captains who had been taken prisoner stated that when he struck to some English men-of-war at Calais a few weeks before, Tromp asked him “why he did strike sail to them,” saying, “Were you not as strong as they? And being so, why were you afraid?” As the above-mentioned letter from Tromp to Blake is given by Gardiner (_Letters and Papers_, i. 216) only as “translated from a Dutch translation of the French original,” an authenticated copy of the French original is given in Appendix M, from Tideman (_De Zee Betwist_, App. C, p. 202). It is from the archives at The Hague (_Lias Engeland_, 1652 (_Copie_), and is endorsed by Job. Corñ. Rhees, and again by N. Ruysch, as identical with the authentic copy. The original of Blake’s reply is also given. It is printed by Gardiner as “retranslated from the Dutch translation” (_ibid._, i. 257), and differs in some points from the original.

[723] _The Answer of the Parliament_, p. 4.

[724] _Resol. St.-Gen._, (25 May)/(4 June), 3/13 June 1652. Tideman, _De Zee Betwist_, 164. Articulen van Vreede ende Confederatie, &c. _Brit. Mus._, 8122, ee. 12--“Dat hij aengaeñ het voeren ofte strijcken van vlagge in de Rencontre mette Engelsche Vlooten of Schepen hem bij provisie respectivelijck sal hebben te gedragen en te reguleren in sulcker voegen als bij tijden van voorgaende Coningen van Groot-Britaignen is gedaan ende gepractiseert geweest.”

[725] Tideman, 171.

[726] _State Papers, Dom._, xxiv. 15.

[727] Cats, Schaep, and van de Perre to the States-General, 27th June 1652. _Add. MSS._, 17,677, U, fol. 162. Pauw was officially informed by the Council of State that the fleet had put to sea “to execute its designs.” Geddes, _op. cit._, 223. Gardiner, _Letters and Papers_, i. 301. The number of Blake’s fleet was variously stated as 60, 64, 66, 68, 72 vessels: 60 were counted passing Dunbar.

[728] Letter from Leyden, 4/14 August 1652. _Mercurius Politicus_, _Brit. Mus._, E, 673, 1. The accounts vary somewhat. _Severall Proceedings in Parliament_, _Brit. Mus._, E, 796, 11. _A Perfect Diurnall_, E, 796, 14. _French Occurrences_, E, 669, 6. _Onstelde-Zee_, p. 34, (8122, ee. 6)/(11). _Hollantsche Mercurius_, 1652, p. 70. Gibson in his narrative (_supra_) says he was on board one of the ships (the _Assurance_) that attacked the busses, and that they found them “northwards of the Dogger Bank”; but there is no doubt that the locality was far north of the Dogger, off Buchan Ness, _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._ 11,684.

[729] _Memoirs of Edward Ludlow_, 420.

[730] _Proc. Council of State_, 20th July 1652.

[731] _Resol. Holl._, 1652, pp. 343, 364, 387. _Hollantsche Mercurius_, 1652, p. 86. Beaujon, _Hist. Dutch Fisheries_, 363. _Groot Placaet-Boeck_, ii. 506. Aitzema, _Saken van Staet_, iii. 810. Penn’s _Memorials_, i. 526, 527. _State Papers, Dom._, xxv. 25; xxxii. 15; xxxvi. 15, 29, 55; xxxviii. 116; xxxix. 73; xli.

[732] The Declaration and Speech of the Lord Admiral Vantrump, and his setting up a great Standard of Broom for the States of Holland, for the Cleering of the Narrow Seas of all Englishmen: New Broom sweepes clean, p. 4. _Brit. Mus._, E, 689, 13. A Perfect Account of the Daily Intelligencer, _Brit. Mus._, E, 689, 14. Gardiner, _Hist. of Commonwealth_, ii. 151. Geddes, _op. cit._, 270, 319.

[733] _Journals of the House of Commons_, vii. 145.

[734] _State Papers, Dom._, _Interregnum_, xxix. 42-47.

[735] This collection is in a treatise in the British Museum (_Harleian MSS._, 4314), entitled “The Sovereignty of the English seas vindicated and proved by some few Records (amongst many others of that kynd) remayning in the Tower of London,” Collected by William Ryley, senior. Among the State Papers (_Dom._, xxxv. 35) is a copy of the ordinance of John, in Latin, French, and English, endorsed by Bradshaw, “A transcript of a record in the time of King John touching the striking of sail; brought in by Mr Ryley, Keeper of the Records in the Tower, by order of the Council of State.” It contains the following note by Ryley, referring, presumably, to the _Black Book of the Admiralty_: “The French is in a very ancient and fair MS. book amongst the rest of the maritime laws, and undoubtedly was a record of the Admiralty Court, then in the possession of the registrar of that Court, the names of the Lord Admiral and registrar being written at the beginning of the book, which is now remaining with Mr Selden, and is of no less authority than antiquity.”

[736] _State Papers, Dom._, _Interregnum_, xxix. 48.

[737] Masson, _Life of Milton_, iv. 149, 226.

[738] _Of the Dominion or Ownership of the Sea, written at first in Latin and entituled_ Mare Clausum seu De Dominio Maris _by John Selden, Esqr: translated into English and set forth with some Additional Evidences and Discourses_ by Marchamont Needham. Published by special Command, London, 1652. Another edition, by “J. H. Gent,” was published in 1663, “perfected and restored.” It is, however, so far as Selden’s text is concerned, merely Needham’s translation, careful inspection showing that it was printed from the same type.

[739] _State Papers, Dom._, _Interregnum_, xxxiv. 31-49; vol. 33, No. 14. The copy belonging to Cromwell, and bearing his autograph, was sold in 1908.

[740] In some dedicatory verses Neptune thus addresses the Great Commonwealth of England:--

“Go on (great State!) and make it known Thou never wilt forsake thine own, Nor from thy purpose start: But that thou wilt thy power dilate, Since Narrow Seas are found too straight For thy capacious heart. So shall thy rule, and mine, have large extent: Yet not so large, as just, and permanent.”

The work appeared when Tromp was lord of the narrow seas; the preface is dated 19th November, the day before Blake’s defeat.

[741] _De Dominio Serenissimæ Genvensis Reipublicæ in Mari Ligustico._ Rome, 1641.

[742] _Maris Liberi vindiciæ adversus Petrum, Baptistam Burgum Ligustici Maritimi Dominii Assertorem._ Hagæ Comitum, 1652.

[743] Cap. vi. p. 118. See _supra_, p. 367.

[744] _Joannis Seldeni vindiciæ secundum integritatem existimationis suæ, per convitium de Scriptione Maris Clausi, petulantissimum mendacissimumque insolentius læsæ in Vindiciis Maris Liberi adversus Petrum Baptistam Burgum, Ligustici Maritimi Dominii assertorem. Hagæ Comitum jam nunc emissis._ London, 1653.

[745] _Maris Liberi Vindiciæ adversus Gulielmum Welwodum Britannici Maritimi Dominii assertorem._ Hagæ Comitum, 1653. Other works were Mord. von der Reck, _Disputatio juridica de Piscatione_, 1652; Martin Schook, _Imperium Maritimum_, Amsterdam, 1653; Stephen S. Burman, _Mare Belli Anglicani injustissimè Belgis illata_, Helena, 1652. The latter contains a pretty full account of the old “Burgundy” treaties, and of others concluded by England with various countries in the seventeenth century, in which, as the author points out, no claim was made to the sovereignty of the seas.

[746] For example, Robinson, _Briefe Considerations concerning the Advancement of Trade and Navigation_, 1649.

[747] Stubbe, _A Further Justification_, 91.

[748] Geddes, i. 282, 289, 292. Gardiner, ii. 128, 183, 329. Aitzema, iii. 804.

[749] Geddes, i. 315. Gardiner, ii. 340. _Verbael gehouden door de Heeren H. van Beverningk, W. Nieuport, J. van de Perre, en A. P. Jongestal, als Gedeputeerden en Extraordinaris Ambassadeurs van de Heeren Staeten Generael der Vereenigde Nederlanden, aen de Republyck van Engelandt_, i. 7, 12.

[750] Clarendon, _The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars_, vi. 607. Gardiner, _op. cit._, ii. 111.

[751] _Verbael of the Ambassadors_, 10, 21, 35.

[752] _Ibid._, 84. Thurloe’s _State Papers_, i. 394.

[753] 21st July 1653. _Verbael_, 53.

[754] 25th July, _Verbael_, 56, 59, 62. Geddes, i. 341. Thurloe, i. 382.

[755] The Deputies to the Council, (27 July)/(6 August); reply of the Council, 1/11 August. _Verbael_, 64, 66, 70.

[756] _Verbael_, 75, 142, 143, 150. Thurloe, i. 370, 417, 418. Geddes, i. 362. Gardiner, ii. 350,

[757] _Verbael_, 155. “7. Dat alle schepen onder het ressort van haer Ho. Mog. t’ huys behoorende, in alle rencontres in de Zee, aen Oorloghschepen van de Republyck van Engelandt sullen draegen het selvige respect, ende deselve eere doen, als sy ooit voor desen syn gewoon geweest te doen.”

[758] Stubbe, _A Further Justification_, 92. Stubbe says he had an account of part of the proceedings from one of the English commissioners; he had also the use of official manuscripts.

[759] _Verbael_, 189. “Syn Excellencie ... gesyt ... dat sy daerom voor af meenden, dat moeste vaststellen haer Reght ende Dominie in de naeuwe Zee, ende het stuck van haere Visscherye, ende ... eyndelyck besluytende dat die pointen van de Zee ende Visscherye geadjusteert synde, het vordere werck seer souden faciliteren.”

[760] _Verbael_, 189, 190, 196, 198, 214.

[761] Art. xviii. _Verbael_, 203.

[762] Stubbe, _A Further Justification_, 62.

[763] Art. xv.

[764] Gardiner, _Letters and Papers_, i. 49, 170.

[765] Art. xvi. _Verbael_, 203.

[766] Art. xiv. “That the inhabitants and subjects of the United Provinces may, with their ships and vessels, furnished as merchantmen, freely use their navigation, sail, pass and repass in the seas of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Isles within the same, (commonly called the British Seas) without any wrong or injury to be offered to them, by the ships or people of this Commonwealth, but on the contrary shall be treated with all love and friendly offices; And may likewise with their men of war not exceeding such a number as shall be agreed upon in this treaty, sail, pass and repass through the said seas, to and from the countries and parts beyond them: but in case the States-General shall have occasion to pass the said seas with a greater number of ships of war, they shall give three months before notice of their intentions to the said Commonwealth, and obtain their consent for the passing of such fleet, before they put them forth upon these seas, for preventing all jealousies and misunderstandings between the States by means thereof.” _Verbael_, 202.

[767] Sir H. Vane, who was the chief director of the war, is reported to have said that the interests of the two countries “were as irreconcilable as those of rivals, trade being to both nations what a mistress is unto lovers; that there never could intervene any durable peace, except both nations did unite by coalition, or the English subjugate the others and reduce them into a province, or by strict conditions and contrivances ensure themselves against the growth and future puissance of the Dutch.” Stubbe, _op. cit._, 119.

[768] The Ambassadors to the States-General, 18/28 November. _Verbael_, 215. Geddes, i. 372.

[769] _Verbael_, 216, 219.

[770] _Verbael_, 229, 230, 236.

[771] See pp. 78-81.

[772] Art. xviii. “Antiqui intercursus et commercii tractatus, provisionaliter pristinam vim et auctoritatem obtineant.”

[773] Beukelsz, who invented the modern method of pickling herrings, is said by some to have died in 1347, by others in 1397, and by a few in 1401. Stubbe says the deputies assigned the year 1414 to the discovery, but no year is mentioned in their report.

[774] _Verbael_, 237, 238, 240-243. Stubbe, _op. cit._, 64.

[775] The statement referred to the licenses for fishing on the Zowe. See p. 65.

[776] Whitelock to Thurloe, 10th March 1654. Thurloe’s _Collection_, ii. 158.

[777] Council of State Order Book, 6th Aug. 1653. _State Papers, Dom., Interregnum._

[778] Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, VI. ii. 125. “X. Subditis Serenissimi Regis Sueciæ liberum erit, per Maria atque Littora, quæ in Ditione hujus Reipublicæ sunt, piscari, atque Haleces, aliosque Pisces capere; dummodo mille Navium numerum piscantes non excedant. Neque inter piscantes ullum iis impedimentum, aut, molestia asseratur Neque à Navibus præsidiariis hujus Reipublicæ, neque ab iis quibus Diplomate permissum est, res suas privatim suo marte repetere, nec a piscantibus in Boreali plagâ Britanniæ, piscationis nomine onera aliqua exigantur, immo omnes humaniter atque amice tractentur, usque retia in Littore siccare, quemque opus est commeatum ab eorum Locorum Incolis, justo pretio comparare sibi licebit.”

[779] Stubbe, _op. cit._, 68. Robinson, _England’s Safety in Trades Encrease_, 1641. Ibid., _Considerations Concerning the Advancement of Trade and Navigation_, 1649.

[780] The Deputies to the States-General, 7/17 December 1653. _Verbael_, 246.

[781] It may be noted that Philip Meadows now became Latin Secretary to the Council in place of Milton. He was afterwards an extremely able opponent of the English claims to the sovereignty of the sea, and wrote the best book against them. See p. 524.

[782] _Verbael_, 260, 261. MS. Commentary, Stubbe, _op. cit._, 60.

[783] “Ende dat sy alleenlyck spraecken van de naeuwe Zee.”

[784] _Verbael_, 231.

[785] _Verbael_, 272.

[786] Stubbe, _op. cit._ Geddes has shown that Beverning, acting secretly with De Witt, had clandestine communications with Cromwell as early as 8th December, clearly with reference to the exclusion of the Prince of Orange. _Op. cit._, i. 385.

[787] _Verbael_, 273.

[788] Ad. 15. ut ad angustum mare (quod Britannicum vocant) ibique ad certas regulas cum distinctione locorum et littorum ita restringatur, ut idem ille honor eademque dignitas, quæ vexilli supremi et veli dimissione unquam delati aut observati fuerunt, in posterum adhuc deferantur, et observentur. _Verbael_, 275.

[789] “Ende met eenen voortgaende tot het 15 Artikel raekende het stryken van de Vlagge, &c., syn wederom gerepeteert alle de argumenten ende redenen, die in voorige Conferentien syn geallegeert geweest, ende wierdt ten uytersten by den Heer Generael daer in gepersisteert, alleenlyck, dat hy die explicatie byvoeghde op haere laetste antwoorde, daer sonder eenige distinctie van de rencontres in zee gesprooken wordt, dat sy dat verstonden van de naeuwe Zeën die de Britannische Zeën genoemt worden.” _Verbael_, 278, 27 December 1653/4 January 1654.

[790] _Secrete Resol. St. Generael_, 9/19 Feb. 1654. _Verbael_, 300.

[791] “Met seer scherpe woorden, ende hatelycke illatien tegensprack.” _Ibid._, 307.

[792] _Ibid._, 320. “Angustum mare, quod vulgo Britannicum mare appellatur.”

[793] “Tot de naeuwe Zee expresselyck gerestringeert.” _Ibid._, 288.

[794] _Verbael_, 283, 285, 289.

[795] Geddes, _op. cit._, i. 380.

[796] _Ibid._, 290, 293, 311, 319. Geddes, i. 378-393. Gardiner, _op. cit._, ii. 368, 369.

[797] “Gelyk sy in ’t 14 van de 27 Artikelen haere Brittannische Zën selver gedefinieert hadden.” _Verbael_, 396.

[798] “Daer op syne Hoogheyt in colere seyde, dat sonder de versoghte elucidatie ende interpretatie, hy de Ratificatie niet konde uytwisselen.” _Ibid._, 397.

[799] Next day Cromwell entertained the Dutch ambassadors and their wives to a sumptuous banquet, and after dinner he passed them a paper with the remark, “We have hitherto exchanged many papers, but in my opinion this is the best.” It was the first verse of Psalm cxxxiii., which they all then sang together solemnly--

“Behold, how good a thing it is, And how becoming well, Together such as brethren are In unity to dwell.”

_Verbael_, 419. Aitzema, iii. 927. Geddes, i. 422.

[800] Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, VI. ii. 75. _Verbael of the Ambassadors_, 356.

[801] XIII. Item, quod naves et navigia dictarum Fœderatarum Provinciarum, tam bellica et ad hostium vim propulsandam instructa, quam alia, quæ alicui e navibus bellicis hujus Reipublicæ in maribus Britannicis obviam dederint, vexillum suum e mali vertice detrahent, et supremum velum demittent, eo modo, quo ullis retro temporibus, sub quocunque anteriori regimine, unquam observatam fuit.

[802] Lawson, from the _Fairfax_, at Aberdeen, to the Admiralty Committee, 13th May 1654. Same to Blackburn, 13th May. _State Papers, Dom._, lxxi. 78, 79.

[803] Cockraine to the Admiralty Committee, 11th Aug. 1654. _Ibid._, lxxiv. 39.

[804] Heaton to the Admiralty Committee, 15th Aug. 1654. _State Papers, Dom._, lxxiv. 61, 62.

[805] The Skagerreef or Scaw, the north point of Jutland, Denmark. The ships were going to the north in connection with the war between Denmark and Sweden.

[806] Richard Cromwell, the Protector, to General Montague, 18th March 1659. Thurloe’s _Collections_, vii. 633.

[807] The Information of William Gunnell, and others, of Great Yarmouth, 25th September 1654. _Verbael of the Ambassadors_, 600, 601.

[808] _Ibid._, 612, 614, 646, 689, 711. From the sworn depositions made before the Burgomasters of Enkhuisen, it appears that that town had at least 246 busses at the Yarmouth fishing in 1654.

[809] _Brit. Mus. MSS. Stowe_, 152, fol. 135.

[810] Proc. Council of State, 9th June 1654. Vice-Admiral Lawson, in transmitting to the Admiralty the request from the Governor of Calais, said it had been the practice for the French and Spanish men-of-war to suffer the fishermen of each nation to fish freely, although the war between these Powers had lasted so long. _State Papers, Dom._, xcviii. 13.

[811] Bills to repeal it were introduced into the Commons in 1656, 1657, and 1658. _Commons’ Journals_, vii. 451, &c.

[812] _An Act for the Encouraging and Increasing of Shipping and Navigation_, 12 Car. II., c. 18, cl. v. 1660.

[813] _An Act for the Encouragement of Trade_, 15 Car. II., c. 7, ss. xiii., xiv. 1663.

[814] _An Act against importing Cattle from Ireland and other parts beyond the Seas, and Fish taken by Foreigners_, 18 & 19 Car. II., c. 2, s. ii. Any ling, herring, cod, pilchard, fresh or salted, dried or bloated, or any salmon, eels, or conger, taken by aliens and brought into the realm, were liable to be seized by any person for his own benefit and the benefit of the poor of the parish. The prohibition to import stockfish and live eels was withdrawn by 32 Car. II., c. 2, 1680.

[815] “To the High and Mighty Monarch Charles ye Second, &c., the humble petition of Simon Smith, late agent for the Royall Fishing,” MS. prefixed in a copy of _The Herring-Bvsse Trade_, and _A True Narration of the Royall Fishings of Great Brittaine and Ireland_, bound together in vellum, elaborately ornamented in gold, and bearing the royal arms and the letters C. R. on both sides.

[816] Sir Edward Nicholas to the Lord Mayor, 23rd July 1660. _Remembrancia_, p. 143. There is an undated copy among the State Papers (_Domestic_) erroneously calendared under September 1662 (vol. lix. 6: compare vol. xli. 19, under date September 1661). The original is in the Guildhall. Simon Smith was employed in the preliminary work connected with the Society, and in 1662 rendered an account of his disbursements, amounting to £456, including £150 “for setting the poor to work so as to breed up teachers for making nets, &c.” _State Papers, Dom._, liv. 77.

[817] _Commons’ Journals_, viii. 179. _State Papers, Dom._, Charles II., xxi. 27.

[818] _Commons’ Journals_, viii. 203, 215, 222, 228. _Lords’ Journals_, xi. 228_b_. According to the Dutch ambassador, the Bill was not passed without much debate and opposition (De Witt’s _Brieven_, iv. 68), no doubt principally owing to the provisions concerning fish-days. An amendment was carried limiting Wednesday to be a fish-day in all inns, taverns, and victualling houses.

[819] _Lords’ Journals_, xi. 239. De Witt’s _Brieven_, iv. 66. The preamble was of the usual kind: that the honour and greatness of the king and the power and wealth of the kingdom depended upon shipping and commerce, the fisheries being one of the greatest means thereto; and it proceeded to say that the kingdom was specially suited for fishery by reason of the number of harbours, and the sea from which foreign nations took such great wealth, set their people on work, and made their towns populous and prosperous. The foreigners were not content with a temperate and moderate exercise of the liberty of fishing on our coasts, which was permitted to them by favour of the king, but fished with illegal instruments which served to destroy the brood of fish in some places, causing the greatest poverty; and in other places they came with whole fleets among the nets and boats of subjects, to the great damage and hindrance of their lawful business. The king was therefore most humbly beseeched to establish completely and vigorously and maintain the rights of his crown over the seas, and to give such orders and instructions to the admirals and commanders at sea as might be necessary to this effect. The first clause prohibited trawling, whether by subjects or foreigners, within eight miles of the coast of Sussex and the coast to the westwards, and other clauses prohibited the use of set-nets or other nets with small meshes on the coast “or within half seas over,” or the use of seines by foreigners within ten miles of any part of the coast to the hindering of subjects in their fishing. Offenders were to be brought in as prize. These provisions were in part aimed against the French.

[820] _Act for the Fishings and Erecting of Companies for promoting the same_, 12th June 1661. _Acta Parl. Scot._, vii. 259.

[821] _Records Convent. Roy. Burghs_, iii. 523, 15th September 1660. The commissioners, taking into consideration how advantageous it would be to the increase of trade and the common weal of the whole burghs and kingdom “that the fisching tread be erected within the samyn, and wnderstanding by thair registeris and wther paperis in thair clarkis handis that the said tread hes bein endevoured in former tymes but not takin full effect,” instructed that the records be searched, and the matter represented to Parliament.

[822] _Rec. Conv. Roy. Burghs_, iii. 626. _Acta Parl. Scot._, vii. 64, 103, 195, &c. _Ibid._, William and Mary, c. 103.

[823] _State Papers, Dom._, xli. 20.

[824] ΙΧΘΨΟΘΗΡΑ, _or the Royal Trade of Fishing, Discovering the inestimable Profit the Hollanders have made thereof, with the vast Emoluments and Advantages that will redound to his Sacred Majesty and his three Kingdoms by the Improvement of it. Now seasonably published by Command for the Benefit of the Nation._ London, 1662.

[825] _State Papers, Dom._, 1663, lxxiii. 56; lxxxvi. 104, 105, 106; xci. 53; ciii. 130; cix. 2. “But Lord!” says Pepys, “to see how superficially things are done in the business of the Lottery, which will be the disgrace of the Fishery, and without profit.” _Diary_, iv. 369 (ed. 1893).

[826] _Commons’ Journals_, viii. 378, 383. 14 Car. II., c. 28.

[827] Lord Southampton to the Masters of the Trinity House, 31st July 1662. The Masters to the Lord Treasurer, 23rd August. The Lord Treasurer to the king, 2nd Sept. _State Papers, Dom._, lix. 7; _Entry Book_, vii. 258. Pepys’ _Diary_, ii. 403, 404.

[828] _Commons’ Journals_, viii. 497, &c. _Lords’ Journals_, xi. 555, &c. 15 Car. II., c. 16. All herrings, white or red, were to be “justly and truly packed, and of one time of taking, salting, saving, or drying, and equally well packed in the midst and every part of the barrel.” This was to be done by a sworn packer, and the barrel branded after the Dutch method.

[829] John Collins, _Salt and Fishery_, 2. 1682.

[830] _State Papers, Dom._, ciii. 130.

[831] _Diary_, vol. iv. 177, 192, 233, 263, &c.

[832] The ambassadors were Van Beverwaert (Louis of Nassau), Simon van Hoorn, the burgomaster of Amsterdam, Michael van Gogh, and Joachim Ripperda. Pontalis, _John de Witt_, i. 263. _Brieven, geschreven ende gewisselt tusschen de Heer Johan de Witt, Raedt-Pensionaris en Groot-Segelbewaerder van Hollandt en West-Vrieslandt, ende de Gevolmaghtigden van den Staedt der Vereenigde Nederlanden_, &c., iv. 1, 46.

[833] De Witt’s _Brieven_, iv. 109, 119. Clarendon’s _Memoirs_, iii. 434. There are numerous papers referring to these negotiations and the subsequent treaty, including “the articles which the States’ Ambassadors Extraordinary are to procure from his Majesty of Great Britain,” among _State Papers, Foreign Treaty Papers (Holland)_, 1651-1665, Bdl. 46.

[834] _Res. Holl._, 13th Sept. 1659, 261. _Ibid._, 1660, p. 749; 1661, p. 181.

[835] _Hollantsche Mercurius_, 1661, pp. 9, 10. De Witt’s _Brieven_, iv. 48, 61, 68, &c.

[836] De Witt to Van Beuningen, 27 December 1660/6 January 1661; the same to Van Beverwaert and Van Hoorn, 4/14 Jan. 1661; Van Beverwaert to De Witt, 3/13, 4/14 Jan. 1661. _Brieven_, i. 344; iv. 65, 66, 68. Pontalis, _John De Witt_, i. 267.

[837] “Dutch Amb^{rs} Memoriall desiring the Act of Parliament about fishing may not pass,” 17th Dec. 1660. Copy in _S. P., Dom._ Collection, Chas. II., vol. 339, p. 581. It is to the effect that the extraordinary ambassadors were informed that a Bill had been introduced into the Lower Chamber regarding the herring fishery, in which foreigners were to be prohibited from fishing within eight or ten “leagues” (“huiet ou dix lieuës”) from the coast, and praying the king to prevent the said Bill from becoming an Act of Parliament. It contains the usual arguments as to immemorial possession, treaty rights, &c.

[838] _Brieven_, i. 344; iv. 66, 69, 81, 87, 89, 105, 109.

[839] Boreel to De Witt, (25 Nov.)/(5 Dec.) 1653. _Ibid._, i. 54.

[840] Letters from Van Beuningen to De Witt, 1/11 Feb. 1661 to (20 Feb.)/(2 March) 1662; from De Witt to Van Beuningen, 3/13 Oct. 1661 to 12/22 March 1662. _Brieven_, i. 432-514. _Secreete Resolutiën van de Staaten van Holland en West-Vriesland_, ii. 246. Pontalis, _John de Witt_, i. 276. Pontalis scarcely grasps the question of the fishery when he says: “The free right of fishing still more directly concerned the States-General; they could not prevail in England to allow them the enjoyment of it, _so long as it had not been accorded to them by France_, and they therefore made it a condition of their treaty with Louis XIV.”

[841] Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, VI. ii. 412. Aitzema, _Saken van Staet en Oorlogh_, x. 305. The article was as follows: “IV. L’obligation reciproque de s’entr’aider et deffendre, s’entend aussi pour estre Sa Majesté et lesdits Seigneurs Estats Generaux, leurs Pays et Sujets, conservez et maintenus en tous leurs Droits, Possessions, Immunitez et Libertez, tant de Navigation, que de Commerce et Pêche, et autres quelconques par Mer et par Terre, qui se trouveront leur appartenir par le Droit commun, ou estre acquis par des Traitez faits ou à faire, en la maniere susdite, envers et contre tous Roys, Princes, Republiques, ou autres Estats Souverains,” &c.

[842] “Herr Downingh de voorsz. antwoorde begonde te justificeren, door de gepretendeerde Souverainiteyt van de Engelschen op de Zee, ... ende hebbe ick rondt uyt verklaert, dat eer wy die imaginaire Souverainiteyt souden erkennen, ofte by maniere van concessie van de Engelschen ontfangen, die vryheydt tot het bevaeren ende bevisschen van de Zee, die ons van de nature, ende nae ’t Volckeren-reght competeerde, wy alle den laetsten druppel bloedt daer by souden laeten.” De Witt to Van Beverwaert and Van Hoorn, 14/24 June 1661 (_Brieven_, iv. 144); the same to Van Beuningen, 4/14 Dec. 1661 (_ibid._, i. 471).

[843] Dumont, _op. cit._, VI. ii. 424. “X. Item, quod naves et navigia dictarum Fœderatarum Provinciarum, tam bellica et ad hostium vim propulsandam instructa, quam alia, quæ alicui e navibus bellicis dicti Domini Regis Magnæ Britanniæ in maribus Britannicis obviam dederint, vexillum suum e mali vertice detrahent, et supremum velum demittent, eo modo quo ullis retro temporibus, unquam observatam fuit.”

[844] _State Papers, Dom._, lv. 14.

[845] _State Papers, Dom._, xliv. 64. Pepys’ _Diary_, ii. 135, 151. According to Rugge (_Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 10, 116), quoted by Lord Braybrooke, Holmes insisted upon the Swede’s lowering his flag, and had even fired a shot to enforce the observance; but the ambassador sent a message to the English frigate to assure the captain, on the word of honour of an ambassador, that the king by a verbal order had given him leave and a dispensation, and upon this false representation he was allowed to proceed. The Swedes, it may be added, were always disinclined to strike to English ships.

[846] Pepys’ _Diary_, ii. 145, 146, 148, &c.

[847] Pontalis, _op. cit._, i. 313. It would appear that on a previous occasion Lawson had returned the salute with the flag, for in the controversy with France on the striking of the flag a few years later, the Dutch stated, as an instance of the custom with England, that Lawson had shown this courtesy to De Ruyter off Tangiers. De Witt’s _Brieven_, ii. 474.

[848] _Commons’ Journals_, viii. 548, 553; _Lords’ Journals_, xi. 599, 614; _Parlt. Hist._, iv. 291, 308; Clarendon’s _Memoirs_, ii. 235-237, 288; Hume, _Hist. of England_, lxiv.; Pepys’ _Diary_, iv. 31, 42, &c.; Pontalis, _John de Witt_, i. 309.

[849] _The Dutch Drawn to the Life_, 1664. “Never was anything so unanimously applauded by men of all persuasions and interest as a Dutch Warre, which is the universal Wish of the people.”

[850] 16 & 17 Car. II.

[851] The king to the Duke of York, 22nd March 1665. _State Papers, Dom._, cxv. 76.

[852] The author of _The Dutch Drawn to the Life_ expatiated on the inestimable benefit the Dutch derived from the British seas by encroaching on our fisheries, and asserted that the only way to keep them under was “by commanding the narrow sea, their coast and ours,”--the narrow sea, according to this writer’s view, or at least the “right and dominion of England,” extending as far as the Mediterranean (p. 75).

[853] See Mahan, _The Influence of Sea Power upon History_; Colomb, _Naval Warfare_; Pontalis, _op. cit._; Clarendon’s _Memoirs_, ii. 111.

[854] _Groot Placaet-Boeck, inhoudende de Placaten ende Ordonnantien van de H. M. Heeren Staten Generael der Vereenighde Nederlanden_, iii. 291-293. _Resol. Holl._, 1665, 24, 59, 78, 210, 383. _State Papers, Dom._, cxiv. 104. _Ibid._, _Warrant Book_, 18, p. 213; 23, pp. 283, 475. _Ibid._, clxxviii. 172.

[855] _S. P., Dom._ Collection, Chas. II., vol. 339, p. 591. It is a copy in English. The petition was from the “Burgomasters, Eschevins, Counsellors, and the rest of the body of Citizens.”

[856] “Warrant to ye Lord Chancellor for affixing ye great seale to an instrument containing a grant of fishinge in these seas for a certain number of boates belonging to ye City of Bruges, yearely,” July 17, 1666. _State Papers, Warrant Book_, 23, p. 27. “Patent in favour of the Citie of Bruges in fflanders for a libertie of fishing in the British Seas with 50 saill of ships,” 29th August 1666. _Advoc. MSS._, 25. 3. 4. The draft or copy of the Royal Letter which followed upon the Warrant is given in Appendix N.

[857] See p. 617.

[858] _Resol. Holl._, 11/21 Jan. 1665, p. 54. _Hollantsche Mercurius_, 15th Oct. 1665, p. 143. _State Papers, Dom._, 4th Nov. 1665, cxxxvi. 35.

[859] _Groot Placaet-Boeck_, iii. 295, 296.

[860] _State Papers, Dom._, clxvi. 8, 46, 77, 100; clxvii. 148; clxxv. 146; clxxxi. 113.

[861] _Ibid._, clxxi. 30; clxxii. 7, 41. At the Yarmouth fishing this year (1666) “the sea was fuller of herrings than was ever known”; no sooner were the nets in the water than they were full of fish, and many herrings had to be thrown overboard, so that it was locally rhymed, “twelve herrings a penny fills many a hungry belly.” The exceptional abundance was attributed by the fishermen to the war having practically put a stop to the Dutch fishing off our coast, so that the shoals came to the inshore grounds in a body and not broken up. The herring fishing was also unusually successful during the third Dutch war. In 1666, however, the herring fishing in Ireland was likewise uncommonly productive. _Ibid._, clxxiv. 52, 100, 129, 156; clxxv. 49.

[862] _Resol. Holl._, 21 June/1 July 1667, p. 210. _State Papers, Dom._, ccxvi. 143; ccxvii. 77.

[863] De Witt to Van Beuningen, 12/22 July 1666 to 18/28 July 1667; Van Beuningen to De Witt, (21 June)/(1 July) 1666 to 12/22 July 1667. “Raisons par lesquelles il paroît, que le contre-salut du Pavillon, aux rencontres des Flotes de Sa Majesté Très-Chrétienne et des États Généraux, est d’une justice toute évident.” De Witt’s _Brieven_, ii. 473, &c. Pontalis, _op. cit._, i. 353.

[864] _Articles touching Navigation and Commerce, concluded at Breda_, 21/31 July 1667.

[865] “Dat de scheepen van oorlois (_sic_) van den Coninck van Groot Brittannien door die van desen staet met het strijcken van de vlagge gesalveert werdende, van haere sijde vervolgens met het strijcken van haere vlagge contra salueren sullen.” Extract from _Secret Resolution, States-General_, 11th May 1667, Instructions to Ambassadors. _Treaty Papers (Breda)_, 1667, Bdl. 73.

[866] Art. xix. See p. 455. Van Beuningen to De Witt, 5/15 April 1667. De Witt to Van Beuningen, 18/28 April, 20/30 June, (27 June)/(1 July) 1667. _Brieven_, ii. 483, 487, 528, 533.

[867] _Treaty of Breda_, Art. vii. It may have been in connection with the interpretation of this clause that the High Court of Admiralty asked the Trinity House their opinion as to the end of the English Channel westwards, and got the following answer: “We shall not presume,” said the Masters, on 2nd January 1668, “to determine matters that have for some ages past been controverted, and for anything that we at present know have not had a full resolution or any precedent for deciding questions relating thereunto;” but the opinion of “the past and present age,” with which they concurred, was that when any commander brought Scilly N.N.W. he had entered “the Channel of England.” _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221.

[868] _Treaty of Peace and Alliance between Charles I. and Louis XIV., concluded at Breda_, 21/31 July 1667. Article xvii.

[869] _Treaty of Peace and Alliance between Charles II. and Frederick III., concluded at Breda_, 21/31 July 1667. Art. ii.

[870] In the negotiation of subsequent treaties, controversy was usually occasioned about the wording of these articles relating to the date of cessation of hostilities on the sea, the United Provinces or France pointing to the treaty of Breda as a precedent, while the English took their stand on Cromwell’s treaty of 1654. In the treaty of Ryswick in 1697, between the United Provinces and France, the term “British Channel” was employed in conjunction with the Baltic and North Sea (Art. ii.); and in the treaty between William III. and Louis, signed at Ryswick on the same day, the words were “in the British and North Seas, as far as the Cape St Vincent” (Art. x.) In the negotiation with France in 1712 for a suspension of hostilities, the French insisted on the words, “the seas which surround the British Isles,” citing the treaty of Breda, while the British were equally obstinate to have the term _in maribus Britannicis_ inserted, as in the treaty of 1654, arguing that the “error” of Breda had been rectified in the later treaty of Ryswick; the result being that in one article “the Channel, the British Sea, and the North Sea” were specified, and in another the phrase was “in the Channel and North Sea.” Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, VIII. i. 306. Burchett, _A Complete History of the Most Remarkable Transactions at Sea, &c._, p. 38.

[871] See p. 474.

[872] This was the farthing known later as the “Lucas farthing,” from the gibes of Lord Lucas in his attack on the king’s policy made in the debate on the Subsidy Bill in the House of Lords in 1670. Speaking of the scarcity of money in the kingdom, he said: “What supply is preparing for it, my Lords? I hear of none, unless it be of copper farthings; and this is the metal that is to indicate, according to the inscription on it, ‘The Dominion of the Four Seas.’” _Parl. Hist._, iv. 473.

[873] “Omtrent het point van de Vlagge, saegen wy alhier seer gaerne iets seeckers gedetermineert, ten minsten dat wy moghten weten waer mede men buyten nieuwe feytelyckheydt ende Oorloge konde verblyven; dat een Fregatje ofte een Kitsje een gantsche Oorloghs-Vloote soude doen strycken, is notoirlyck intolerabel.” De Witt to Meerman, 12/22 June 1668. The same to the same, (29 Feb.)/(9 March), 3/13, 7/17 April, (24 April)/(4 May), (22 May)/(1 June) 1668. De Witt to Meerman and Boreel, 17/27 March, (29 May)/(8 June) 1668. Meerman to De Witt, (28 March)/(7 April), 6/16 June 1668. De Witt’s _Brieven_, iv. Sir William Temple to Lord Arlington, 2/12 Feb., 6/16 March 1668; the same to the Lord-Keeper Bridgeman, (25 Oct.)/(4 Nov.) 1668. _Works_, iii. 134, 199, 348. _State Papers, Dom._, 1668, ccxxxv. 49, 62; _ibid._, 1665, cxxiii. 67. Aitzema, _Saken van Staet en Oorlogh_, v. 390.

[874] The king to the Duke of York, 31st Oct. 1669. _State Papers, Entry Book_, 31, fol. 37.

[875] Pepys’ _Diary_, 20th Dec. 1668, viii. 184.

[876] Pontalis, _op. cit._, ii. 24.

[877] The king to the Duke of York, 26th June 1669. _State Papers, Entry Book_, 31, fol. 29. Instructions by the Duke of York to Sir Thomas Allin, 6th July 1669. _Ibid._, cclxii. 120. A marginal memorandum on the latter document says, “This rule was adjusted with Colbert, the French Ambassador here, _but nothing passed in writing but this_.”

[878] _State Papers, Dom._, 1669, cclxi. 82-87.

[879] _State Papers, Dom._, 1668, ccli. 191; 1670, cclxxiv. 157; cclxxv. 43; cclxxvi. 206; cclxxxi. 15; 1671, ccxc. 5, &c. Temple’s _Memoirs_, iii. 433. Justice, _Dominion and Laws of the Sea_, 298.

[880] Bynkershoek, _De Dominio Maris_, cap. ii. iv. As elsewhere explained (p. 557), it was this custom which helped to prepare the way for the acceptance of the principle that now determines the extent of the territorial sea on an open coast--viz., the range of guns.

[881] Hume, _Hist, of England_, c. lxv. Temple’s _Memoirs and Letters_. Pontalis, _John de Witt_. Macaulay, _Hist._, i. c. ii.

[882] _Parl. Hist._, iv. 456. Hume, _op. cit._

[883] De Witt’s _Brieven_, iv. 837. Pontalis, _op. cit._, ii. 122.

[884] Sir Leoline Jenkins to Sir Thomas Allin, Admiral of the Blue Flag, 8th Oct. 1670. _Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins_, ii. 699.

[885] _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, ff. 46_b_, 48_b_.

[886] _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, fol. 47_b_. The affidavits of three English sailors who witnessed the meeting of the _Merlin_ and the two Dutch convoyers off Flamborough. The sailors swore “that they exchanged guns but did not strike their flags, but went away with their flags abroad.” This evidence was obtained to magnify the offence; the position assigned, “off the Flamborough,” makes its value doubtful.

[887] “A Draft made by Sir Leoline Jenkins about the King’s Sovereignty in the British Seas.” _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, fol. 46_b_. Undated, but probably referring to this case.

[888] Sir William Temple to Sir John Temple, 14th Sept. 1671. _Works_, iii. 501. Pontalis, _John de Witt_, 126, 127. Hume, _Hist. of England_, cap. lxv. _State Papers, Dom._, 1671, ccxcii. 45, 77, 78, 81, 215. Evelyn’s _Diary_ (ed. 1850), ii. 69. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221.

[889] Pontalis, _op. cit._, ii. 130, 134. Hume, _op. cit._, cap. xlv. Sir William Temple to his brother, 23rd May 1672. _Works_, iii. 505. Clarendon’s _Memoirs_, ii. 289. _England’s Appeal_, p. 22. _State Papers, Entry Book_, 24, fol. 54. _Ibid._, _Dom._, 1671, ccxciv. 127; 1672, cccii. 55, 112, 233; ccciii. 206. _Entry Book_, 34, f. 147. It was in connection with the offers of the Dutch on this occasion or a little later in the year that Sir Leoline Jenkins made the following pronouncement as to the king’s rights to the dominion of the seas. He was asked by Secretary Coventry “what his Majesty, his heirs and successors, Kings of England, may reasonably pretend to be signified by these words, _en la pleine et entiere joüissance du droit de pavillon_”? Jenkins replied (1) that the King of England for the time being was Lord of these seas, where he had the right of his flag acknowledged, and that these seas were, as much as that watery element is capable of being so in its nature, no less a domain of the Crown than the Honour of Greenwich or the Manor of Eltham; (2) that the _droits souveraines_ of the king in his seas against strangers had all the legal requisites of a prescription beyond the memory of man, and did not consist in one individual point, as for instance in having the flag struck to, or in having the liberty of fishing acknowledged by yearly sums of money; but in all the several rights, honours, and perquisites that a sovereignty is capable of producing, and have been enjoyed by former kings of England, with this difference from all _seigneuries_ that move from a _mesne_ Lord, or Lord Paramount, that our kings hold this as they do their crown, from God alone, and by their sword. _Life_, ii. 697.

[890] The account was brought to Court by Lieutenant Churchill, afterwards the great Duke of Marlborough, who was serving under Lord Ossory.

[891] Pontalis, _op. cit._, ii. 239. Hume, _loc. cit. State Papers, Dom._, _Entry Book_, 24, f. 57; _ibid._, 34, f. 164; cccii. 130; ccciii. 26, 72, 211-218; ccciv. 9, 11, 20, 21, 25, 36; cccvii. 169; _Foreign Entry Book_, 21, ff. 1, 9.

[892] Hume, _loc. cit._ Pontalis, _loc. cit._ Temple’s _Works_, i. 175; iii. 505. _Parl. Hist._, iv. 512. _Hollantsche Mercurius_, 1672, p. 50. Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, VII. i. 163. _State Papers, Dom._, cccii. 210; ccciv. 21, 22; cccvi. 27; _Entry Book_, 31, f. 90. _Ibid._, 34, f. 157.

[893] Mahan, _op. cit._ Colomb, _op. cit._

[894] 9/19 March, 5/15 Sept. 1672. _Groot Placaet-Boeck_, iii. 292, 298. The embargo was renewed in the next year.

[895] _State Papers, Dom._, cccxv. 108, &c.; cccxvi. 43.

[896] Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, VII. i. 206. Hume, _op. cit._, c. lxv. In _State Papers, Foreign, Treaty Papers_ (_Breda_), 1667, Bdl. 73 (as at present arranged), are a number of papers belonging to these negotiations and the later ones at Cologne in 1673, consisting mostly of draft articles, with copious notes by the plenipotentiaries. In one, marked “1st project as framed,” Art. xiv. refers to the flag as follows, the words in brackets being inserted here from a second copy: “That the ships and vessells of the United Provinces, as well men-of-war as others, be they single ships or in Fleets how great soever, meeting in any part within ye Brittish seas, with any one of ye ships of war (yachts) or other vessells w’soever of ye said K. of Gr. Brittain, or in his service and wearing his flagg, colours (or Jack) shall strike their flaggs and lower their Topsailes untill they be passed by, as a Ancient and undoubted Right belonging to the said K., and which hath been payd and performed to his R^{ll} progenitors in all times.” The fishery article (xxiv.) was as follows, the words within brackets being taken from another copy, to fill up a blank: “And the said States acknowledging his said Maj^{ts} ancient and undoubted Right in the Brittish Seas, as they do hereby own and acknowledge ye same, Doe further promise and agree, that they and their successors will from henceforth pay to his said Maj. his Heirs and successors, for euer, at the Receipt of his Exchequer, a yearly sum̄ of ... (10^{mte}--as likewise ye yearly summe of 2^{mt} sterling by ye yeare at ye Receipt of his Ma^{tys} Treasury of his Kingdom of Scotland) ... sterling by the year, in consideration of his Maj^{ts} license and permission to them and their subj^{ts} to fish in the said seas and upon his Ma^{tys} coasts.” Another article (xxv.) provided for the payment of £1,000,000 for the charges of the war, £400,000 in the following October, and the remainder later.

[897] Hume, _loc. cit._ Temple’s _Memoirs_, i. 166. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxi. 75, 82, 206; cccxiii. 233. _Commons’ Journals_, ix. 246. Dumont, _op. cit._, VII. i. 206. _Hollantsche Mercurius_, 1672, p. 265.

[898] _Brief Animadversions on, Amendments of, and Additional Explanatory Records to the Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England, concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts, compiled by the late famous Lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, Knight, &c._, 1669.

[899] England’s _Improvement Reviv’d: Digested into Six Books_, 1670.

[900] Roger Coke, _A Discourse of Trade_, 1670.

[901] William de Britaine, _The Dutch Usurpation, or a Brief View of the Behaviour of the States-General of the United Provinces towards the King of England_, 1672.

[902] _State Papers, Dom._, cccviii. 143.

[903] _A Justification of the Present War against the United Netherlands, wherein the Declaration of his Majesty is vindicated, and the War proved to be Just, Honourable, and Necessary; the Dominion of the Sea explained, and his Majesty’s Rights thereunto asserted; the Obligations of the Dutch to England, and their continual Ingratitude: Illustrated with Sculptures. In Answer to a Dutch Treatise entitled, Considerations upon the Present State of the United Netherlands._ By an English Man, 1672.

[904] 8th July 1872. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxii. 166.

[905] Benson to Williamson, 28th June, 9th July 1672. Stubbe to Williamson, 8th July. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxii. 45, 166, 184. The warrant was to Mr Thurloe and Mr Bish of Lincoln’s Inn. Stubbe made considerable use of the book, citing it as “MSS. Commentary of the Treaty and Articles betwixt the English and the Dutch in 1653.”

[906] _A Further Justification of the Present War against the United Netherlands, illustrated with several Sculptures._ By Henry Stubbe, a lover of the Honour and Welfare of Old England, &c., 1673. Unfortunately for Stubbe, he tried his hand on another line, and was arrested and imprisoned in the same year for denouncing, in his “Paris Gazette,” the Duke of York’s marriage with Princess Mary of Modena.

[907] _Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins_, i. 3. For the use of the plenipotentiaries a volume of transcripts of documents, mostly State Papers, and chiefly in the handwriting of Williamson’s clerks, was prepared, dealing with the claims to the sovereignty of the sea in its various phases. It comprised 613 folio pages, and forms volume 339 of the Domestic series of Charles II. There is a long memorandum in regard to the striking of the flag, consisting for the most part of brief paragraphs reciting precedents (and many of them are omitted), and arranged under the following heads: (1) Strikeing in Generall; (2) Whole Fleets to Single Ships and a Greater Number to a Lesser; (3) Till they be passed by to keepe downe their Flag in sight of ye English; (4) Within the Brittish Seas, What the Brittish Seas are, &c., where done, &c. What Places esteemed according to this Practice to be within ye Brittish Seas; (5) This done as a Duty and Right and not only as a Civillity. Some of the papers have notes on them, apparently penned by the ambassadors at Cologne.

[908] In one of the papers in the volume provided for the use of the ambassadors, containing a copy of the fishery article put forward by Cromwell in 1653 and afterwards withdrawn, is the following, with a sidenote referring to the “king’s instructions to the special ambassadors”: “Lastly, that y^e subiects of y^e States generall shall for y^e future abstayne from fisheing vpon y^e Countreys and shores of any of his Ma^{tyes} Dominions w^{thout} leaue and Passeports first obtayned. One thing more I must obserue to you relating to those six propositions particularly that of y^e fishery. In his Ma^{tyes} former Instructions to you vpon that Point you were bid to consent to y^e leauing out that Article in case y^e Dutch should be obstinate vpon it. But his Ma^{ty} by progress of tyme finding that his Subiects seem fonder thereof, bids me now to direct you to insist vpon that, as vpon y^e rest and to frame it as neare as you can according to y^e Words set down in y^e Reply.” Then after Cromwell’s article is the following: “Ye Art. of the Fishery as contained in y^e Project, 1673.” It is the same as that given in the previous year (note, p. 491),--the part referring to the contribution of £2000 for Scotland being interpolated,--except that it concludes with this sentence, “In w^{ch} fisheing y^e said States shall oblidge themselues that their Subiects shall not come w^{th}in one league of y^e shoares of England and Scotland,” which is the first mention of a three-mile limit that has been discovered. Sir Arnold Braems suggested to Arlington, in August 1673, that the king should insist in the treaty for an annual payment of £10,000 or £12,000 for their free fishing on his coasts, and that £3000 of this should be devoted to the bringing over of Dutch families and fishing-busses to England, a project which was then being tried by more or less surreptitious methods. _State Papers, Dom._, vol. 336, No. 295.

[909] See p. 461.

[910] The ambassadors to the Earl of Arlington, 8/18 Aug., (26 Aug.)/(5 Sept.), 13/23 Sept., (23 Sept.)/(3 Oct.), 3/13 Oct. 1673. _Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins_, i. 68, 86, 87, 109, 126, 133.

[911] Penn was in error in supposing that “Finisterre” in the subsequent treaty was _finis terræ_, and meant the Land’s End in England (Granville Penn, _Memorials of the Professional Life and Times of Sir William Penn_, ii. 255). It was described as “Finisterre, in Galicia,” by the Dutch ambassadors in 1668. See p. 469.

[912] The ambassadors to Arlington, (29 Aug.)/(8 Sept.), 2/12, 13/23 Sept., (23 Sept.)/(3 Oct.), 3/13 Oct. 1673. _Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins_, i. 91, 95, 109, 117, 120, 125, 133.

[913] The same to the same, (24 Oct.)/(3 Nov.), 11/21, 14/24 Nov. 1673, (23 Dec. 1673)/(2 Jan. 1674), 2/12 Jan., 3/13 Feb. 1674. _Ibid._, i. 151, 170, 171, 223, 235, 237, 279.

[914] The same to the same, 10/20 Oct. 1673 to 3/13 Feb. 1674. _Ibid._, i. 139, &c. _State Papers, Foreign, Treaty Papers_ (_Breda_, sic), Bdle. 73. There were prolonged discussions as to the extent of the British seas both in regard to the article on the flag and that on the cessation of hostilities on the sea, as shown by the very numerous notes on the draft articles. The ambassadors were of opinion with regard to the latter article that St George’s Channel and the sea between England, Ireland, and Scotland were comprehended in the term “the Channel,” a point which was left for the opinion of the king.

[915] _Commons’ Journals_, ix. 282. _Lords’ Journals_, xii. 588.

[916] P. 513.

[917] Hume, _loc. cit. Commons’ Journals_, ix. 299. Temple’s _Memoirs_, i. 167-169. Temple to the Prince of Orange, Feb. 1674. The same to the Duke of Florence, 11th Feb. 1674. _Works_, iv. 13, 16.

[918] “Prædicti Ordines Generales Unitarum Provinciarum debite, ex parte sua agnoscentes jus supramemorati Serenissimi Domini Magnæ Britanniæ Regis, ut vexillo suo in maribus infra nominandis honos habeatur, declarabunt et declarant, concordabunt et concordant, quod quæcunque naves et navigia ad præfatas Unitas Provincias spectantia, sive naves bellicæ, sive aliæ, eæque vel singulæ vel in classibus junctæ, in aliis maribus a Promontorio _Finis Terræ_ dicto usque ad medium punctum terræ _van Staten_ dictæ in Norwegia, quibuslibet navibus aut navigiis ad Serenissimum Dominum Magnæ Britanniæ Regem spectantibus, obviam dederint, sive illæ naves singulæ sint, vel in numero majori, si majestatis Britannicæ sive aplustrum, sive vexillum _Jack_ appelatum gerant, prædictæ Unitarum Provinciarum naves aut navigia vexillum suum e mali vertice detrahent et supremum velum demittent, eodem modo parique honoris testimonio, quo ullo unquam tempore aut in alio loco antehac usitatum fuit, versus ullas Majestatis suæ Britannicæ aut antecessorum suorum naves ab ullis Ordinum Generalium suorumque antecessorum navibus.” Art. iv. Dumont, _op. cit._, VII. i. 253. The land _van Staten_ (which is a Dutch expression) is the peninsula of Stadtland in N. Berghus, in 62° 5´ N. latitude. It is probable that the English Ministers took the advice of the Trinity House (p. 478) to consult the authors who had written on the northern boundary of the British seas, and that the substitution of _van Staten_ for the North Cape, first made at the congress of Cologne (see p. 506), was based upon Selden’s plate showing the British seas (_Mare Clausum_, lib. ii., cap. i., p. 122), and which is reproduced in the frontispiece of this book. Selden’s plate was much less liberal to the British seas than was his text. The Dutch appellation may have been extracted from a Dutch map.

[919] _Memoirs_, i. 170. Temple added: “Nothing, I confess, had ever given me a greater pleasure, in the greatest public affairs I had run through, than this success; as having been a point I ever had at heart, and in my endeavours to gain, upon my first negotiations in Holland, but found Monsieur De Witt ever inflexible, though he agreed with me it would be a rock upon which our firmest alliances would be in danger to strike, and to split, whenever other circumstances fell in to make either of the parties content to alter the measures we had entered into upon the triple alliance.”

[920] _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, fol. 59. Some writers on international law erroneously describe the boundaries mentioned in the article as the boundaries of the British seas.

[921] Temple to the Duke of Ormonde, Oct. 1673. The same to the Duke of Florence, 11th Feb. 1674. _Works_, ii. 91; iv. 19.

[922] _Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins_, ii. 697.

[923] _State Papers, Dom._, vol. ccclxxvi. 46.

[924] _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxx. 238, 245, 252.

[925] _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxxvi. 92; ccclxxix. 9. The incident occurred on 11th November 1675, between 46 and 47 degrees latitude. The Spanish ship “required him to strike for the King of Spaine, and the said Cap^n Harris haueing seuerell times refused to doe it, and required the said Ostender to strike for his Ma^{ty} of Greate Brittain; yet neuerthelesse he, Cap^t Jos. Harris, in the time of their convention (_sic_) about this matter, did order the Topsaile of the said Ketch to be Lowered, w^{ch} was accordingly done, and is proued by the depositions vpon Oath taken in Court,” &c. The court found that by lowering his top-sails he struck to a foreigner in his Majesty’s seas, “a great derogac͠on from his Ma^{ties} Honour, contrary to the 32th Article of the General Instrucc͠ons and punishable by the Eleventh Article of War.”

[926] _H. O. Warrant Book_, i. 126, 144.

[927] 8th Oct. 1674. Tanner, _Catalogue of Naval MSS. in Pepysian Library_, No. 1838.

[928] _Life_, ii. 716. Various other indictments are referred to in _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, fol. 62_b_.

[929] _Navigation and Commerce; their Original and Progress_, 1674.

[930] Evelyn’s _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 90, 91 (ed. 1850).

[931] Evelyn to Pepys, 19th Sept. 1682. “To speake plaine truth,” he says, “when I writ that Treatise, rather as a _philological_ exercise, and to gratifie the present circumstances, I could not clearly satisfie myself in sundry of those particulars, nor find realy that euer the Dutch did pay toll or tooke license to fish in Scotland after the contest (with Spain) from any solid proofs.... I think they neuer payd a peny for it ... nor did I find that any rent (wheroff in my 108 page I calculate the arrears) for permission to fish, was euer fixed by both parties.”

[932] _De Jure Maritimo et Navali, or a Treatise of Affaires Maritime and of Commerce_, London, 1676. Editions were published in 1682, 1690, 1744, 1769, &c. It is still quoted by writers on international law. Molloy was the author of a work attacking the Dutch during the second Dutch war--_Holland’s Ingratitude, or a Serious Expostulation with the Dutch, &c._, 1666.

[933] _A View of the Admiral Jurisdiction, &c._, London, 1661; 2nd edition, 1685.

[934] _The Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England Asserted_, London, 1686.

[935] _England’s Great Interest_, 38. _State Papers, Dom._, cccxi. 86; cccxv. 196 ; cccxxxvi. 295.

[936] _State Papers, Dom._, ccclxix. 263. It is endorsed by Williamson, “Herring Fishery: Given me by ye King to keepe. Sunday, 24 Ap. 75,” and is unsigned. Each buss was to be of 70 tons, with a master, mate, pilot, and 12 seamen, to be all paid partly by results. The whole charge for the first year was put at £58,537, and the earnings at £90,000, on the assumption that each buss would catch 100 lasts of herrings, 15,000 cod, and 10,000 ling.

[937] _State Papers, Dom._, _ibid._, 264, 265.

[938] _Memoires relating to the State of the Royal Navy of England for Ten Years, determin’d December 1688._ London, 1690.

[939] Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, VII. ii. 236. Wagenaar, _Vaderlandsche Historie_, c. lxi.

[940] Valin, _Nouveau Commentaire sur l’Ordonnance de la Marine, &c._, ii. 689.

[941] Dumont, _op. cit._, VII. ii. 230.

[942] “Upon your meeting with any ship or ships within his Majestie’s Seas, (which for your better guidance herein, you are to take notice that they extend to Cape Finisterre) belonging to any foreign Prince or State, you are to expect them in their passage by you, to strike their topsail and take in their flag, in acknowledgment of his Majestie’s Sovereignty in these Seas; and if any shall refuse, or offer to resist, you are to use your utmost endeavour to compel them therto, and in no wise to suffer any dishonour to be done to his Majesty; and in case any of his Majestie’s subjects shall be so far forgetful of their duty, as to omit striking their topsail as they pass by you, when it may be done without the loss of the voyage, you are to bring them to the Flag to answer their contempt, or otherwise to return the name of the ship and of the master to the Secretary of the Admiralty, or the Lord High Admiral of England, or the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral for the time being, as also the place whence and the port to which he shall be bound. And you are to make the master of such ship pay the charge of what shot you shall make at her. And you are further to take notice that in his Majestie’s Seas his Majestie’s ships are in no wise to strike to any; and that in other parts no ship of his Majestie’s is to strike her flag or topsail to any foreigner, unless such foreign ship shall have first struck, or at the same time strike, her flag or topsail to his Majestie’s ship, except in the harbour of some foreign Prince, or in the road within shot of cannon of some fort or castle, where you are to send on shore to inform yourself what return they will make to your salute. And in case you have good assurance you shall be answered gun for gun, you are then to salute the port as is usual; but if you shall not be well assured that you shall have an equal number of guns returned you, you are in no wise to salute that place. And in case the ship in which you now command shall at the same time carry his Majestie’s flag, you are, before you salute the place, carefully to inform yourself how flags of the same quality with that you carry, of other Princes, have been saluted there, and you are to insist on it being saluted with as great respect and advantage as any flag of the same quality with yours, of any other Prince, hath been saluted in that place, from which you are in no wise to depart.” Art. xxxv. 1691. _State Papers, Dom._, _H. O. Admiralty_, 1, No. 14. Justice, _A General Treatise of the Dominion and Laws of the Sea_, 595.

[943] _Regulations and Instructions relating to His Majesty’s Service at Sea. Established by His Majesty in Council._ 2nd edition, 1734, Art. xi. _Ibid._, 10th edition, 1766. _Ibid._, 13th edition, 1790.

[944] _State Papers, Dom., H. O. Admiralty_, 5, 1108, October 19.

[945] _State Papers, Dom., Petition Entry Book_, 3, 90.

[946] Justice, _op. cit._, 193.

[947] _State Papers, Dom., Naval_, 1769, 45. Copies of the various papers sent from the Admiralty to the Under-Secretary of State. Professor Laughton states that Lieutenant Smith was reinstated to a higher rank next day. _Fortnightly Review_, Aug. 1866, p. 721.

[948] _A Complete History of the Most Remarkable Transactions at Sea, &c._ By Josiah Burchett, Secretary to the Admiralty, 1720. Burchett’s account and definitions were adopted by later writers, as Lediard, _The Naval History of England_, 1735; Colliber, _Columna Rostrata; or a History of the English Sea Affairs_, 1727; Entick, _A New Naval History or Compleat View of the British Marine, &c._, 1757; Campbell, _Lives of the Admirals and other Eminent British Seamen_, 1742-44. Entick claimed for the crown the right to all the fisheries in the British seas, the right to impose tribute on all merchant ships navigating them, the execution of justice for all crimes committed within them, the permitting or denial of free passage through them to foreign ships of war, and the striking of the flag.

[949] In both it was as follows: “Art. ii. À l’égard des honneurs du pavillon, et du salut en mer, par les vaisseaux de la République vis-à-vis de ceux de Sa Maj. Britannique, il en sera usé respectivement de la même manière qui a été pratiquée avant le commencement de la guerre qui vient de finir.” Martens, _Recueil de Traités_, iii. 514, 561.

[950] Mahan, _The Influence of Sea Power upon History_, 209, 225, 510, &c.

[951] _The Life of Richard, Earl Howe_, 200 (1838).

[952] In the _Regulations and Instructions_ issued in 1808, the article is as follows: “XXIV. Within his Majesty’s seas his ships are not on any account to strike their topsails, nor take in their flags; nor in any way to salute any foreign ship whatever; nor are they, in any other seas, to strike their topsails, or take in their flags, to any foreign ships, unless such foreign ships shall have first struck, or shall at the same time strike, their flags and topsails to his Majesty’s ships.”

[953] _Observations concerning the Dominion and Sovereignty of the Seas: being an Abstract of the Marine Affairs of England._ In his preface the author says the work was presented in manuscript to Charles II., “and well accepted by him.” In a letter from W. Bridgeman to Sir J. Williamson, dated from Whitehall, 13th May 1673, there was enclosed “a paper drawne up as I remember about the beginning of this Warre by S^r Philip Meadowes, which I find amongst other papers, and showing it to My Lord he directed mee to send it to you.” The enclosure is endorsed, “Soveraignity and Fishery by S^r Phil. Meadowes, 1674,” the proper date being probably 1672. It is evidently a draft of the later work, essentially the same in substance and tone. (_State Papers, Dom._, Chas. II., vol. 335, Part II., No. 168.) Later he sent a copy to Pepys, dated January 2, 1686. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, ff. 13-43.

[954] _Op. cit._, pp. 44-46. The draft article was as follows: “To maintain a due distinction betwixt natives and foreigners fishing upon the coasts of their respective sovereigns; and to prevent the manifold inconveniences which occasionally arise by a promiscuous and unlimited fishing; ’Tis mutually covenanted, concluded, and agreed, That the people and subjects of the United Netherlands shall henceforth abstain from fishing within any the rivers, fryths, havens, or bays of Great Britain and Ireland, or within a distance of ... leagues from any point of land thereof, or of any the isles thereto belonging; under a penalty and forfeiture of all the fish that shall be found aboard any vessel doing to the contrary, and of all the nets, utensils and other instruments of fishing. The like distances, and under the same penalties, to be kept and preserved by the subjects of His Majesty of Great Britain and Ireland, from any of the coasts belonging to the United Netherlands. But beyond these precincts and limits, that the people and subjects on both sides be at freedom to use and exercise fishing, where they please, without asking or taking licenses or safe-conducts for so doing, and without the let, hindrance, or molestation one of another. Saving always the ancient rights of the crown of England, and that nothing herein contained be interpreted or extended to any diminution or impeachment thereof, But that they remain in the same force and vertue, as before this agreement.” Meadows does not suggest the number of leagues within which fishing should be reserved, but he quotes with approval the proposal of James, in 1618, to fix a limit of fourteen miles--that is, one “land-kenning” of the Scotch.

[955] “Reflections upon a Passage in S^r William Temple’s Memoirs, printed 1692, relating to the Right of Dominion on the British Seas.” _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, fol. 55. It is dated 1693.

[956] _A Treaty of Peace, Good Correspondence and Neutrality in America, &c._, 16th November 1686, Art. v. By Article xvi. French subjects were to be at liberty to fish for turtles in the islands of Cayman.

[957] Rayneval, _Institutions du Droit de la Nature et des Gens_, i. c. x.

[958] _Resol. van de Staten-Generael_, April, May, June 1616. _Resol. d. Stat. van Holl._, March, April 1616. _Ibid._, 15th Dec. 1623; March, May 1635; 19th May 1637; Dec. 1639, _Res. St.-Gen._, 18th June 1639. _Res. Holl._, 13th April 1691. Lindemann, _Die Arktische Fischerei der Deutschen Seestädte_, p. 8. _Groot Placaet-Boeck_, iv. 235, 237. Auber, _Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International_, xi. 144.

[959] _Resol. St.-Gen._, Nov., Dec. 1698, 1740, 1741. _Resol. Holl._, July 1699; Jan., March, April, Sept., Dec. 1739; Jan., March, May 1740, 1741; Oct. 1757; Jan. 1758; Aug. 1761; April 1762. Martens, _Causes Célèbres_, i. 359-398; ii. 122-131. Beaujon, _Hist. Dutch Fisheries_, 479. A full account of the proceedings in 1738-40 is said by Beaujon to be contained in the memorials of Mauricius, who was the Dutch ambassador at Hamburg at the time, and was closely connected with the negotiations; they are contained in the Koninklijke Bibliotheek at The Hague.

[960] Art. xii. “D’exercer la pêche dans lesd. mers, bayes, et autres endroits à trente lieues près des costes de la nouvelle Ecosse au sudest, en commençant depuis l’isle appellée vulgairement de _Sable_,” &c. Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique_, VIII. i. 341.

[961] Treaty of Paris, 10th February 1763, Art. v. Hertslet, _Collection_, i. 274. Martens, _Recueil_, i. 109.

[962] Treaty of Versailles, 3rd Sept. 1783, Arts. v., vi., and Declaration attached. Hertslet, i. 246. Martens, iii. 522.

[963] _Parl. Hist._, xv. 1063, 1261-1263. In the negotiations for peace in 1761, Pitt, who was then in office, most wisely insisted on an exclusive fishery.

[964] _Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States of America, signed at Paris_, 3rd Sept. 1783, Art. viii. Martens, _Recueil_, iii. 556.

[965] Gander, _A Vindication of a National Fishery, wherein is asserted that the Glory, Wealth, Strength, Safety, and Happiness of this Kingdom ... doth depend (under God) upon a National Fishery ... to which is added the Sovereignty of the British Seas_, 1699. Puckle, _England’s Way to Wealth and Honour_, 1699. _A Discourse concerning the Fishery_, 1695. _The British Fishery recommended to Parliament_, 1734. _The Wealth of Great Britain in the Ocean Exemplified_, 1749, &c., &c.

[966] 23 Geo. II., c. 24, 1750. _An Act for the Encouragement of the British White Herring Fishery._

[967] Gifford, _Historical Description of the Zetland Isles_; Edmondston, _A View of the Ancient and Present State of the Shetland Isles_; _Europische Mercurius_, 1703, ii. 107.

[968] Maine, _International Law_, 77.

[969] _Tyberiadis, D. Bartoli de Saxoferrato, Jurisconsultorum omnium facile principis, Tractatus de Fluminibus, &c._, Bononiæ, 1576, p. 55. “Jurisdictionem habens in territorio mari cohærenti habet etiam jurisdictionem in mari usque ad centum milliaria, ... sicut præses provinciæ debet purgare provinciam malis hominibus per terram, ita etiam per aquam.... Constat autem quòd centum miliaria per mare minus est duabus dietis.”

[970] _Commentaria ad Institutiones, Pandectas et Codicem_, iii. 79. Venice, 1577.

[971] Bodinus, _De Republica_, lib. i. c. x. § 170, Frankfort, 1591; Pacius, _De Dominio Maris Hadriatici Disceptatio_, c. i., Leyden, 1619; Welwood, _De Dominio Maris_, c. i. p. 5, 1615; Dee, _General and Rare Memorials_, p. 21, 1577; Gryphiander, _De Insulis Tractatus_, c. xiv., 1623; Gentilis, _Advocatio Hispanica_, c. viii. de marina territorio tuendo, 1613; Gothofredus, _De Imperio Maris_, 1637.

[972] “Mare dicitur esse de territorio illius civitatis cui magis appropinquat et ideo Veneti quia domini sunt maris Adriatici possunt imponere navigantibus vectigalia, et adversus contra facientus pœnam adjicere.”

[973] _Loc. cit._

[974] “Et dicunt doctores, quod domini Veneti, et Genuenses, et alii habentes portum, dicuntur habere jurisdictionem, et imperium in toto mari sibi propinquo per centum miliaria, vel etiam ultra, si non propinquant alteri provinciæ.” _Loc. cit._

[975] Azuni, _Systema Universale dei Principii del Diritto Maritimo dell’ Europa_, i. 58, 1798. Jurisdiction was conferred within certain boundaries on land, “et intus mare centum milliaria.”

[976] _Parl. Papers, U.S., No. 1._, 1893. _Behring Sea Arbitration, British Case_, 37, 133.

[977] In the definitions of the boundaries of lands and fisheries in Anglo-Saxon charters such descriptions occur as “up midne streame,” “ūt on Temese oð midne streām,” “up midne streame by halfen streame,” &c. Birch, _Cartulariurm Saxonicum_.

[978] “Quicquid etiam ex hac parte medietatis maris inventum et dilatum ad Sandwic fuerit sive sit vestimentum sive rete arma ferrum aurum argentum, medietas monachorum erit, alia pars remanebit inventoribus.” Kemble, _Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici_, iv. 21.

[979] _Le Mirroir des Justices_, c. iii., “la sovereine seignurie de tote la terre jeqes el miluieu fil de la meer environ la terre.”

[980] See p. 102.

[981] _Brit. Mus. Hargraves MSS._, No. 98; printed by Moore, _Hist. of the Foreshore_, 362.

[982] _A Treatise relating to the Maritime Law of England_, 10.

[983] See p. 35.

[984] _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, fol. 50. The opinion of the Trinity House was given in November 1686. In 1677 the Privy Council, on a petition of the fishermen of Hastings complaining of the French fishing on the coast, sent to the Cinque Ports for an account “of the old limitations used to be put upon the French and others in their proceedings in that fishing,” and also ordered two ships to be sent “to forbid the French to fish on the coast as having no license thereto, and to drive them away from thence” (_ibid._) On the other hand, Jeakes, in his _Charters of the Cinque Ports_, written in 1678, states with reference to the powers “by land and sea” conferred on the Ports by various charters, that _per mare_ did not mean _altum mare_, the high sea, where the Admiral had jurisdiction, but only the “havens, creeks, and arms of the sea, so far as can be judged in a county, where the land is on both sides,” p. 69.

[985] See p. 547.

[986] 31st Oct. 1563, tit. i. par. 27, “Ne qua in mari vis fierit vel suis subditis, vel sociis, vel peregrinis, sive belli, sive alterius rei causa intra conspectum a terra vel portu.” Bynkershoek, _Quæstiones Juris Publici_, lib. i. cap. viii. _De Domini Maris_, c. ii.

[987] _Mare Liberum_, c. v. See p. 347.

[988] Foreigners were not to fish “nerer the land nor nor yai mycht see the shoir out of yair main toppis.”

[989] Stair, _The Institutions of the Law of Scotland_, bk. ii. tit. i. 5 (1681). “The vast ocean is common to all mankind as to navigation and fishing, which are the only uses therof, because it is not capable of bounds; but where the sea is enclosed, in bays, creeks, or otherwise is capable of any bounds or meiths, as within the points of such lands, or within the view of such shores, there it may become proper, but with the reservation of passage for commerce, as in the land. So fishing without these bounds is common to all, and within them also, except as to certain kinds of fish, such as herrings, &c.” The qualification and the “etcetera” are peculiar.

[990] See p. 528.

[991] Captain George St Lo, _England’s Safety, or a Bridle to the French King_, 1693. “During the time I was convoy to our fishing there, as aforesaid (1685-6), my business was to see that no foreigner should fish in sight of the shore, because the fish draw thither to spawn; the best draughts are there.”

[992] Azuni, _Sistema universale dei Principj del Diritto marittimo_, i. 78.

[993] _Dominio del Mar’ Adriatico e sue Raggione per il Jus Belli della Serenissima Repvblica di Venetia_, Venezia, 1686.

[994] Hale, _A Treatise relating to the Maritime Law of England_, c. iv. Coke’s _Fourth Institute_, c. xxii. p. 140 (ed. 1797). Blackstone, _Commentaries_, i. 110. Hale, _Pleas of the Crown_, ii. 54. An early authority is in Fitzherbert’s _La Grande Abridgment_ (1565), Corone et Plees de Corone, fol. 259, placit 399, “Nota p. Stanton justic q̃ ceo nest pas sa͠nce demere ou hoe puit veier ceo q̃’est fait del ou part del ewe et del aut, coe a rier de lun terr tanq̃ a laut q̃ le cozon viendr’ en ceo cas et fra son offic auri coe auent a vyent en vu brau del mer la ou home puit vier de lun parte tanque a lauter del auer que en cel lieu auient puyt paiis auer conisans.” There are some words in this passage difficult to translate, but the following has been given as its rendering: “Nota per Stanton Justice, that that is not sance [which Lord Coke translates ‘part’] of the sea where a man can see what is done from one part of the water and the other, so as to see from one land to the other; that the coroner shall come in such case and perform his office, as well as coming and going in an arm of the sea, there where a man can see from one part to the other of the [word undeciphered], that in such a place the country can have conusance.”

[995] See p. 119.

[996] Lib. ii. cap. iii. s. xiii. 2, “Ratione territorii, quatenus ex terra cogi possunt qui in proxima maris parte versantur, nec minus quam si in ipsa terra reperirentur.” See p. 349.

[997] _Discussiones Historicæ de Mari Libero_, 1637.

[998] _De Dominio Seren. Genuensis Reipub. in Mari Ligustico_, 1641.

[999] _Imperium Maritimum_, 1654.

[1000] _Dissertatio de Imperio Maris_, 1676.

[1001] _De Imperio Maris._

[1002] _Jus Maritimum_, 1652.

[1003] _Maris Liberi Vind. adv. P. B. Burgum_, 1652; _Maris Liberi Vind. adv. G. Welwodum_, 1633.

[1004] _De Jure Maritime et Navali_, lib. i. c. iv. Ed. 1652.

[1005] _De Jure Naturæ et Gentium_, 1672.

[1006] Lib. iv. c. v. s. vii.

[1007] 7th March, 1689, Art iv.

[1008] _State Papers, Dom._, Chas. II., ccxxxiv. 112, 113, 8th Feb. 1667/8. _Brit. Mus. Add. MSS._, 30,221, fol. 64, 12th March 1683.

[1009] Wynne, _Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins_, ii. 727, 732, 755, 780, 783. In reporting to the king in one case, in which he found the capture was made in the Channel beyond the limits of a chamber, Jenkins says: “However the truth be as to the chamber, ’tis certain the seizure was made in your Majesty’s seas: but so it is, that notwithstanding your Majesty’s undoubted right of dominion and protection in these seas, strangers do hold themselves, if not permitted, yet excused for such hostilities, when they are acted at a due distance from your Majesty’s ports, harbours, and chambers; grounding themselves upon what was done and observed in that long war between Spain and the Netherlands.” The preamble of the proclamation of 12th March 1683 was as follows: “Whereas the safeguard and protection we owe to such of our own subjects, and to all others in league and amity with us, as pass and repass the seas belonging to these our kingdoms, has been always a principal part of our royal care and concern, and we, finding that the freedom and security of our navigation and commerce to and from our ports in time of hostility between our neighbouring princes has been much disturbed, nay, the reverence due to our ports, harbours, and other places under our immediate protection has been violated by the partial practices, depredations, and insolencies of private men-of-war and others pretending commissions for the present hostilities: We have thought fit, by the advice of our Privy Council, after an exact view first taken of the rules, ordinances, and provisions made on the like occasions by our royal progenitors and ourself, to revive, establish, ratify and publish to all the world these rules and ordinances following.” The rules are similar to those in the regulations of 1633 and 1668; but it is noteworthy that the “King’s Chambers” are not specifically mentioned, nor is any reference made to a “platt,” and the claim to the dominion of the seas, so prominent in 1633, is omitted.

[1010] _De Dominio Maris Dissertatio._ Hagæ-Batavorum, 1703.

[1011] _Quæstiones Juris Publici._ Lugduni-Batavorum, 1737.

[1012] “Unde dominium maris proximi non ultra concedimus, quam e terra illi imperari potest, et tamen eo usque; nulla siquidem sit ratio, cur mare, quod in alicujus imperio est et potestate, minus ejusdem esse dicamus, quam fossam in ejus territorio.... Quare omnino videtur rectius, eo potestatem terræ extendi, quousque tormenta exploduntur, eatenus quippe cum imperare, tum possidere videmur. Loquor autem de his temporibus, quibus illis machinis utimur: alioquin generaliter dicendum esset, potestatem terræ finiri, ubi finitur armorum vis; etenim hæc, ut diximus, possessionem tuetur.” _De Dom. Maris_, cap. ii. In the _Quæstiones_ the phrase is “imperium terræ finitur, ubi finitur armorum potestas,” and “terræ dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis.”

[1013] _Ibid._, cap. ii.

[1014] See p. 381.

[1015] _De Jure Maritimo_, p. 150.

[1016] _Discursus Legales de Commercio_, Venice, 1740, D, 136. 174, 211, tom. 2. An earlier edition was published at Florence in 1719.

[1017] “Naves exteræ dicuntur esse sub protectione illius principis, cujus mare navigant, quando reperiuntur intra portus illius, aut in mari, ita vicino, ut illuc tormenta, bellica adigi possent. Et si deprædentur ab inimicis, de jure restituendæ sunt.”

[1018] _Tratado jurídico-politico, sobre pressas de mar, y calidades, que deben concurrir para hacerse legitimamente el Corso_, Part I. c. v. Cadiz, 1746.

[1019] “No podrá con razon pretender mas extension de sus Costas, que las dos leguas.”

[1020] “Y circunda en el espacio á lo menos de cien millas en recto: lo qual es una infalible, y conforme tradicion de los Letrados de todas las Naciones.”

[1021] _Jus Gentium_, Halæ Magdeburgicæ, 1749, cap. i. ss. 120-132, pp. 99-107. “Partes maris a gentibus, quæ idem accolunt, occupari possunt, quousque dominium in iisdem tueri possunt.”

[1022] _Le Droit des Gens_, Liv. i. c. xxiii. 5, 279-295, 1758.

[1023] _De la Saisie des Bâtimens Neutres_, La Haye, 1759, tom. i. Part I. c. iii. s. 5, p. 57.

[1024] _Nouveau Commentaire sur l’Ordonnance de la Marine du mois d’Août 1681_, Rochelle, 1766, t. ii. Liv. v. tit. i. pp. 687, 688. “Jusqu’à la distance de deux lieues, et avec cette restriction encore, la mer est donc du domaine du souverain de la côte voisine; et cela que l’on puisse y prendre fond avec la sonde, ou non. Il est juste au reste d’user de cette méthode en faveur des États dont les côtes sont si escarpées, que dès le bord on ne peut trouver le fond; mais cela n’empêche pas que le domaine de la mer, quant à la jurisdiction et à la pêche, ne puisse s’étendre au delà; soit en vertu des traités de navigation et de commerce, soit par la règle ci-dessus établie qui continue le domaine jusq’où la sonde peut prendre fond, ou jusqu’à la portée du canon, ce qui est aujourd’hui la règle universellement reconnue.” Lawrence, in his annotated edition of Wheaton’s _Elements of International Law_, Part II. c. iv. s. 6 (1864), makes a curious blunder in regard to the limit proposed by Valin, who, he says, “proposed to fix it according to the _sound of a cannon_, or as far as the ball would reach.” The authority Valin gives for the statement that the rule was universally recognised is _Journal de Commerce_, Mai 1759, p. 40.

[1025] _Versuch des Neuesten Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedens-und Kriegs-zeiten_, Bd. v. 486, Frankfort, 1778. “Das an die Küsten eines Landes stossende Meer stehet nach dem Völkerrecht unter der Oberherrschaft des angränzenden Landes unstreitig, so weit es mit Canonen von dem festen Land bestrichen werden kan.”

[1026] _Juris Publici Universalis, sive Juris Naturæ et Gentium, Theoremata_, ii. 7, 65. “Nobis visum est singulas gentes eam partem circa littus suum occupare posse, cujus usus necessarius, quamque tuendis littoribus et territorio necessarium arbitrantur.”

[1027] _De’ Doveri de’ principi neutrali verso i principi guerreggianti, e di questi verso i neutrali._ Naples, 1782.

[1028] “Mi parrebbe peraltro ragionevole, che senza attendere a vedere se in atto tenga il Sovrano del territorio construtta taluna torre o batteria, e di qual calibro di cannoni la tenga montata, si determinasse fissamente, e da per tutto la distanza di tre miglia dalla terra, come quella, che sicuramente è la maggiore ove colla forza della polvere finora conosciuta si possa spingere una palla, o una bomba,” p. 432.

[1029] _Précis du Droit des Gens moderne de l’Europe, fondé sur les Traités et l´Usage_, Göttingen, 1789, Liv. iv. c. iv. In an earlier work, _Primæ Lineæ Juris Gentium Europæarum_, published at Göttingen in 1785, the three-league limit is omitted. After speaking of ports, bays, and straits, he says, “Neque minus in genere eæ maris partes, quæ territorio proximæ sunt (mare proximum vocant) et tormentorum in limite terræ constitutorum ictui subsunt, censentur esse in dominio gentis terræ dominæ, et pro parte territorii habentur.”

[1030] “Sur la mer voisine en général jusqu’à la portée du canon placé sur le rivage; c. a. d. jusqu’à trois lieues du rivage,” p. 189. He also speaks elsewhere of the range of guns being equivalent to three leagues; but it would appear that the terms “miles” and “leagues” were sometimes used indifferently and carelessly (see Bluntschli, p. 682), and three leagues was far beyond the range of guns in Von Marten’s time.

[1031] _Sistema universale dei Principj del Diritto marittimo dell’ Europa._ Florence, 1795-96. The work was translated into French in 1801--_Système Universel de Principes du Droit Maritime de l’Europe_--and revised, enlarged, and republished in 1805.

[1032] See p. 574.

[1033] “Giacchè essa sola è, secondo me, il giusto ed unico mezzo, che potrebbe servire di norma per fissare una volta il mare territoriale sempre combattuto, e non ancora deciso, o almeno non stabilito come si dovrebbe in un pubblico Trattato tra le Potenze marittime,” i. 75.

[1034] “La distanza di tre miglia dalla Terra come quella, che senza dubbio è la maggiore, dove colla forza della polvere a fuoco finora cognita si possa spingere una palla o una bomba,” p. 76.

[1035] _Répertoire de Jurisprudence._

[1036] See p. 571.

[1037] Daru, _Histoire de la République de Venise_, i. 445; Smedley, _Sketches of Venetian History_, i. 72. See p. 4. When Venice was conquered, the _Bucentaur_ was stripped of her gilding and finery, and, under the name of _Hydra_, became a prosaic guard-ship, stationed at the mouth of the Lido until 1824, when she was destroyed.

[1038] _Rescripter, Resolutioner og Collegial-Breve for Kongeriget Norge, i Tidsrummet fra 1660-1813_, i. 315, 18th June 1745. “Rescr. (til Stiftsbefalingsmændene i Norge) ang. det ikke skal være nogen fremmed Caper tilladt at opbringe noget Skib een Miil nœr de Norske Kyster og de der udenfor beliggende Grunde og Skjær,” &c. The league in the Scandinavian ordinances measures fifteen to one degree of latitude, or one German mile, equal to about 7420 metres. The marine league, or three-mile limit ordinarily adopted, is of twenty to a degree of latitude, or about 5565 metres, or 3.4517 English statute miles.

[1039] _Ibid._, i. 423, 439, 602.

[1040] 14th Sept. 1807, s. 5; 28th March 1810, s. 7. In the last the privateers were forbidden to capture ships in the Sound within such distance of the Swedish coast as was within the range of guns. Auber, _Ann. de l’Institut de Droit Internat._, xi. 145.

[1041] Kleen, _Neutralitetens Lagar_, ii. 865.

[1042] Boeck, _Oversigt over Litteratur, Love, Forordninger Rescripter, m.m. vedrørende de Norske Fiskerier_, p. 12.

[1043] Real Cédula, 17th December 1760; Real Órden, 1st May 1775; Real Decreto, 3rd May 1830; Real Decreto, 20th June 1852. Riquelme, _Elementos de Derecho Público Internacional, con esplicacion de todas las reglas que, segun los Tratados, &c., constituyen el Derecho Internacional Español_, i. 211, App., 187, 197, 200; Madrid, 1849. Negrín, _Tratado de Derecho internacional maritimo_, Madrid, 1883, p. 66.

[1044] Martens, _Recueil_, i. 479.

[1045] 21st Nov. 1777; 9th May 1778. Martens, _Recueil_, iii. 16, 18. In Kent’s _Commentaries on American Law_, i. 118 (ed. 1884), it is said (apparently on the authority of Sparks’ _Diplomatic Correspondence_,