Chapter V (part 1 of 2)
THE INADEQUACY OF THE THREE-MILE LIMIT FOR FISHERY REGULATIONS.
The recommendation of the International Law Association and of the French Institute that the territorial waters should be extended to six miles from the shore, or double the width usually enforced, was avowedly made, as we have seen, chiefly in the interests of the sea fisheries; and it may be presumed from the opinions of the majority of accredited writers on the law of nations, as reviewed in these pages, that it is open to any Power so to extend its territorial sea, except in so far as such extension may be opposed to the provisions of treaties with any other Power or Powers. It is undoubtedly the case that in by far the greater number of instances in which the limits of territorial waters, or the rights of the bordering state in the adjacent sea, have been disputed, or have come under discussion, between one nation and another, it was the right of fishery that was at issue. From the reign of James I. this has been the case, and it has been exhibited on all coasts, and in almost all countries. How replete our history is with such disputes may be gathered from foregoing chapters, while nearly all recent international treaties in which limits in the neighbouring sea are dealt with have been concerned with fishery questions. The numerous treaties and agreements with the United States and France respecting the vexed rights of fishing on the coasts of British North America, the North Sea conventions in Europe, and the various other agreements between European Powers, as between Spain and Portugal, Austria and Italy, Denmark and Sweden, Denmark and Germany, Great Britain and France, Belgium and Germany, and with Denmark concerning Iceland, are instances in point. The fishery interest is thus the determining interest, and the one which has made these various conventions desirable.
There appears to be little doubt that, in many cases at least, the three-mile boundary which has been commonly fixed in the fishery conventions is inadequate from the point of view of the fisheries, and this is the opinion of most of the experts and authorities, as is explained below. It must not be forgotten that the three-mile limit was selected, not on any grounds special to fisheries, but because it had been already recognised and put into force in connection with the rights of neutrals and belligerents in time of war, as representing the approximate range of guns at the time. It is in reality a product of the maritime wars in the latter part of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, and its application to the right of fishing is accidental and arbitrary. The boundaries which were formerly proposed as limiting the right to exclusive fishery, independently of any question of the rights of neutrals or the range of cannon, were invariably greater than three miles. The range of vision was employed in Scotland and on the English coast later; its equivalent of fourteen miles was embodied in the Draft Treaty of Union between England and Scotland in 1604, and was proposed again in 1618; and Sir Philip Meadows, the most able opponent of extravagant claims to maritime sovereignty, favoured a similar distance in 1689. Limits of eight miles and ten miles to be enforced against foreigners were fixed in the Fishery Bill passed by the House of Commons in 1660, while as late as 1824 and 1827 the Dutch Government decreed a limit of six miles for their fishermen on the British coasts. We have seen, too, that the wider extent of sea in which rights of exclusive fishery are claimed by the Scandinavian and Iberian states exists in great measure because those Powers established their limit without reference to Bynkershoek’s doctrine, and before indeed it became prevalent.
The same need of a wider limit is shown in the municipal legislation of many countries, which was specially designed with the object of preserving sea fisheries, as well as in certain international agreements. There are two classes of sea fisheries which have received special treatment beyond the ordinary limits of territorial waters, and both on the same principle--viz., that the action of man, if unrestrained, would lead to their destruction and economic extinction. They are those for marine mammals, as seals and cetaceans, and for certain shell-fishes and coral. A considerable number of countries have legislated for the preservation of seals, and some of the enactments at least apply beyond the ordinary limits. Examples may be found in the Canadian statute of 1886,[1274] which refers also to whales and porpoises; the Russian law dealing with the sealing industry in the White Sea; the Norwegian law fixing a close-time for whales in the Varangerfjord; and the concurrent international legislation of Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Germany, and Holland concerning the Jan Mayen seal fishery in the Atlantic east of Greenland.[1275] A recent instance is afforded by the regulations which were prescribed for British and American citizens and subjects by the Tribunal of Arbitration for the purpose of protecting and preserving the fur-seal in Behring Sea. By these regulations the killing, capture, or pursuit of this animal was forbidden within a zone of sixty geographical miles around the Pribilov Islands, comprising about 15,000 square miles of sea; a close-time was fixed between 1st May and 31st July on the high sea within an immense area--viz., north of 35 degrees North latitude and eastwards of 180 degrees West longitude; only specially licensed sailing vessels, with canoes or undecked boats propelled by paddles, oars, or sails, were at liberty to carry on fur-sealing operations where and when the fishing was allowed; the use of nets, firearms, and explosives was forbidden, except shot-guns outside of Behring Sea, and some minor conditions were laid down.[1276]
Another instance is the agreements entered into between Russia on the one hand and Great Britain and the United States on the other, by which a zone of ten marine miles on all the Russian coasts of Behring Sea and the North Pacific Ocean, and a zone of thirty marine miles round the Commander Islands and Robben Island, were closed to sealing for the fur-seal.[1277]
The other class of fisheries referred to, for sedentary animals connected with the bottom, such as oysters, pearl-oysters, and coral, which are found in shallow water, as a rule, and usually near the coast, have always been considered as on a different footing from fisheries for floating fish. They may be very valuable, are generally restricted in extent, and are admittedly capable of being exhausted or destroyed; and they are looked upon rather as belonging to the soil or bed of the sea than to the sea itself. This is recognised in municipal law, and international law also recognises in certain cases a claim to such fisheries when they extend along the soil under the sea beyond the ordinary territorial limit. Cases in point are the pearl-fisheries on the banks in the Gulf of Manar, Ceylon, which extend from six to twenty-one miles from the coast, and are subject to a colonial Act of 1811, which authorises the seizure and condemnation of any boat found within the limits of the pearl-banks, or hovering near them: boats or vessels navigating the inner passage are prohibited from hovering or anchoring in water deeper than four fathoms, and those navigating the outer passage from hovering or anchoring within twelve fathoms. These pearl-fisheries are very valuable, and have been treated from time immemorial by the successive rulers of the island as subjects of property and jurisdiction; and the laws referred to apply also to foreigners. Another case is the pearl-fisheries in Australia. In Western Australia certain Acts are applied far beyond the three-mile limit, though apparently only against British subjects,[1278] and a similar Act, of 1888, applied in Queensland to extra-territorial waters west of Torres Strait. The pearl-fisheries of Mexico and Columbia are also subject to regulation beyond the ordinary three-mile limit. Examples of extra-territorial jurisdiction over beds of the common edible oyster are to be found in the British conventions with France in 1839 and 1867, by which the Bay of Granville was reserved to France (see p. 612), and in the last of these conventions (Article ix.) a close-time was provided in the English Channel; and likewise in the proceedings concerning the Arklow and Wexford banks, off the Irish coast (see p. 621). Coral-beds in the Mediterranean, off the coasts of Algeria, Sardinia, and Sicily, are in a similar way regulated by Italian and French laws beyond the ordinary three-mile limit.
Even in regard to the class of fisheries for what is termed “floating” fish--that is to say, the ordinary fisheries for sea fishes, carried on usually by nets and lines--there are a number of enactments conferring jurisdiction, or which have conferred jurisdiction, beyond the distance of three miles from shore. Old English and British Acts, previously referred to (p. 608), fixed limits of four-and-a-half and five miles from the coast, within which distance the use of certain apparatus, as drag-nets and trawls, was prohibited. In the Herring Fishery Act of 1808, which provided for the appointment of commissioners for the herring fishery, and for the regulation of the fishery and the curing of herrings, jurisdiction was extended over “all persons” engaged in catching, curing, and dealing in fish in all the lochs, bays, and arms of the sea, and also within ten miles of the coasts.[1279] At the Isle of Man an Act of Tynwald prohibited herring-fishing at a certain season within nine miles of the shore,[1280] and other instances might be given where municipal Acts extended jurisdiction beyond the ordinary three-mile limit for similar purposes.
It is, however, in connection with the great development of trawl-fishing from steamers in recent years, that the question of the inadequacy of the ordinary three-mile limit for the preservation and regulation of fisheries has been brought to the front, and it is around this method of fishing that most of the controversies affecting the territorial waters, at least in Europe, have gathered.[1281] It is therefore necessary to understand something about it, and how it is that it has given rise to demands for the extension of the ordinary limits and for the closure of large areas beyond these limits. It is the most effective and at the same time the most destructive method of fishing ever made use of. It differs from hook-and-line fishing, in which only a few kinds of fish are taken at the same time, according to the size of the hook and the kind of bait, and from gill-net or drift-net fishing, which is adapted, according to the dimensions of the mesh, to capture a particular fish, as herring or mackerel. Trawling consists essentially in dragging along the bottom of the sea a great bag of netting, which captures a large variety of fishes, big and little; and it may involve, at certain places and in certain seasons, the destruction of immense quantities of edible fishes too small to be marketable, and which are thrown back, dead, into the sea.[1282] It is a very old method, but until about a century ago it was confined on the British coast to the mouth of the Thames and neighbourhood and to certain localities in the Channel, its headquarters being Barking and Brixham. Trawling was then restricted to shallow water; the boats were small and the trawls were such as a man could carry on his shoulders. At the close of the French war, Brixham trawlers began to migrate eastwards, prospecting for new grounds, fixing their temporary headquarters first at Dover, then at Ramsgate in 1818, and at Harwich in 1828. Continuing their explorations, the Dutch coast was visited about 1830 and the southern part of the Dogger Bank a few years later, and in 1837 a great impetus was given to trawling by the discovery of enormous quantities of soles in the Great Silver Pit, south of the Dogger. Trawlers flocked thither from all quarters; the Brixham men fixed upon Hull, first as their temporary, and then as their permanent home, and from this time North Sea trawling was firmly established. It was not until 1858, little more than half a century ago, that trawlers began to be employed from Grimsby, which is now by far the greatest fishing-port in the world. Gradually the enlarging fleets of trawlers pushed northwards and eastwards as new grounds were discovered. By 1860 the whole of the Dutch coast and the coast of Schleswig was frequented; ten years later the Danish coast was included, and, for the first time, the whole of the Dogger Bank, as well as large areas north and west of it, off the coast of England and Scotland. About 1875 the Great Fisher Bank, which lies about 200 miles east of the Scottish coast, began to be visited, and in 1891 the English trawlers boldly pushed on to Iceland, where enormous catches of fish were obtained.
During this period, while the fishing-grounds were being vastly extended, great improvements were made in the means of catching the fish and bringing them to market. The trawling vessels gradually increased in numbers, size, speed, and storage capacity; the trawl-net grew larger and more efficient; the use of ice for the preservation of the fish enabled distant grounds to be visited, and the deeper waters of the north necessitated the substitution of steam-power for hand-labour in hauling the nets on board; the “fleeting” system, by which steam-carriers collected the fish each morning and brought them rapidly to market, allowed the fleets of sailing smacks to remain on the grounds constantly fishing for many weeks at a time. Then the industry was revolutionised by the substitution of steam vessels for the sailing smacks, a change which began about 1878; and trawling, which was at first a summer occupation owing to the frailty of the boats, and then a winter pursuit, as plenty of wind was required to drag the heavier nets, became independent of the season, and almost of the weather. A further improvement was the introduction in 1895 of the otter-trawl instead of the unwieldy beam-trawl, the mouth of the net being kept open by the divergence of two boards, one at each side, on the principle of the kite. This allowed the net to be made very much larger, and also to be used in much deeper water, and commercial trawling is now carried on in depths down to about 200 fathoms.
There has thus occurred during the last generation or so an enormous development in the extent and efficiency of trawl-fishing. The British fleet since about 1885 has grown from some 200 small vessels, of twenty to twenty-four tons, and using trawls of from twenty to thirty feet beam, to an aggregate of 3170 vessels in 1907, of which 1609 were steamers and 918 deep-sea sailing smacks.[1283] These figures, however, convey but little impression of the real increase in the catching power. It has been computed, both by practical men and by scientific experts, that the modern steam otter-trawler is approximately eight times more effective in catching fish than was one of the large sailing smacks of a generation ago,[1284] and thus the British deep-sea trawling fleet in 1907 was equal to about 13,790 of the older sailing smacks. But in addition to these there are the foreign steam-trawlers which fish on the same grounds, for many other countries have followed the English example in developing deep-sea trawling. The aggregate number of such vessels at the end of 1907 was about 634, of which 224 were French, 239 German, and 81 Dutch;[1285] and they would represent 5072 sailing smacks, so that the total trawling fleet of Western Europe was then equal to about 18,862 of the sailing trawlers of twenty or thirty years ago, the sailing trawlers in use on the Continent being left out of account. It has been calculated that the area of the sea-bottom which is swept each day by the nets of this great fleet is equal to about 2000 square miles.
Now, this extraordinary extension of trawl-fishing in recent times bears upon the question of territorial waters in two ways. One relates to the impoverishment of the older fishing-grounds near the coast and in the North Sea. The other relates to the incursion of steam-trawlers on foreign coasts as affecting the fishing of the inhabitants of such coasts.
With regard to the first, there have been many inquiries made by Royal Commissions and Parliamentary Committees, as well as by fishery departments and experts, which show that the excessive fishing has depleted the older banks. In the first of these inquiries, which began in 1863, when there were only from 650 to 700 smacks trawling in the North Sea (and then only in a part of it), the reporters expressed their belief that this method of fishing “in the open sea” was not wastefully destructive, and required no legislative interference, for if any ground were over-fished, the fishing there would become unprofitable, and the trawlers would go elsewhere.[1286] The next Commission, in 1878, by which time trawling had greatly developed, came to much the same general conclusions; but they found that a decrease of soles had occurred, and also a decrease of plaice and flounders in some localities, and they recommended that power should be given to the Secretary of State to forbid trawling “in any of the territorial seas,” which power was conferred in 1881.[1287] This inquiry was noteworthy as first revealing complaints by the trawlers themselves of the diminution of certain fish and the impoverishment of inshore grounds, and for the advocacy by Grimsby smack-owners of the prohibition of trawling at localities where small fish abound, as the inlets on the Dutch and German coast, the Wash, and off Yarmouth, and even within a nine-mile limit all round the shores of the North Sea. At the next Commission of inquiry, in 1883, the complaints of the trawlers were stronger, and the remedies they proposed more drastic. Those of Hull and Grimsby stated that the numbers of flat fishes, particularly soles, had much diminished; that the nearer grounds were impoverished, and that they had to go much greater distances for their supplies of fish. They expressed the belief that most damage was being done by trawling along the coasts, especially on the Continental side of the North Sea, and that the most effectual remedy would be to prohibit trawling within a ten-mile limit around the whole of the North Sea coasts. The conclusions reached by the Commission were that soles had decreased, and also flat fishes and haddocks in many parts of the territorial waters between Grimsby and the Moray Firth, and they recommended that the Scottish Fishery Board should receive powers to regulate or suspend trawling within territorial waters.[1288]
From this time onwards the demand of the trawlers for some legislative restrictions on trawl-fishing increased to a clamour. At a conference of practical fishermen held in 1883, in connection with the International Fisheries Exhibition at London, statements were made by trawlers as to the enormous destruction of under-sized fish and the depletion of the grounds, and a resolution was passed calling upon the Government to bring about an international conference to consider the desirability of recommending legislation.[1289] At another conference, in 1888, they declared that a large and distressing diminution of flat-fishes had occurred in the North Sea; that they viewed the future with alarm unless some steps were immediately taken to protect immature fishes; and they called upon the Government to try to arrange for an international law for the purpose.[1290] As no result followed from the representations to the Government, the trawl-owners on the East Coast took independent action in 1890, and formally agreed, as a preliminary step, to prevent their trawlers from fishing in the summer within a very large area of extra-territorial water off the German and Danish coasts, where immature fish were generally caught in great abundance. The line of closure of this area extended along the coast for 130 miles, passing, to the west of Heligoland, at a distance varying from twenty to over fifty miles from the shore, and embracing no less than about 3600 square (geographical) miles of water lying outside the three-mile limit as defined by the North Sea Convention. The Conference also pressed for legislation of a national and international character to prevent the sale and purchase of immature fish, and they defined what they meant by that term.[1291] For some time at least the vessels of the great trawling companies abstained from fishing within the large area above referred to, but the voluntary arrangement fell through owing to the action of independent “single-boaters,” and the grounds were never effectually closed. The Government went so far to meet the wishes of the trawlers as to issue, through the Foreign Office, invitations from the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association to various Continental Governments to send delegates to a conference in 1890, and representatives from Belgium, France, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain attended a meeting at Fishmongers’ Hall in that year, but no representative of this country was present in an official capacity. Statements of the usual kind were made as to the impoverishment of the fishing-grounds and the necessity of remedial measures in order to keep up the fish supply, and it was resolved, in view of an official international conference being called, to circulate a set of questions regarding the scientific and statistical aspect of the subject.[1292]
The complaints continuing as to the deterioration of the fisheries, the Government in 1893 appointed a Select Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into their condition and to report as to what remedies might be required. The trawlers again gave strong evidence as to the impoverishment of the grounds in the North Sea from over-fishing, the banks having been “fished out” in succession as they were discovered, so that they were compelled to go to distant regions, as Iceland and the Bay of Biscay, to keep up the supplies. Some of them still pressed for an extension beyond the three-mile limit and the prohibition of trawling within ten miles from the shore, especially on the foreign coasts on the eastern side of the North Sea, and in particular that large areas in the extra-territorial waters should be closed by international agreement. The prohibition of the sale of immature flat fishes was also strongly advocated as an indirect means of closing these grounds. The Committee reported that the evidence of all classes of witnesses, “whether trawlers or linesmen, smack-owners or fishermen, scientific experts or statisticians,” showed that a considerable diminution had occurred among the more valuable classes of flat-fishes in the North Sea, which was to be attributed to over-fishing by trawlers in certain localities; and they recommended that the sale of undersized flat-fishes should be forbidden, and that the three-mile limit should be extended for fishery purposes alone, provided it could be effected on an international basis.[1293]
It does not appear that any action was taken by the British Government in consequence of this report; and as the trawlers had failed to get the large area of the German and Danish coasts closed to them directly, they got a Bill introduced into Parliament to prohibit the sale of undersized flat-fishes, in the belief that an enactment of that kind would result in closing the grounds indirectly. The reasoning on which they proceeded was this. Trawling, to be remunerative, depends upon the capture of a variety of fishes, and it is not possible by an enlargement of the mesh of the net to allow of undersized flat-fishes escaping, without also and at the same time permitting the escape of numerous large marketable round-fishes, as haddocks, as well as of many marketable soles, and fishing under such conditions would be unprofitable. It was also known that it would be futile to return to the sea the undersized fishes after they had been brought on board, because in commercial trawling they are dead or moribund, and might as well be taken ashore as thrown back into the water. It was admitted that the only effective way to protect the immature fish was to prevent the trawl from being used on the grounds; and if this could not be done by direct closure of the area, it might be accomplished by prohibiting the sale of undersized flat-fishes generally; for on these particular “small fish” grounds, or “nurseries,” large fishes are so scarce that trawling is remunerative only by reason of the great quantity of small fishes taken. If the sale of these were forbidden, then trawling in such localities would cease. For an enactment of this kind to succeed, it was obviously necessary that it should apply to the whole kingdom, and it was opposed by fishermen on other parts of the coast; and as it was felt to be extremely problematical whether it would secure the cessation of trawling on the small-fish grounds without at the same time injuriously affecting the fisheries on our own coast and raising the price of fish, the Bill was abandoned. Several subsequent Bills of the same kind shared the same fate, usually after a more or less exhaustive inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee. One of those Committees, consisting of thirteen members of the House of Commons, took evidence in 1900 from the representatives of the trawlers and others, of the character previously described, advocates of the Bill admitting that in their view it was a tentative measure, and that the direct closure of the grounds would be preferable. The Committee thought that it was proved beyond all doubt that there was a serious diminution of flat-fishes, particularly in the North Sea; that the ancient fishing-grounds were much depleted; that the evil was a growing one, and that in default of a remedy the consequences would be disastrous to the industry.[1294] One of the causes of the diminution was found to be the vast destruction of immature fish, the direct remedy for which, the Committee said, was either the prohibition of the taking and killing of such fish, or the prohibition of fishing within areas where small fish abound. They were of opinion that the former was practically impossible without prohibiting trawling altogether, while the areas where the small fish congregate could only be closed by a joint international arrangement. The indirect remedy was that proposed by the Bill, and, for reasons such as are stated above, they felt it would not be expedient to pass the Bill into law without further inquiry and investigation. The Committee were of opinion that the subject of the diminution of the fish supply was a very pressing one, and that the situation was going from bad to worse, and they recommended that no effort should be spared, first, to arrange for international treatment of the subject generally, and especially for regulation of the North Sea area; and second, to provide for the adequate equipment of the Government Departments in charge of the subject.[1295]
The trawlers still pressed for legislation to deal with the wasteful destruction of undersized fish, and continued to pass resolutions on the subject;[1296] and another and somewhat modified Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in 1904 by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and remitted to a Select Committee of that House. The Committee, after taking much evidence of the usual kind, stated their opinion that the ideal manner of protecting the fishing-grounds in the North Sea where young fish abound would be by an international agreement between all the Powers concerned, and they expressed the hope that the Government would not relax its efforts to secure such a convention. It was thought that, as the first step towards attaining this result, the Bill ought to be passed into law; but the opposition to it was too strong, and it shared the fate of its numerous predecessors.[1297]
The statements of the trawlers that the older fishing-grounds are impoverished, particularly those in the North Sea, are borne out by the results of statistical and scientific inquiries. It was calculated by Professor W. Garstang that the average catch of bottom fishes, per fishing unit, decreased in the North Sea in the ten years 1889 to 1898 from 60·6 to 32·3; or, in other words, that while the average take of each trawling smack in 1889 was sixty tons, it was only about thirty-two tons in 1898.[1298] The official statistics published annually by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries show that the quantity of bottom fishes taken from the North Sea is declining, while on the other hand the quantity landed in this country from distant waters is greatly increasing.[1299]
This brings us to the second point, in which the immense development of trawling touches upon the question of territorial waters--namely, the flocking of the trawlers to new grounds on foreign coasts. As the North Sea became, comparatively speaking, more and more exhausted, the vessels were compelled to go farther and farther away in order to maintain the supply.[1300] The grounds at Iceland, now so important not only to the British trawlers but to the Germans and the French, were first visited in 1891, and those in the neighbourhood of the Faröe Islands a little later. The operations of the trawlers were at first limited to the south-east coast, but the catches were so enormous, and the enterprise so profitable, that large and seaworthy vessels were specially built for this fishing, which became one of the most important for the English markets.[1301] Then the grounds in the Bay of Biscay and those on the coasts of Spain and Portugal began to be frequented, mostly from about the year 1902; and in the next year the operations of the trawlers were extended farther south to the coast of Morocco, as far at least as Agadir (20 deg. N. latitude), and even in some cases to the coast of Mauritania in French West Africa. The vessels fishing in these southern regions, many of them being fitted with refrigerating rooms, land a considerable proportion of their fish in Portugal and elsewhere. A year or two later, in 1905, the enterprising English trawlers opened up new grounds far away to the north-east in Barents Sea, at the very borders of the perpetual ice of the Arctic regions, and increasing numbers make the long double voyage of some 3500 miles thither every summer, and bring back from the neighbourhood of Cape Kanin great quantities of plaice for the English markets.
Thus the great enterprise and energy of British trawlers, supported by large capital, have enabled them to exploit the available grounds from far beyond the Arctic circle almost to the tropics, and it is from those distant regions that an increasing proportion of the fish supply is being drawn.[1302] The influx of alien vessels, the most powerful and efficient fishing machines in existence, along these foreign coasts is not, as was naturally to be expected, viewed with satisfaction by the native fishermen. They see the fishing-grounds which they had so long been accustomed to consider as their own--in many cases lying within the territorial waters preserved to them by the laws of their own country, though possibly outside “the ordinary three-mile limit”--invaded and exploited by foreigners, and their own livelihood threatened. They fear that what has occurred in the North Sea will happen along their own coasts; that the fishing-grounds, often of limited extent, will be impoverished and exhausted for the sole benefit of the foreigners, and their efforts to maintain themselves and their families rendered difficult or impossible. They observe from their boats the immense hauls of fish made by the huge trawl-nets, and the great waste that is often involved.[1303] One cannot be surprised that the fishermen, and those who sympathise with them, feel indignation at the invasion of their waters by foreign trawlers, and that great meetings have been held, as in Spain and Portugal, to demand redress, and that at least the same limit as applies to natives pursuing similar methods should be enforced on the foreigners, or an international conference called to arrange for an equitable limit, or equitable treatment, which would have regard for the rights of all concerned.[1304]
From the foregoing description of the problems associated with the modern development of trawling, it will not be difficult to understand the scope and nature of the legislation which has been devised in various countries to preserve the native fisheries for the inhabitants of the coast. It may be said that in practically all of them, trawl-fishing is either entirely prohibited within territorial waters or is subjected to various regulations, for the most part with the view of allowing minor forms of trawling, as that for shrimps, to be carried on. In those countries which have a zone of territorial water extending beyond the ordinary three-mile limit, it is prohibited within that zone, as in Norway, Spain, and Portugal, and even up to twelve miles from the shore; while in some others in which three miles is in use as the ordinary limit for exclusive fishing, trawling is forbidden at distances beyond that limit. In Italy and Austria steam-trawling is not allowed within five miles of the coast. In Scotland and Ireland it is prohibited in certain specified waters, which extend much beyond a three-mile boundary. As recent legislation, or byelaws made with the authority of Parliament, bearing upon these prohibitions have given rise to much controversy, it is desirable to consider them with a little care.
In England, where the administration of the local fisheries around the coast is in the hands of various Sea Fisheries District Committees, numerous byelaws have been made and are in force, with the sanction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, prohibiting or regulating trawling of one kind or another in the waters under the control of the Committees. None of the byelaws appear to apply to parts of the sea beyond the ordinary three-mile zone, though it is open to question whether the wording of the Act, by which the Committees were created, does not give power in that direction.[1305]
The Irish Fishery Department have made a very large number of byelaws, at various times and under various Acts, for the regulation or prohibition of trawling. Of these some forty-four are at present in force, twenty-two applying to all trawling and twenty-two to steam trawling alone, and one or two of them date from the years 1842 and 1851.[1306] Under these byelaws trawling in one form or another is prohibited entirely or under certain conditions at most parts of the coast of Ireland; and on certain parts of the coast not inconsiderable stretches of the sea, beyond the three-mile limit and the limit for bays as defined in the fishery conventions, are closed against this method of fishing. The lines around the coast within which trawling is prohibited, in many instances pass between headlands which may be as much as twenty-six, and even forty-three, miles apart; not infrequently they are drawn, not between headlands, but from one light-ship to another, and these light-ships may be four or five miles from land and twenty miles apart. Sometimes the closing line is placed three miles to the seawards of such base-lines; and they may pass from about two to seven or eight miles outside the limit as defined in the conventions, and in some instances up to ten or eleven miles from low-water mark on the shore.
It is obvious that the principle upon which these lines have been drawn has been one of convenience. They differ entirely from the lines of closure in the two Scottish Firths referred to below, which are inter fauces terræ with the lines passing from headland to headland. But all the lines on the Irish coast are well within the range of guns from the shore, and are thus, according to the Law of Nations, within the territorial sea. The aggregate area beyond the ordinary limits of the conventions amounts to a little over 400 square (geographical) miles.
It does not appear that foreign trawlers have been found contravening the Irish byelaws to any great extent. Between June 1904 and September 1905 seven steam-trawlers and one sailing-trawler were captured fishing within the limits, one of the former being registered in a foreign country, and, with regard to it, the official report says “it was found impossible to enforce the order made by the magistrates against the owner and skipper.” It is added that “it is thought, however, that means have been found within the existing law of compelling foreign trawlers to observe the byelaws affecting Irish territorial waters.”[1307]
It is, however, with reference to the legislation for Scotland, under which certain areas are closed against trawling, that the main controversies have been raised. Several statutes gave power to the Fishery Board for Scotland to regulate trawling. The first was an Act of 1881,[1308] which empowered the Board of Trade to restrict or prohibit this method of fishing “in any area being part of the sea adjoining the United Kingdom, and within the territorial waters of Her Majesty’s dominions, within the meaning of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878” (see p. 591); which power was transferred to the Scottish Board by subsequent Acts.[1309] Then the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act, of 1885,[1310] empowered the Board to make byelaws for restricting or prohibiting, either entirely or subject to such regulations as might be provided, any method of fishing “in any part of the sea adjoining Scotland, and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands,” when they were satisfied that such mode of fishing was injurious to any kind of sea fishing within that part, or in order to make experiments and observations to ascertain this, or for fish-culture: and such byelaw was not to be valid until it had been confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland. Several byelaws under this Act were made, prohibiting trawling within certain areas on the coast of Scotland within the ordinary limits.[1311] It may well be questioned, in view of the definition of the “territorial waters of Her Majesty’s dominions” in the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, and of the “exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands” in the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883,[1312] whether these powers were restricted to the three-mile limit and to bays whose width was not greater than ten miles; but it is noteworthy that a byelaw with reference to the Firth of Clyde was not confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland, presumably because it was considered at the time to be ultra vires.[1313]
In 1889, however, an Act was passed which directly prohibited trawling “within three miles of low-water mark of any part of the coast of Scotland” (except the Solway and Pentland Firths), and within the waters specified in a schedule annexed, except in such parts as might from time to time be permitted by byelaws of the Fishery Board; and the Board was further empowered to forbid trawling within any area or areas in the Moray Firth between Duncansby Head and Rattray Point, which may be regarded as its headlands.[1314] The waters specified in the schedule included the areas closed under the then existing byelaws, as well as a number of bays, lochs, and areas, the most important of which was “the waters inside a line drawn from Corsewall Point, in the County of Wigton, to the Mull of Cantyre, in the County of Argyll”--that is to say, the Firth of Clyde. In this Act, it will be noted, nothing is said about bays, save in this schedule, and an examination of the charts shows that the waters specified in the schedule, twenty-five in number, would all, with a single exception, be included in the limits of exclusive fishing as defined in the North Sea Convention. Presumably the bays on the coast of Scotland which are not mentioned in the schedule do not come under the provisions of this Act beyond the distance of three miles from low-water mark on their shores. The exception referred to is the Firth of Clyde (fig. 29), where the line of closure is about twenty-eight miles in length, within which trawling was directly prohibited by the Act. The area of water outside the ordinary limits of the conventions which is thus embraced amounts to about 380 square (geographical) miles.
Under the section referring to the Moray Firth, a byelaw was passed in 1890 giving effect to its provisions within a straight line drawn from the Ord of Caithness to Craighead near Buckie, the extent of water enclosed, beyond the ordinary limits, being about 310 square miles. This was replaced by another byelaw in 1892, in which the line of closure to trawling was from Duncansby Head to Rattray Head, a distance of about 73 geographical miles, the area of sea enclosed between it and the ordinary limits amounting to approximately 1480 square (geographical) miles (fig. 30). It is this byelaw that has of late given rise to discussion in relation to the operations of foreign trawlers within the Moray Firth, as is explained below.
In 1895 another Bill was introduced into the House of Lords by the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Tweedmouth), with the object, among other things, of extending a similar jurisdiction over the waters washing the east coast of Scotland. The line at first chosen in this case was a very long one, running along the open coast from Rattray Head to the Farne Islands, a distance of about 120 miles, and passing a little over thirty miles east of Fife Ness.[1315] It was proposed later to give power to prohibit trawling in any area or areas within eighteen miles of the coast.[1316] In the Act as passed the distance was reduced to thirteen miles from the coast in areas under the jurisdiction of the Crown, and no area was to be so regarded unless the powers conferred had been accepted as binding upon their own subjects with respect to such area by all the states who were parties to the North Sea Convention.[1317] This section of the Act has remained inoperative, and no byelaws have been made under it; and there appears to be no evidence as to whether the views of other Powers have been obtained.
In the Moray Firth, closed to trawling by the byelaw above referred to, foreign trawlers began to make their appearance first of all in 1895, when a Danish vessel came. Two years later it returned, and a German trawler also, which was prevented from landing its fish at Aberdeen,--an act of the Crown, which was tested by a case in the Court of Session and upheld by it. In 1898 foreign trawlers appeared in the Firth in considerable numbers, and, it was reported, carried on their operations in such a reckless manner as to involve a great deal of damage to the gear of the net and line fishermen.[1318] These vessels appear to have been mainly Danish, but there were a few Belgian, Dutch, and German, and they came for the most part intermittently and for brief periods, some of them appearing only once or twice in a year. Soon, however, the Firth was invaded by a fleet of trawlers flying the Norwegian flag, although it was known that Norway possessed no steam trawlers,[1319] and these vessels fished regularly in the Moray Firth, carrying their fish to Grimsby, where they were landed and sold. It was soon discovered, and admitted, that these trawlers were in reality English, so far as capital, management, and crew were concerned, but they were registered in Norway in order to evade the British statute, and they soon obtained a practical monopoly of trawling in the Moray Firth. In 1901 there were fourteen or fifteen of them, but by 1905 they had increased to twenty-nine or thirty; while the visits of trawlers of other nationalities had diminished to nine in 1903, to six in 1904, and to two in each of the three following years. In 1903 and 1904 thirteen convictions were recorded against foreign trawlers, eight in connection with the Moray Firth and five in connection with the Clyde; in 1905 the number rose to fifteen for the Moray Firth and six for the Clyde. In all these cases the charge was for trawling within the ordinary three-mile limit. In 1905 a case was brought against Martin Olsen, the Norwegian “flag-master” of one of the trawlers registered in Norway, the Catalonia, for trawling within the Dornoch Firth in contravention of the Act of 1889, and byelaw No. 2, made under the Act of 1885. The place where the offence was committed was beyond the distance of three miles from the shore, but it was within three miles of the ten-mile base-line across the Dornoch Firth, and therefore within the exclusive fishery limit as defined in the conventions, and within one of the areas scheduled in the Act of 1889. The Sheriff-Substitute at Dornoch sustained Olsen’s plea of no jurisdiction, on the ground that the Catalonia was registered in Norway, and Norway was not one of the Powers signatory to the North Sea Convention. On appeal to the High Court of Justiciary the decision was reversed, the judges holding that the prohibition in the Act of 1889, being quite general in terms, was applicable to foreigners as well as to British subjects, and that it was not for them to draw a distinction which had not been made by Parliament.[1320]
This decision was the means of raising the question whether the byelaw did not apply to foreigners equally with British subjects in the whole extent of the Firth, and a series of cases were brought before the Sheriff to test the point. Three prosecutions were instituted, one against Emmanuel Mortensen, a Dane, master of the Niobe, of Sandefjord, Norway, for trawling at a point about five miles off Lossiemouth; another against Thomas Robinson, a British subject, master of the Verbena of Stavanger, Norway, for trawling at a point five miles S.S.E. of Garty Point, Sutherlandshire; and the third against Arthur Lambert, a British subject, fishing-master of the Pinewold, registered at Sandefjord, Norway, for trawling at a distance of seven miles from Tarbetness. Convictions were obtained in all cases in the Sheriff Court of Dornoch, mainly on the same ground as in the above case, that the statute was general and applied to all persons, but Sheriff (now Lord) Guthrie also held that the Moray Firth was within the territorial waters of Scotland.[1321]
The case in regard to Mortensen was appealed and was heard by the full bench of twelve judges of the High Court of Justiciary, who unanimously upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The leading opinion was delivered by the Lord Justice-General (Lord Dunedin), who treated the question as one of construction, and of construction only, since the court had nothing to do with whether an Act of the Legislature was ultra vires or in contravention of international law; they had only to give effect to it. The terms of the Act, applying to “every person” committing the offence within an area which was precisely defined, made the inference strong that it was meant to apply to all persons whatsoever; and this inference was further strengthened by the consideration that the clear object of the Act was to stop trawling, and that object would be defeated or rendered less effective if the prohibition applied only to British subjects, while leaving those of other nations free. With regard to the territorial or non-territorial character of the place where the Niobe had been trawling, Lord Dunedin said that while it might be assumed that within the three-mile limit the territorial sovereignty would be sufficient to cover such legislation, that was not a proof of the counter proposition, that outside the three miles no such result could be looked for. There were at least three points which went far to show that the locus was intra fauces terræ: (1) the dicta of the Scottish Institutional Writers, as Stair and Bell;[1322] (2) the fact that the same statute puts forward claims to analogous places, as, e.g., the Firth of Clyde; (3) there were many instances in decided cases where the right of a nation to legislate for waters more or less landlocked, though beyond the three-mile limit, had been admitted. “It seems to me, therefore,” continued Lord Dunedin, “without laying down the proposition that the Moray Firth is for every purpose within the territorial sovereignty, it can at least be clearly said that the appellant cannot make out his proposition that it is inconceivable that the British Legislature should attempt for fishery regulation to legislate against all and sundry in such a place. And if that is so, then I revert to the considerations already stated, which, as a matter of construction, make me think that it did so legislate.” He did not think any argument could be drawn from the definition of “exclusive fishery limit” in the North Sea Convention, inasmuch as the Convention, as a whole, did not deal with what was here in question--viz., mode of fishing; and the Act treated subjects and foreigners alike in the matter.
Lord Kyllachy also held that, on the point of construction, the intention of the Act was that in no part of the area should trawling be practised by anybody; the terms were definite and applied to a quite definite area; it would be easier to suppose that the Legislature had reached even an erroneous conclusion as to the extent of its jurisdiction, than that it had resolved deliberately to impose a futile restriction upon its own countrymen and at the same time to create a hurtful monopoly in favour of foreigners. With regard to the territorial or non-territorial character of the Moray Firth, it seemed vain to suggest that according to international law there was any part of it which was simply an area of the open sea, and thus in the same position as if it were situated, say, in the middle of the German Ocean. The whole Firth was prima facie a “bay,” with two well-marked headlands, and stretching inwards for many miles into the heart of the country. All that could be said against this was that at its outer end the Firth was very wide, and of a size, if not also of a configuration, somewhat beyond what is usually characteristic of bays and estuaries; but that might or might not be so, and the cases of the Bristol Channel, the Firth of Clyde, and the Firth of Forth would have to be considered before the proposition could be affirmed. There was no established rule on the subject in international law, and in particular no rule “so arbitrary and artificial as that of the ten-mile limit measure,” for which the appellant contended. Perhaps the most interesting part of Lord Kyllachy’s opinion concerned the bearing of the North Sea Convention on the case. If the question had been one of exclusive fishing privileges, the bearing of the Convention might have been important. “But exclusive fishing privileges--or, at all events, exclusive fishing privileges as defined by convention--are one thing; territorial jurisdiction, proprietary or protective, is a different thing.... There is certainly nothing in the Convention, at least nothing was brought under our notice, which in the least conflicts with the right of the several contracting nations to impose each of them within its territorial limits (whatever these are) restrictions universally applicable against injurious practices or modes of fishing such as are by this statute and byelaw imposed here. In other words, there is nothing in the statute and byelaw in question which at all interferes with the exclusive fishing privileges of the several nations.” He could not consent to the argument that the Convention had introduced a new chapter into international law establishing, with respect to the definition of bays and estuaries, new and artificial rules. The other judges who gave their reasoned opinions expressed similar views, both as to the construction of the Act, the possibility or probability that the Moray Firth was a territorial bay by the law of nations, and as to the distinction between the limits of exclusive fishing as defined in the Convention and the right of the bordering state to regulate the fishery beyond that limit and within its territorial waters, provided the regulations applied equally to all.[1323]
It is to be noted that although the question was strictly one of the construction of the Act, the judges had necessarily, in reaching its true meaning, to consider certain aspects of international law in relation to the territorial sea. From the above summary of their opinions, it is evident that the most eminent Scottish lawyers are in agreement with the modern publicists whose views have been referred to in a previous chapter, both in rejecting the three-mile limit as the farthest boundary of territorial sovereignty and as to the ten-mile rule (to say nothing of the six-mile theory) for bays. It may, however, be questioned as to how far the doctrine of independent territorial regulation of fisheries beyond the limit of exclusive fishing, as defined in the Conventions, will be accepted as applied to the signatories of the Conventions. It is not expressly stated in the Conventions that the waters outside the exclusive fishery limits shall be free and common to all; but that is implied even in the title of the last of them,[1324] and the Convention, in point of fact, lays down such regulations for the conduct of the fishery, outside the exclusive fishery limits, as appeared to the signatories at the time sufficient for the equitable enjoyment of the common right. It would be easy to conceive of general regulations being applied independently at particular places by one state, which would have the effect of abridging the common right of the other states, without affecting the interests of its own subjects--on the principle of the invitations which the fox and the stork issued to one another in the fable. That the intention was to leave the fisheries outside the limits mentioned free, except in so far as the regulations agreed upon affected them, is clear from the proceedings at the conference at The Hague. As regards other states, however, such as Norway, which were not signatories of the Conventions, it is equally clear that, up to the utmost bounds of the territorial waters, regulations may not only be imposed on their subjects, but they may be excluded from the fisheries altogether.
The effect of the decision of the High Court of Justiciary was apparently to keep the foreign trawlers out of the Moray Firth for a short time. But very soon a number of them came back again from Grimsby, with express instructions from the owners to fish in the Moray Firth. On 31st January 1907 six masters, all foreigners, of trawlers registered in Norway, were charged at Elgin Sheriff Court with thirteen separate contraventions of the byelaw, committed between 23rd November and 22nd December 1906, at various distances from about five to twelve miles from the coast; on conviction, penalties of £100 or sixty days’ imprisonment were imposed, and five of the men went to prison. On 4th February other two masters of foreign trawlers were convicted of a corresponding offence at Wick Sheriff Court. At the trial at Elgin, the Norwegian Vice-Consul at Aberdeen read a protest, at the instance of the Foreign Minister of Norway, against the conviction of the masters of three of the Norwegian vessels which he named, provided the trawling with which they were charged had taken place “outside the territorial limits.”[1325]
Representations were also made to the British Foreign Secretary by the Norwegian Minister in London (Dr F. Nansen), and the men were released on 9th February,[1326] the decision of the Scottish High Court being thus in effect set aside. It was subsequently explained that in taking this action Norway was merely making a formal stand for the rights of her flag, since the trawlers had been registered in Norway in a legal way, Norwegian subjects were concerned, and no claim had been put forward on behalf of the British Government to the Moray Firth as being territorial in character. In point of fact, the Norwegian Government was in full sympathy with the policy of keeping the pseudo-Norwegian vessels out of the Moray Firth,[1327] and they immediately, after the formal protest referred to, issued orders warning all owners of Norwegian trawlers fishing in the Moray Firth to cease from doing so, and not to expect the support of their Government in case of proceedings being taken against them in Scotland.[1328] It does not appear that any advantage was taken of this proceeding for further prosecutions of Norwegians contravening the law; but it was decided to proceed against British subjects who might be found on the foreign vessels which were violating it, and who were undoubtedly under the jurisdiction of British courts. On March 20th twelve cases were brought before the Elgin Sheriff Court, the men charged being the “fishing-masters” of the foreign trawlers,[1329] and the only one who appeared was fined fifty pounds for each of three offences, or fifteen days’ imprisonment. A little later, on 17th April, fifteen fishing-masters of foreign trawlers, one of which was Swedish, all British subjects belonging to Grimsby, were charged in the same court for trawling within the Moray Firth outside the ordinary limits, and on conviction small fines were imposed. Similar cases were brought against eleven men in July, who were charged with twenty-eight offences committed between 2nd March and 24th June, and still smaller penalties were imposed.[1330]
Considerable discussion was evoked by the various occurrences above referred to. Resolutions were passed at various meetings of fishermen in Scotland in favour of the byelaw being strictly enforced, and asking that an international arrangement should be come to if necessary to enable that to be done. At meetings of trawl-owners, on the other hand, held at Grimsby and elsewhere, resolutions to the opposite effect were agreed to, and the Government were requested to maintain the “three-mile international territorial limits as now defined.” In the Houses of Parliament also numerous questions were put to Ministers on the subject, and there were several debates of a more or less formal kind. It appears that the Foreign Office had come to the conclusion that the Act of Parliament as interpreted by the High Court of Justiciary was in conflict with international law;[1331] and that view having been taken, it was obvious that it would be necessary, if the statute was to have equal effect on foreigners, that some international arrangement, such as had been previously recommended by the Select Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords,[1332] should be reached. It appears that there would have been no difficulty in arranging such an agreement with Norway, which was desirous of entering into negotiations for the purpose; but it was felt by the Foreign Office that, while an arrangement of the kind would not bind other Powers, questions of reciprocity might be raised, and British trawlers might be excluded from similar areas on foreign coasts. They therefore declined to enter upon negotiations with foreign Powers until the whole policy had been carefully considered.[1333] One point of view which was taken was indicated in a speech of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Fitzmaurice) in the course of a debate in February 1907, which had been initiated by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He stated that according to the views hitherto accepted by the chief departments of the Government--the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, the Board of Trade, and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries--and apart from the provisions of special treaties, territorial waters were: “First, the waters which extend from the coast-line of any part of the territory of a State to three miles from the low-water mark of such coast-line; secondly, the waters of bays the entrance to which is not more than six miles in width, and of which the entire land boundary forms part of the territory of a State. By custom, however, and by treaty and in special convention, the six-mile limit has frequently been extended to more than six miles.”[1334] The Lord Chancellor, it may be said, was absent through illness; and the declaration quoted, though it represents what has been the general, but by no means the invariable, attitude of the British Foreign Office in dealing with territorial waters, is not in accordance with the law of nations, as is shown in the foregoing chapters. Nor does it agree with the opinions expressed in a former debate by the late Lord Salisbury, so long the distinguished Foreign Minister of this country, by Lord Halsbury, the former Lord Chancellor, and by Lord Herschell, the then Lord Chancellor (see p. 592), in which Lord Salisbury said “great care had been taken not to name three miles as the territorial limit.” Nor is it in agreement with the carefully considered and most explicit reservations made in the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, both in regard to the extent of the territorial waters and the rightful jurisdiction of the Crown beyond three miles from the shore under the law of nations, conferred by Act of Parliament, or by law existing, and the similar reservations in certain other Acts previously referred to. Even more singular is the novel statement as to what constitutes a territorial bay. A six-mile limit of the kind will obviously confer in the great majority of cases no greater extent of sea than the three-mile limit on an open coast, and it is thus opposed to one of the best-recognised principles of international law relating to the subject. The only part of the world where it appears to be in force is in British North America, with reference to subjects of the United States. The history of how it came to be applied at all is told in a previous chapter, in which it is also shown that the British Government as late as 1887 rejected even the ten-mile limit for bays, as involving a surrender of fishing rights, and as being contrary to the law of nations (p. 629), and they have made declarations equally emphatic on other occasions.[1335]
But in a subsequent debate Lord Fitzmaurice appears to have qualified his statement, and quoted the observation of Lord Salisbury that where the coast was “folded and doubled,” as where bays exist, it was an unsettled question in international law how far territorial waters extend in such cases.[1336]
Rather a different view was taken by the Lord Chancellor, a few weeks later, in the course of another debate about the Moray Firth. Lord Loreburn confined himself to saying that the obvious contention of other nations, and one very difficult to encounter, if we tried to make byelaws under our own law in regard to waters within a line from headland to headland eighty-five miles apart, would be that we might be trying to legislate for the high seas.[1337] And in a debate in July 1908, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir Edward Grey) put the matter in an exceedingly lucid manner. Parliament had recognised the contention, he said, that there ought to be special regulations, especially in regard to the Moray Firth, going far beyond the three-mile limit; and, like other members of the Government, he condemned the action of British subjects who, knowing perfectly well the law, made use of a foreign flag to evade the regulations of the Moray Firth, which it was obviously the desire of Parliament should be enforced. But when they came to the question of enforcing the law on foreign subjects, they were placed in a very difficult position. The national policy of this country hitherto “had been to uphold the three-mile limit, but to protest against and to resist by every means in our power the pretension of any foreign country to enforce its own jurisdiction on the sea beyond the three-mile limit.” We had contended before international tribunals, as in the Behring Sea Arbitration, that the three-mile limit is the only one we can recognise as the limit of foreign jurisdiction over British vessels; and suppose we attempted to enforce a doctrine going far beyond the three-mile limit on foreign ships, how could we contend before an international tribunal for a doctrine precisely the reverse of that which we have always upheld on previous occasions? It followed from this that “if there was to be a modification of the rules relating to trawling in the North Sea, it must be by agreement with foreign Powers”--that was really the practical point upon which the matter turned. But in an important question affecting the interests of the country at large, it was impossible for the Foreign Office to approach other Powers with the view of reaching an agreement until it was quite clear that it was in the interest of a policy which had been adopted, affirmed, and declared by the Government to be a policy which was in the general national interest of the United Kingdom. Judging from the very great force with which the case in such regions as the Moray Firth had been presented, and the strong feeling that existed and which was not confined to the Moray Firth, it had always seemed to him that there was a case for grave consideration as to whether any new regulations were required for the preservation of the fishing industry in the North Sea at large. Trawling was a perfectly legitimate industry in which large capital was invested, and if further restrictions were to be imposed on it, it must be because a really important national interest required it; it would not be right to adopt in the interests of particular localities any special restrictions which might result in diminishing the supply and raising the price of fish. But, having laid down these two principles, Sir Edward Grey thought it was equally true that if the supply of fish from the North Sea is being affected by want of further regulations, then the interests of any particular industry must be subordinated to the general interest, which in the long-run was also the interest of the industry itself. “If it be the case,” he proceeded, “that in areas like the Moray Firth, which are important breeding-grounds, the supply of fish is being seriously interfered with by the prosecution of trawling in narrow waters, then it becomes a matter of national interest that we should, as soon as possible, come to some agreement with foreign Powers under which we should be able to make the arrangements which prove to be necessary in the national interest at large.” The subject was one requiring the deliberate investigation of the Government, and the investigation was proceeding; and they should know in the course of a reasonable time whether or not the Government thought they had a case for approaching other Powers, and if so what were the grounds and propositions they should ask those Powers to agree to. With regard to bays, the Foreign Secretary said it had generally been understood that the qualification of the three-mile limit applied to bays ten miles wide, and they must be very careful as to how far they pressed the doctrine as to the width of a bay, or laid down an international doctrine on any particular bay. They must think of what the application of it might be in other parts of the world.[1338]
In this statesmanlike speech the case was put temperately and fairly. Whether the Moray Firth is or is not a territorial bay, it has been the general practice of the British Government to contend for the ordinary three-mile limit, at least on open coasts, in relation to fishery questions. If there are clear reasons for the extension of this limit at any part of the coast, or in the North Sea generally, in the common interests of the fisheries, as recommended by the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1893; or for the prohibition of trawling within a great area on the Continental coast, as urged by the English trawlers, and recommended by the Parliamentary Committees of 1900 and 1904; or if it is believed to be necessary to regulate the fisheries in any way beyond the ordinary limit, then obviously the best method is to endeavour to come to an arrangement with the other Powers concerned. There are precedents for this course in British policy. By treaties with France, the British Government agreed to bind British subjects not to fish for oysters or any kind of fish within Granville Bay in waters beyond the ordinary limit. In the interests of the preservation of the fur-seal, in which the United States was mainly concerned, they agreed to prohibit British subjects from taking them within a limit of sixty miles around the Pribilov Islands, and to compel them to observe a close-time on the high seas, and to use only the primitive spear. They have also by treaty agreed to respect various other limits beyond the ordinary three miles in the interest of the preservation of other kinds of seals. The case of the North Sea, or of that inlet of it known as the Moray Firth, is on the same footing as these. The question is not one of the extension of territorial sea qua territorial sea, but of special regulations independent of it, and exclusively relating to the fisheries.
From what has been said in foregoing pages as to the impoverishment of the fishing-grounds in the North Sea, and the various remedies that have been at one time or another proposed by the English trawlers and by Parliamentary Committees with the view of maintaining the fish supply, it might appear that a very good case already existed for approaching foreign Powers with the object of arranging for general regulations beyond the ordinary limit, and one far weightier than that which brought about the conference at The Hague and the North Sea Convention in 1882 (see p. 631).
Two probable reasons may be advanced for the delay in giving effect to the recommendations of the various Committees of Parliament. The first is that a very important international investigation of the North Sea and adjacent waters has been in progress for a number of years and is still going on. On the invitation of the Swedish Government, representatives of Great Britain, Germany, Russia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway met at Stockholm in June 1899, and again at Christiania in May 1901, to discuss and arrange an organisation and a programme for an international scientific investigation of the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea, and the Baltic, in the interests of the fisheries; and in July 1902, the first meeting of the body so constituted, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, was held at Copenhagen. Since then all the maritime countries of Western Europe, with the exception of France, have engaged in these researches.[1339] This country entered into the arrangement with special reference to the fisheries in the North Sea, and with a very practical end in view--namely, to secure a careful inquiry into the effect of the methods of fishing in the North Sea, and to promote a scheme for determining whether protection against overfishing was required; and, if so, where, when, and how such protection should be given.[1340] Much strong criticism has been passed as to the origin, the methods, and the programme of these investigations,[1341] and while they have naturally resulted in large additions to our knowledge of the physical and biological conditions of the sea, of the life-history of fishes, and of certain fishery questions, no report has yet appeared dealing with the fundamental problem as to overfishing and any remedies which may be required to safeguard the fish-supply; and it is doubtless such information that is referred to by the Foreign Secretary as essential before Foreign Powers can be approached. An opinion was, however, early expressed as to the particular question of the Moray Firth. The Conference held at Christiania in 1901, at which all the Powers signatory to the North Sea Convention (with the exception of France) were represented, passed a resolution to the effect that “in distinct areas of the sea, as for example the Moray Firth, in which any Government has undertaken scientific experiments in the interest of the fisheries, and in which the success of the experiments is being hindered by the operations of trawlers, it is to be desired that measures be adopted for the removal of such hindrances.”[1342]
The second probable reason that nothing has yet been done to arrive at an international understanding appears to be that the representatives of the great trawling industry have changed their minds within the last few years. Since foreign coasts have been exploited with immediate financial success to the trawling companies, their interest in the North Sea has diminished. They fear that if the question of fishery regulations beyond the ordinary three-mile limit is opened up with foreign Powers in the interest of the North Sea fisheries, proposals may be made, as a quid pro quo, by some of the other Powers for similar regulations on their coasts; and it is evident from the statements made in Parliament that this view has hitherto prevailed.[1343] One would have thought that a quid pro quo which closed to trawling the great area off the Continental coast, which English trawlers for more than fifteen years have been vainly asking to be closed by international arrangement, would be satisfactory to them. Or that a fishery limit of nine or ten miles on the other side of the North Sea, or all around it, which they thought some years ago to be the best remedy for the depletion of the fishing-banks, would meet with their approval. These areas, compared with the whole of the North Sea, are comparatively of small extent (see fig. 26). The area of the North Sea between the three-mile line and a nine-mile limit amounts to about 12,000 square miles, or 7·4 per cent of the whole area beyond three miles from the shore; and the area between the three-mile line and a thirteen-mile limit amounts to about 20,000 square miles, or 12·3 per cent.
Meanwhile, the condition of the fishing-grounds in the North Sea is described as serious by those who ought to know most about it--the trawlers who are daily working there; and if no remedy is timeously applied, the measures which will eventually be necessary will transcend those which are now proposed.[1344]
But if it be imprudent to postpone indefinitely the seeking of an international remedy for the depleted fisheries of the North Sea, because the trawling industry fears that retaliatory measures may be proposed against British trawlers on some foreign coasts, it may be questioned, on the other hand, whether the action taken to obviate such measures has always been well-judged or in accordance with the true comity of nations. On strictly selfish grounds, and for immediate profit, it is doubtless justifiable to make every fishing-bank, wherever it is situated, available for the enterprise of British capital, irrespective of the interests of the inhabitants of the adjoining coast, if that can be managed. If, indeed, the resources of the sea were inexhaustible,--if it was impossible for the operations of man to diminish the abundance of fish,--then no limit of exclusive fishing would be necessary: only such regulations would be required as would enable fishing operations to be conducted in an orderly manner. But the condition of the North Sea alone proves the opposite. It shows also, what is well enough understood, that unrestrained trawling on any banks will, in course of time, materially reduce their productiveness; and the rapidity of the impoverishment will very largely depend upon the intensity of the fishing and the extent of the grounds. That being so, it may well be said that a measure of protection on the banks which are still productive along foreign coasts would be in the permanent interest of the English trawling industry itself, as well as in the interest of the coast population.[1345]
On some of those coasts the local population are dependent on the fish they catch on the neighbouring grounds, which are often of limited extent, and it is reasonable and just that they should endeavour to preserve this supply for their own use and advantage. At Iceland, for example, the area of the possible fishing-grounds between the ordinary three-mile limit and a depth of 200 metres (or 109 fathoms), including places where trawling is not practicable, amounts to about 36,600 square miles, compared with nearly 312,000 square miles between the same limits off the British Isles.[1346] It was recently stated in the House of Lords, by Lord Heneage, that the Icelanders, with the view of preserving their fishing-grounds, a few years ago brought forward a law in the Althing, or local Parliament, to extend the limit of exclusive fishing to seven miles around their coast. It was also said that in 1901 they passed laws for enclosing extra-territorial waters. As soon as these proceedings came to the knowledge of the English trawl-owners, the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association made a representation on the subject to the Foreign Office, and in consequence of this the Danish Government took action, and the law was prevented from coming into operation.[1347] And any such action in the future was effectually prevented by the immediate negotiation of an international convention in which a three-mile limit was fixed for Iceland and Faröe (see p. 647) so far as concerned British fishermen. Then with respect to the coasts of Spain and Portugal, where the available grounds are narrow, amounting altogether between the three-mile limit and the 200-metre line to 15,460 square miles (see fig. 28), intimation has been made by the British Foreign Office, at the instance of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, that jurisdiction will not be recognised over British vessels beyond three miles from the shore, and the national regulations in regard to trawling are thus rendered comparatively ineffective. With regard to Norway, moreover, where the area between the three-mile limit and the 200-metre line exceeds 30,000 square miles, it appears that soon after her separation from Sweden, in 1905, the British Foreign Office made the proposal that she should join in the North Sea Convention (which, along with Sweden, she refused to do in 1882), so that the ordinary three-mile limit might be imposed along the Norwegian coast; but the proposal was rejected.[1348]
In view of the evidence that has been adduced, the recommendations of the various Committees of Parliament that have inquired into the subject, and the statements made in the House of Commons, it may be assumed that an international conference of the Powers bordering the North Sea will be convened, to consider how fishery regulations may be made more effective, whether by extension of the limits of exclusive fishery or otherwise, as soon as the results of the international fishery investigations justify that course.
APPENDIX A.
(P. 45.)
THE LIBEL REGARDING REYNER GRIMBALD.
DE SUPERIORITATE MARIS ANGLIÆ ET JURE OFFICII ADMIRALLATUS IN EODEM.
(Chancery Rolls, Miscellaneous. Treaties and Diplomatic. Bundle 14, No. 15, Mem. 12.)
A vous Seignurs Auditours Deputez par les Roys Dengleterre et de Fraunce a redresser les damages faitz as gentz de lour Roialmes et des autres terres subgiz a lour seignuries par meer et par terre en temps de pees et de Trewes monstrent les Procureurs[1349] des Prelatz et Nobles et del Admiral de la meer Dengleterre et des Comunaltes des Citees et des Villes et des Marchanz Mariners Messagers et Pillerins et de tous autres[1350] du dit Roialme Dengleterre et des autres terres subgies a la seignurie du dit Roy Dengleterre et daillours sicome de la Marine de Genne Cateloigne Espaigne Alemaigne Selaunde Heylande Frese Denemarch et Norweye et de pluseurs autres leux del empyre qe come les Roys Dengleterre par raisoun du dit Roialme du temps dount il na[1351] memoyre du contraire eussent este[1352] en paisible possession de la souereigne seignurie de la meer Dengleterre et des Isles esteans en ycele[1353] par ordinance et establicement des lois estatuz et deffenses darmes et des vesseaux autrement garniz qe vesseaux de Marchandise et de seurte prendre et sauuegarde doner en tous cas qe mestier serra et par ordinance de tous autres faitz necessaires a la garde des pees droiture et equite entre toute[1354] manere des genz taunt dautri seignurie come leur propre[1355] par illeqes passanz et[1356] par souereigne garde et[1357] tote manere de conisance et Justice haute et basse sur les dites loys estatuz ordinances et deffenses et par tous autres faitz queux a le gouernement[1358] de souereigne seignurie appartenir purront es leux auantdiz. Et A. de B. Admiral de la dite meer deputez par le Roy[1359] Dengleterre et tous les autres Admirals par meisme celui Roy Dengleterre[1360] et ses Ancestres iadiz Roys Dengleterre eussent este[1361] en paisible possession de la dite souereigne garde[1362] oue la conisance et Justice et tous les autres appurtenances auantdites horspris[1363] en cas dappel et de querele faite de eux a lour souereignes Roys Dengleterre de deffalte de droit ou de mauueis iuggement et especialment par empeschement mettre et Justice faire[1364] seurte prendre de la pees de tote manere des genz vsanz armes en la dite meer ou menanz Nefs autrement apparaillees ou garnies qe nappartenoit au[1365] Neef Marchande et en tous autres pointz en queux homme poet auoir resonable cause de suspecion vers eux de roberie ou des autres mesfaitz.[1366] Et come les Meistres des Neefs du dit Roialme Dengleterre en absence des diz Admirals eussent este en paisible possession de conustre et juggier de tous faitz en la dite meer entre tote manere des gentz solonc les loys estatus et les deffenses franchises et Coustumes.[1367] Et come en le primer article de lalliaunce nadguers faite entre les diz Roys en les traitiz sur la darraine pees de Paris soient comprises les paroles qe sensuient en vne cedule anexe ayceste.[1368] Primerement il est traite et acorde entre nous et les messages et les procureurs desurdiz en nonn des diz Roys qe yceux Roys serrount lun a lautre desores en auant bons verays et loiaux amys et eydanz countre tout homme sauue lesglise de Rome en tiele manere que si ascun ou pluseurs quicunques ils fuissent voloient deponticer [sic] empescher ou troubler les diz Roys es franchises es libertez priuileges es droiz es droitures ou es custumes de eux et de lour Roialmes qils serront bons et loiaux amys et aydanz countre tout homme qi puisse viure et morir a defendre gardir et mainterer[1369] les franchises les libertez les priuileges les droiz les droitures et les coustumes desusdites Excepte[1370] le dit Roy Dengleterre Monsieur Johan Duc de Braban en Brabant et ses heirs dessenduz de lui et de la fille le Roy[1371] Dengleterre et excepte pur le dit nostre seigneur le Roy de Fraunce excellent Prince Monsieur Aubert Roy Dalemaigne [et] ses heirs Roys Dalemaigne et Monsieur Johan Counte de Henau en Henau. Et que lun ne serra en consail ne en ayde ou lautre perde vie membre estat ne honur temporel [Mem. 12_d_] Monsieur Reymer Grymbaltz Meistre de la Nauie du dit Roy de Fraunce qi se dit estre Admiral de la dite Meer deputez per soun seignur auantdit pur sa guerre countre les Flamaings apres la dite alliaunce faite et affirmee et[1372] contre la fourme et la fource de meisme lalliance et lentencion de ceux qi la firent loffice deladmiralte en la dite Meer Dengleterre[1373] par commission du Roy[1374] de France torsenousement enprist et usa un an et plus en parnant les gentz et[1375] marchantz du Roialme Dengleterre et daillours par la dite meer passanz euesque leur biens[1376] et les gentz ansi prises liuera a la prison de soun dit Seignur le Roy de Fraunce et lour biens et[1377] Marchandises a les Receiuours par meisme celui Roy de Fraunce[1378] a ce[1379] deputez en les Portz de soun dit Roialme come a lui forfaites et acquises fist amener par soun iuggement et agard[1380] et la prise et detenue des dites gentz oue[1381] lour diz biens et marchandises et soun dit iuggement et agard sur la forfaiture de eaux et acqueste[1382] ait Justice deuant vous Seignurs Auditours en escript par my lautorite de la[1383] dite commission sur ladmiralte auantdite par lui ansi vsurpee et par my vne deffense communement faite par le Roy[1384] Dengleterre par my soun poer solonc la forme du[1385] tiers article de lalliaunce auant dite qi contient les paroles desouzescriptes en requerant que de ce il en fuisse quitz et assouz en grant damage et preiudice du dit Roy Dengleterre et des Prelatz et Nobles et autres desusnomez par quoy les diz procureurs en les nouns de lour diz Seignurs[1386] Auditours auantdiz prient que deliuerance dewe et hastiue des dites gentz ouesqe leur biens et marchandises ansi prises et detenues facez estre faite al Admiral du dit Roy Dengleterre a qi la conisance de ce appartient de droit sicome desus est dit ansi qe[1387] sans destorbance de vous et dautri[1388] puisse de ce conustre et faire ce qe appartient a soun office auant dit et qe le dit Monsieur Reyner soit condampne et destreint affaire dewe satisfaction a tous les diz damagez si auant come etc.[1389] Item vous requirent les diz procureurs que come solone les anxnienes[1390] loys franchises et coustumes du Roialme Dengleterre a la garde des queles vostre dit seignur le Roy et ses auncestres Roys Dengleterre soloient estre liez par lour sermentz Lour Admirals de la Meer Dengleterre oue[1391] les Maistres et Mariners nefs[1392] des Portz de la Marine Dengleterre esteans en les[1393] armees des diz Admirals ne deuoient[1394] respondre deuant nuls Justices des Roys auantdiz[1395] sur fais en la Meer susdite durans lours[1396] guerres countre lour enemis et le dit Admiral vostre dit seignur le Roy et plusours des Maistres et Mariners des Portz auantdiz ore esteans en sa Armee countre les[1397] enemis Descoce et lour aydans et alliez par expres mandement de vostre dit seignur le Roy soiient accusez deuant vous par gentz de Normandie et de Bretaigne et daillours sur ascuns faitz en la dite Meer en temps de trewes et puis la pees afferme entre les diz Roys Dengleterre et de Fraunce et auant la guerre comencee entre eaux a ce qest dit. Vous plaise surseer es proces countre eux ia comencee et deporter de comencer nouel durant la guerre susdite ansi qils naient mestier de se[1398] complaindre a vostre dit seignur et as Prelatz et Nobles de soun dit Roialme par leur serment liez a les dites loys franchises et coustumes garder et maintenir.
APPENDIX B.
(P. 49.)
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AUDITORS DEPUTED BY THE KINGS OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE FOR THE REDRESS OF THE GRIEVANCES BETWEEN THE SUBJECTS OF THE TWO COUNTRIES. 27-33, Edw. I.
(Abstract of Chancery Miscellaneous Roll. Bdle. 5, No. 6.)
RICHARD BUSH against REYNER GR MAUS.
LIBEL (Libellus).
Richard Bush of London complains that a ship called “la Blacog̃” of London, going from Winchelsea to Dieppe in August 1301, containing goods to the value of £157, was attacked by Michel de Navere and others of Calais, and his said goods taken thither and there disposed of by said Michel and Henry de Ganewe. Said Richard demands restoration of goods and £20 damages.
DENIAL (Contestatio negativa).
The said “Cheual̃” asserts that he was not in that country at the time specified, nor for nearly a year afterwards.
REJOINDER (Repplicatio).
To the answer of the “chevalier” that he was not admiral till some time after the events specified, the attorneys of said Richard reply that they will advise with their master as to the truth.
William Bush of London loaded a ship called “la Mariote de Seland” at Antwerp for London with goods to the value of £175, 17s. 8d. Michel de Nauere and others of Calais came with three galleys to the foreland of Thanet at the mouth of the Thames in May 1298; took said ship to Calais and there disposed of the goods by the aid of Henri de Ganewe. Said William demands restoration and £20 damages.
To the demand of William Bush the said John[1399] replies “en la maniere q̃ il fait a la demande Cecile,”[1400] that it does not concern him, but “mos̃ Henri et Michel de Nauare.”
Said William further complains that he loaded a ship called “la Blithe” of London in Brabant for London with goods, value £40. John Pederogh seized them at the mouth of the Thames in July 1303, took them to Calais, and there disposed of them by the aid of Edward de Mabusshon. William demands restoration and £8 damages.[1401]
Said John replies that at the time specified he was not on the sea at all but in Paris or on the road to Calais.
THOMAS CROS against JOHN PAYDRO.
LIBEL.
Thomas Cros of London, executor of the will of Thos. Cros his father, who was executor of Henry Box of London, complains that said Henry loaded the ships William le fiz Henri, Godefroi de Duffle, Michel de Middelborgh, Johan Athelard, Johan le Chaundeler in London, to go to Brabant (which ships were of Brabant) with goods value £672; Michel de Nauuere and others of Calais with three galleys seized said ships off the foreland of Thanet in May 1298, took the goods aforesaid from said ships and in their galleys to Calais, and there disposed of them by the aid of Henry de Genewe. Said Thomas Cros demands restoration and £100 damages.
EXCEPTION REQUIRING DELAY (Excepc̃o dilatoria).
The said John says it is not for him to reply, as the complaint concerns not him but mos̃ Henri de Genes and Michel de Nauare, who are abroad where they cannot be had.
“Watier le Hert de Mallins” and Rose de Salisbery of London loaded at London a ship called the Johan Azelard de Mallins with goods value £28, 19s. 2d. Michel de Nauare and others of Calais with three galleys seized said goods out of said ship, then anchored off the foreland of Thanet (May 1298), took them in their galleys to Calais, and disposed of them by the aid of mons̃. Henri de Genewe. Said Watier and Rose demand restoration and £6 damages.
Cecile atte More of London loaded at London for Brabant the ships William Petersone of Seland, William Henriessone of Seland, Johan le Chandeler, with goods value £158, 19s. Michel de Nauere and others of Calais in May 1298 seized said goods out of said ships (then anchored off Thanet) and disposed of them at Calais by the aid of Henri de Genewe. Cecile claims restoration and £20 damages.
Cecile atte More complains that in July 1303 Johan Pederogh and others seized goods of the said Cecile at the mouth of the Thames out of a ship called “la Blithe de Londres” coming from Brabant, and disposed of them at Calais by the aid of mos̃ Edward de Mabusshon: value £10. Cecile prays restoration and 40s. damages.
Said John replies that at the date specified he was at Paris or on the road to Calais, and not on the sea at all.
Thomas atte Hurst of London loaded at Berwick the “Distaf de Haneford” for London, with goods to the value of £11, 18s. 8d. They were seized by men from Calais off Blakeney on the Tuesday after Saint Bartholomew 1303,[1402] and disposed of at Calais. Thomas prays restoration and damages.
The said John [sic] says that the above demand concerns “mi sire Reniers de Grimaus” only, for he was then admiral, and said John was on shore at the date specified. Said John was only in the company of said Reniers “en Sellande et en Horlande.”
To the demand of Thos. atte Hurst touching goods seized from the “Distaf de Haneforde” by Johan Peidroge, Clay Clinkhamer, Piers Hues, and others in 1302 [sic], the said “Oudart” [sic] replies as he did to the claim of Alayn de Thorndon. [See below.]
Aleyn de Thornden, burgess of “Lenn,” loaded a ship in Scotland belonging to Nichol de Caith̃ with goods value £133 for Brabant,--mons̃ Odard de Maubusshon, Johan Peidrgroge, Johan de la B..ge.lour, “soen frere Lani yacop” Gusse Odin, Johan le parker, vaaseur le Mariner, Hirnolet le Man and Petre le Puttere, in August 1304 seized the ship off Kirkele, killed the crew, and disposed of ship and goods at Calais. Aleyn demands restoration and damages, value in all £143.
The said John replies that he and others named in above plaint at the date specified were in Holland and Zeeland. “Car le iour de la Seint Laurence[1403] il se combatieront en Selande as Flamens as Baion̄ois et as Engleis qi estoient en lour aide.”
William Quineberge, burgess of Lynn, loaded his own ship, the “Nicholas,” at Lynn for Scotland with goods, value £35, 15s. 8d.--Odard de Maubusshon, Johan Perdroge, Johan Huard, Gusse Odin, Simond Danyn, Johan Allestein, Clay Clinchamer, Vaaseur le Mariner, Johan Paye, and Petre le Pottere in August 1303 plundered the ship off Scarborough, killed a mariner, and disposed of the goods at Calais. William demands restoration and £10 damages.
Adam Honson of Gloucester loaded the ship of “Williame de Douere” at Antwerp for England with goods, value £220. Odard de Maubusshon and Johan Peidroge of Calais, in September 1303, plundered said ship in sight of Dover, “et illoeques la Nief deliuereront al auant dit William de Douere” [sic]. Adam demands restoration and £60 damages.
Johan de Hetheye, William le Scherman, Rich. le Goldsmith, Johan le Blunt, Will. de Nesse, Johan Gode, and Wauter Top loaded the ship of William Gare called “Michele de Arwe” in London with goods, value £556, 3s. 8d., for Brabant.
Sire Reyner Grimbaud, admiral, on the high seas, the Sunday after Michaelmas 1303,[1404] seized said ship and goods and took them “a Roem en Normandie”; sent the crew to Calais, where some were put in prison, and one still remains. Plaintiffs demand restoration and £100 damages.
To the complaint touching “la Michele de Arwe,” seized on the Sunday after Michaelmas 1304 [sic], the “chiualer” confesses he took such a ship in that year but not of the value named: “ains fu prise la dite Nief a la Suyne a la pointe du Jour oue poer des enemys as Ancres.” He seized it rightfully, the said ship consorting with the enemies of France. The crew were taken, without force, and letters were found in the ship to those of Bruges concerning money to be received in that town; those put in prison all escaped except Johan de Masworth, who is still there. The “chiualer” deems both persons and goods forfeit to the King of France.
To the demand of John de Masworth for restoration of goods and liberty, the “chiualer” says he is in prison as a malefactor against the King of France, and that the commission of the deputies does not extend to such cases.
ADAM DE FULHAM against JOHN PAYDROGE.
LIBEL.
Adam de Fulham of London complains that in the year 1302 men of Calais attacked the “Margarete de Jernemuth” off Orfordenessh going to London, killed the crew, and took the ship and goods to the value of £20 to Calais and there disposed of them. Demands restoration and damages.
DENIAL.
To the demand made by Adam de Fulham against said John and others touching violence done to him between “le Seint Martin et le Chaundeler” in 1302, said John replies as he did to Johan de Chelchethe.
EXEMPTION REQUIRING DELAY.
To another demand of said Adam, said John replies as he did to William Seruat.
JOHN DE CHELCHETE against REYNER DE GRYMAUS.
LIBEL.
John de Chelchethe of London complains that in 1302 John Padrogh and others of Calais attacked the “Margarete de Jernemuth” off Orfordenessh, killed the crew, and took ship and goods to Calais. Demands restoration and damages, value in all £39, 5s. 8d.
EXEMPTION REQUIRING DELAY.
Said John Padrogh replies as he did to William Seruat.
EDMUND LAMBY ... against JOHN PAYDROGE.
LIBEL.
Said Edmund complains as others have done concerning the “Margaret of Yarmouth.” His goods therein were of the value of £12.
GILBERT DE ASSHENDON against JOHN PAYDROGE.
LIBEL.
Said Gilbert de Asshendon of London complains that the “Distaf de Haneford” loaded at Berwick for London was taken off Blakeney in 1303 (Tuesday after St Bartholomew). Demands restoration and damages, value in all £8, 10s. 4d.
DENIAL.
Said John replies that at the date specified he was on dry land at Calais.
To this demand against Johan Peidroge, Clay Clinkhanner, Piers Hues, Stace Swares, and Johan Huares, Oudart replies as he did to Alein de Thornden.
APPENDIX C.
(P. 65.)
LICENSE FOR FISHING AT THE “ZOWE” BANK IN THE CHANNEL.
(State Papers, Domestic. James I., Vol. 81, No. 3. 1615.)
Robert, Baron of Brancepeth, Viscount Rochester, Earle of Somersett, Lord Chamberlaine of his Ma^{te} householde, knyght of the most noble order of the Garter, and one of his Ma^{te} most honorable privie Counsell, provisionally deputed for the government of the Cinque Portes. To all to whom theis presentes shall come, Greeting, Knowe ye that I, according to the auntient ordinances and rules hertofore established and lately revived for the preservacon of the fishing betwixt the subiectes of the Easterne coast of the kingdome of great Britayne and the frenche Fishermen accoastinge those partes, Haue by theis presentes licensed and authorised Reynold Howgatt of the Towne of Treporte, Fisherman, M^r of one Fisherboate called the Don de Dieu of about fourteen tonnes, with all her Company and servants of the same Boate, To Fishe at the place called the Sowe upon the English coast and elsewhere upon that coast, in the same sorte as any one of those five boates heertofore tollerated and privileged out of respect for the service of the Frenche king his excellent Ma^{tie}, for all sortes of Fishe without restrainte of season, soe the same be done and performed with nettes and engines lawfull and accustomed by the English subiectes of that coast. Requiring you and every of you whom it shall concerne not onely to permit and suffer him and his sayd servantes soe to doe without any your unnecessary lett or impeachement. But alsoe to yeilde him and his company all lawfull favor and assistance therein as they shall have occasion, bearinge themselves orderly and peaceably and observing the rules and ordinances sett downe and established for that coast fishing as aforesaid under the penalties therein expressed and conteyned. This license is to endure but untill the first daie of August w^{ch} shalbe in the yeare of our Lord God 1616.
Geven under the Seale of Office at Douer Castle the sixt daie of July in the thirteenth yeare of the reigne of our Souereigne Lord, James, by the grace of God of Great Britaine, Frannce, and Ireland, king, Defender of the fayth, &c.
(Sd.) R. SOMERSET.
A la nominac̃on du Mouns^r Villares Houden gouern^r du Chatiau et ville de Diep et suit du Roy de Fraunce.
APPENDIX D.
(P. 119.)
PROCLAMATION FOR REUOCATION OF MARINERS FROM FORREINE SERUICES.
(A Booke of Proclamations, published since the beginning of his Majesties most happy Reigne ouer England, &c., Vntill this present Moneth of Febr. 3, Anno Dom. 1609 [1602-1612].)
Whereas within this short time since the Peace concluded betweene vs and the King of Spaine and the Archdukes our good brothers, it hath appeared unto vs that many Mariners and Seafearing men of this Realme hauing gotten a custome and habite in the time of the Warre to make profite by Spoile, doe leaue their ordinary and honest vocation and Trading in Merchantly Voyages, whereby they might both reape conuenient maintenance, and be seruiceable to their Countrey, And doe betake themselues to the seruice of diuers forreine States, vnder the title of men of Warre, to haue thereby occasion to continue their vnlawful and vngodly course of liuing by spoile vsing the seruice of those Princes but for colour and pretext, but in effect making themselues commonly no better then Pirats to robbe both our owne Subiects their Countreymen, and the subiects of other Princes our neighbours, going in their honest Trade of Merchandize: By which courses they doe impeach the quiet traffique of Nations one with other, leaue our Realme vnfurnished of men of their sort, if we should haue cause to vse them, and inure themselues to an impious disposition of liuing by rapine and euill meanes, although by reason of the Uniuersall peace wherein wee are at this present with all Christian Princes and States, they may haue a more plentifull employment in an orderly and lawfull Nauigation, then at any time of late yeeres they could haue had: We haue thought it necessary in time to preuent the spreading of such a corruption amongst our Subiects of that sort and calling, whereby our Nation will be so much slandered, and our Realme so greatly disaduantaged. Wherefore we doe will and command all Masters of ships, Pilots, Mariners, and all other sort of Seafearing men, who now are in the Martiall seruice of any forreine States, that they doe presently returne home into their owne Countrey, and leaue all such forreine Seruices, and betake themselues to their vocation in the lawfull course of Merchandize, and other orderly Nauigation, upon such paines and punishments as by the Lawes of our Realme may be inflicted upon them, if after this declaration of our pleasure, they shall not obey. And we doe also vpon the same paines straitly charge and command al our Subiects of that profession, that none of them shall from hencefoorth take Letters of Marke or Reprisall, nor serue vnder any that hath such Letters of Marke or Reprisall from any forreine Prince or State whatsoeuer, Nor otherwise employ themselues in any warlike Seruices of any forraine State vpon the Sea, without speciall License obtained from our selfe, or from our high Admirall, as they will answer the contrary at their perils.
And forasmuch as although we are in Peace with all Christian Princes and States, yet during the continuance of the Warre betweene the King of Spain and the Archdukes on the one side, and the vnited Prouinces of the Low-Countreys on the other side, many chances may happen, as some already haue happened, of difficult interpretation to our Officers and Subiects how to behaue themselues in such cases, vnlesse they be explained vnto them: We haue thought it conuenient to make an open declaration how our said Officers and Subiects shall demeane themselues towards the Subiects aswell of the King of Spaine and Archdukes, as also of the States vnited in the cases following.
First our pleasure is, That within our Portes, Hauens, Rodes, Creekes, or other places of our Dominion, or so neere to any of our sayd Ports or Hauens, as may be reasonably construed to bee within that Title, Limit, or Precinct, there shall be no force, violence, surprise, or offence suffered to be done either from Man of warre to Man of warre, or Man of warre to Merchant, or Merchant to Merchant of either party, but that all of what Nation soeuer, so long as they shall bee within those our Ports and places of our Jurisdiction, or where our Officers may prohibite violence, shall bee vnderstood to be under our protection to bee ordered by course of Justice, and be at peace each with other.
And whereas some of the Men of warre of ech side haue vsed of late, and it is like will vse in time to come, though not to come within our Ports, because there they know wee can restraine violence, yet to houer and hang about the skirts of our Ports, somewhat to Seaboard, but yet so neere our coastes and the entrie of our Harbours, as in reason is to be construed to be within the extent of the same, and there to await the Merchant of the aduerse part, and doe seaze and take them at their going out of our Ports, which is all one in a manner, as if they tooke them within our Port, and will bee no lesse hinderance to the trade of Merchants: Our pleasure therefore and commaundement is to all our Officers and Subiects by Sea and Land, That they shall prohibite, as much as in them lyeth, all such houering of Men of warre of either side, so neere the entrie of any of our Hauens or our Coastes, And that they shall rescue and succour all Merchants, and others that shall fall within the danger of any such as shall await our Coastes in so neere places to the hinderance of Trade and Traffique outward and homeward from and to our Kingdomes. And for the better instructions of our Officers in the execution of these two Articles, Wee haue caused to be sent to them plats of those Limits, within which we are resolued that these Orders shalbe obserued.
And where it hath happened, and is like to doe often, that a Ship of warre of the one side may come into some of our Ports, where there shall bee a Merchant of the other side: In such case, for the benefit and preseruation of the lawfull Trade of Merchants, Our pleasure is, That all Merchants Ships, if they will require it, shall bee suffered to depart out of the sayd Port, two or three tydes before the Man of warre, to the intent that the Merchant may bee free from the pursuite of his aduersary. And if it so happen, that any Ship or Ships of warre of the one side, doe finde any Ship or Ships of warre of the other side in any our Ports or Roades aforesayd; Like as our pleasure is that during their abode there, all violence be forborne: So doe wee likewise commaunde our sayd Officers and Subiects both on Sea and Land, That the Ship of warre which came in first, bee suffered to depart a Tyde or two before the other which came in last, And that for so long time they shall stay and detaine any Ship of warre, that would offer to pursue another out of any our Ports immediately.
And where [sic] wee are infourmed, that notwithstanding the seueritie of our Lawes against receiuers of Pirats goods, many of our Officers of our Ports and other inhabitants within and neere vnto them, doe receiue dayly Goods brought in from Sea by such as are indeed Pirats, if they, and the getting of their Goods were well examined: We doe hereby admonish them all, to auoyd the receiuing or buying of any Goods from Sea, coming not into the Realme by lawfull course of Merchandise, for that they shall finde, wee are resolued so to preuent all occasion and encouragement of Pirats to bee vsed by any our Subiects as wee will cause our Lawes to bee fully executed according to their true meaning, both against the Pirats, and all Receuiers and Abetters of them, and their Goods.
Giuen at Thetford the first day of March, in the second yeere of our Reigne of Great Britaine, France and Ireland.
Anno Dom. 1604.
APPENDIX E.
(P. 120.)
DECLARATION OF JURY OF THE TRINITY HOUSE AS TO THE LIMITS OF THE KING’S CHAMBERS.
(State Papers, Domestic. James I., Vol. 13, No. 11. 1605.)
A note of y^e Headlandes of England as they beare one from another agreeing with the plott of y^e Description of y^e Countrye as followeth.
From Holy Iland to the Sowter is South South east. From the Sowter to Whitby is Southeast. From Whitby to Flamborough head is Southeast, and half a point Southerly. From Flamborough head to the Sporne is Southeast easterlie. From the Sporne to Cromar is Southeast, and by East. From Cromar to Wynterton nes is Southeast and by South. From Wynterton nes to Caster nes is South South east. From Casternes to Layestof is South. From Layestof to East nes is South, and half a point to the Westward. From Eastness to Orforthnes is South and by West. From Orforth nes to the North foreland is South, and one third of a point to the Westward. From the Northforland to the Southforeland is South. From the Southforeland to Dungnes is Southwest and one fourth part of a point to y^e Southwards. From Dungnes to Beache is West Southwest, and one fourth part of a poynt to the Southwards. From Beache to Dune noze is West Southwest, and three quarters of a point to the Westwards. From Dune noze to Portland is West and by South Southerly. From Portland to the Start is West Southwest and one fifth part of a point to the Westwards. From the Start to the Ramme is West, and one fourth part of a point to the Northwards. From the Ramme to the Dudman is West Southwest, and one sixt part of a point to the Westwards. From the Dudman to the Lizard is West Southwest, and one third part of a point to the Southwards. From the Lizard to Lands end is West Northwest Northerly. From Lands end to Milford is North and two third parts of a point to the Eastwards. From Milford to S. Dauids head is North and half a point to the Westwards. From S. Dauids head to Beardsie, is North and by East, and one eight part of a point to the Eastwards. From Beardsie to Holly head is North, and one sixt part of a poynt to the Westwards. From Holly head to the Ile of Man is North and by East, and one fifth part of a point to the Northwards.
* * * * *
Wee whose names are heerevnder written being called before the right worshipfull Sir Julius Cesar, Knight, Judge of the Kings Majesties Highe Court of Admiraltie, and there impanelled, and sworne vpon a Jurie to sett downe the bounds, and lymits, howfarre the Kings Chambers, Hauens, or Ports on the Sea coasts doe extend; Do heereby certifie, and sett downe (according to our best knowledge, and vnderstanding) that his Highnes said chambers, Hauens, or Ports are all the Seacoasts within a straight lyne drawne from one head land to the next head land throughout this realme of England. And for the better vnderstanding thereof haue made a plott of the same, and haue therevnto prefixed this our Schedule, shewing how euerie head-land doth beare vpon a right lyne the one from the other according to the said Plott. Dated the 4. of March A^o. D^i. 1604 [1604/5] And in the second yeare of the reigne of our Souueraigne Lord King James, &c.
(Signed) Thomas Milton. William Bygate. John Burrell. William Jones. Peter Hilles. Michael Edmondes. James Woodcolt. Thomas Beast. William Juye. John Skynner. John Wyldes. Henry Hauken. William Cace.
APPENDIX F.
(P. 148.)
PROCLAMATION OF JAMES I. FOR THE RESTRAINT OF FOREIGNERS FISHING ON THE BRITISH COASTS.
(A Booke of Proclamations, &c. 1609 [1602-1612].)
James by the Grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all and singular persons to whom it may appertaine, Greeting. Although we doe sufficiently know by our experience in the Office of Regall dignitie (in which by the fauour of Almighty God, we haue bene placed and exercised these many yeres) as also by the obseruation which wee haue made of other Christian Princes exemplary Actions, how farre the absolutenesse of Soueraigne power extendeth it selfe, And that in regard thereof we need not yeeld accompt to any person under God, for any action of ours, which is lawfully grounded upon that iust prerogatiue: Yet such hath euer bene, and shalbe our care and desire to give satisfaction to our neighbour Princes, and friends, in any Action which may haue the least relation to their Subiects and Estates, as we haue thought good (by way of friendly premonition) to declare unto them all, and to whom soeuer it may appertaine, as followeth.
Whereas wee haue bene contented since our comming to the Crowne, to tolerate an indifferent and promiscuous kinde of libertie to all our friends whatsoeuer, to fish within our streames, and vpon any of our coasts of Great Britaine, Ireland, and other adiacent Islands, so farre foorth as the permission or vse thereof might not redound to the empeachment of our Prerogatiue Royall, nor to the hurt and damage of our louing Subiects, whose preseruation and flourishing estate we hold our selfe principally bound to aduance before all worldly respects: So finding that our conniuence therein, hath not onely giuen occasion of ouer great encrochments vpon our Regalities, or rather questioning for our Right, but hath bene a meanes of much dayly wrongs to our owne people that exercise the trade of Fishing as (either by the multitude of Strangers, which doe preoccupy those places, or by the iniuries which they receiue most cõmonly at their hands) our Subiects are constrained to abandon their Fishing, or at the least are become so discouraged in the same, as they hold it better for them, to betake themselues to some other course of liuing, whereby not onely diuers of our Coast-townes are much decayed, but the number of Mariners dayly diminished, which is a matter of great consequence to our Estate, considering how much the strength thereof consisteth in the power of Shipping, and vse of Nauigation: We haue thought it now both iust and necessary (in respect that wee are now by Gods fauour lineally and lawfully possessed, aswell of the Island of Great Britaine, as of Ireland, and the rest of the Isles adiacent) to bethinke our selues of good lawfull meanes to preuent those inconueniences, and many others depending vpon the same. In the consideration whereof, as we are desirous that the world may take notice, that we haue no intention to deny our neighbors and Allies, those fruits and benefits of Peace and friendship, which may be iustly expected at our hands in honour and reason, or are affoorded by other Princes mutually in the point of Commerce, and exchange of those things which may not prooue preiudiciall to them: So because some such conuenient order may be taken in this matter, as may sufficiently prouide for all these important considerations which doe depend thereupon; Wee haue resolued first to give notice to all the world, That our expresse pleasure is, that from the beginning of the Moneth of August next comming, no person of what Nation or qualitie soeuer, being not our naturall borne Subiect, be permitted to fish vpon any of our Coasts and Seas of Great Britaine, Ireland, and the rest of the Isles adiacent, where most usually heretofore any fishing hath bene, untill they haue orderly demanded and obtained licenses from vs, or such our Commissioners, as we haue authorised in that behalfe, viz. at London for our Realmes of England and Ireland, and at Edenborough for our Realme of Scotland: Which Licenses, our intention is, shall be yeerely demanded, for so many Vessels and ships, and the Tonnage thereof, as shall intend to fish for that whole yeere, or any part thereof, vpon any of our Coastes and Seas as aforesaid, vpon paine of such chastisement, as shalbe fit to bee inflicted vpon such wilfull offendors.
Giuen at our Palace of Westminster, the 6. day of May, in the 7. Yeere of our Reigne of Great Britaine, &c.
Anno Dom. 1609.
APPENDIX G.
(Pp. 169, 196.)
INSTRUCTIONS BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL OF SCOTLAND FOR THE LEVYING OF THE “ASSIZE-HERRINGS” FROM FOREIGN FISHERMEN.
(Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, vol. xi. p. 592.)
Instructionis givin be the Lordis of Secreit Counsall to Mr Johnne Fentoun, his Majesteis commissionar, who is directit to demand his Majesteis rent of assyse and teynd frome these of Holland, Zeland, Hambruch, Ambden, Rustock, and all utheris strangeris haunting the trade of fisching in his Majesteis seas during this present yeir.
In the first, yow sall prepair your selff and mak you reddie in goode and comelie ordour and equippage and with all possibill haist to go in his Majesteis schip callit The Charles, quhairof David Murray is capitane and commander, towardis the North Seas of this Kingdome, quhair the Hollanderis and utheris strangeris hes thair fisching: And at your arryveall thair yow salbe cairfull to inquyre and informe yourselff of the names of the admirallis and vice-admirallis attending the flott, and of the names of thair schippis, of quhat townes and provinceis they ar, and quhat nomber of wauchteris and buscheis is sent oute be every towne, province and estate to attend thair fischeing.
Yow sall be vertew of your commissioun, and attending to the tennour thairof, demand frome the saidis admirallis, and, incaice of thair absence, frome the vice-admirallis, and frome tua or thrie of the waughteris and busches of every estate, his Majesteis rent of assyse and teynd specifeit and contenit in your commissioun for the haill fischeis tane and slayne be thame in his Majesteis watteris and seas this yeir. And yow sall use this requisitoun and demand in fair and gentill termes and with modestie and discretioun.
Yf thay contravert with yow anent the quantitie of this dewytie, yow sall not dispute that poynt with thame, bot, if they mak offer of ane smaller dewytie, althoght it wer bot ane angell for every busche overhead, yow sall accept of thair offer.
Yf thay sall mak offer of the fische outher for the teynd or assyse, yow sall accept of thame, and, gif yow find ony countrey vessellis or boittis thair, yow sall send for thame and putt the fische in thame.
Yf they gif unto yow a delaying answer and crave tyme and laiser to send to thair superiouris to be advyseit with thame, yow sall accompt of thair delay as ane refuisall, and accordinglie accept sua of it.
Yf it be objectit unto yow that all the busches ar not of a lyke burdeyne, and that consequentlie they aucht not to pay a lyke dewytie for assise and teynd, yow sall in this caise gif defalcatioun to the smaller busches according to your discretioun and be the aduyse of the admirallis, gif thay will concur with yow in that erand; provydeing alwayes that the smallest dewytie to be taine be yow for every busche be not within ane angell.
Yf the admirallis or vice-admirallis for every toun, estate, or province will aggrie with yow for the haill busches under thair charge, yow sall aggrie with thame and gif unto them acquittanceis in name of the haill that thay tak burdeyne for; bot, yf thay remitt yow to deale with every busche apairt, yow sall do the same and gif acquettanceis accordinglie.
Yf refuisall salbe maid unto yow of his Majesties rent and dewytie, yow sall tak instrumentis upoun the said refuisall without forder contestatioun; and, gif obedience be givin and payment accordinglie maid, yow sall lykwayse take instrumentis thairupoun.
Yow sall informe the saidis admirallis, and, incaice of thair absence, the saidis vice-admirallis, of the complaint maid to his Majesteis Counsall be his Majesteis subjectis of Zetland anent the greit oppressioun committit upoun thame be divers personis of the floitt who comes aschoir upoun thair illis of Halff Grunay, Wedderholme, South Grunay, and Lungya, and upoun divers utheris pairtis of the countrey, quhair thay not only enter in kirkis, dimolischeis and brekis doun the daskis and seattis within the same and schamefullie abuses the same, to the offence and dishonour of God, bot with that thay spoyle the countrey people of thair scheip, geis, hennis, eggs, and suche uther commoditeyis as they find upoun the ground, and sumtymes invaidis and persewis thame of thair lyveis; and thairfoir yow sall crave redres and reparatioun to be made for thir wrangis and that the lyke be forborne in all tyme coming.
APPENDIX H.
(P. 251.)
REGLEMENT FOR PREVENTING ABUSES IN AND ABOUT THE NARROW SEAS AND PORTS.
(State Papers, Domestic. “James I., Vol. 11, No. 40. 1604.” Charles I., Vol. 279, No. 18. 1634.)
His most Excellent Ma^{ty} taking into his Royall Consideration, upon the frequent Complaints, as well of his own Subjects, as the Subjects of other Princes and States in Peace and Amitie with his Ma^{ty}. That his Seas (commonly called the four English Seas) are more infested now a days then heretofore, by men of Warre and such others, who living by spoile haunt those Seas, with ships and vessels of strength warlikely appointed to gett prey and booties, whereby not only his Ma^{tye’s} own Subjects and the Subjects of his friends suffer manifold losses, violences and Injuryes in their persons, ships and goods, but also divers strange Insolencyes indignityes and contempts are committed, tending indirectly and by consequence to the denyall and impeachment of that Soveraignety and especiall and peculiar Interest and property, w^{ch} his Ma^{ty} and his Predecessors time out of mind have had and enjoyed in the said Seas, and soe approved not only by the fundamentall Lawes of this his Kingdome, but by the acknowledgement and assent of the bordering Princes and Nations, as appeareth by undoubted Records. His Ma^{ty} out of his Princely wisedome and providence (with the Advice of his Privy Councell) hath thought it most necessary, as well for vindicating his own honour and right in the said Seas, as in point of Justice for securing the passage of his Subjects and friends to and frõ his harbours and Ports, and all other Ports [? parts] of his Dominions, to make this open declaration ensuing.
1. That notwithstanding the continuance of y^e war between the K. of Spaine on the one side, and the United Provinces of the Low Countryes on the other side, his Ma^{ty} doth streightly prohibite any force, violence, surprize, or offense to be done or attempted either frõ Man of Warre to man of Warre, or man of Warre to Merchant, or Merchant to Merchant of either Party within the limits w^{ch} his Ma^{ty} will cause to be described in a Plott for that purpose, but that all of what Nation soever soe long as they shall be upon those places or Seas aforesaid, especially within such limits, shall be understood to be under his Ma^{tyes} Protection, and obliged to be at Peace each with other.
2. Because it appeareth that an especiall occasion of the mutuall spoiles and acts of hostility executed by the said men of Warre each upon other and sometimes upon his Ma^{tyes} own Subjects, or the Subjects of other Nations w^{ch} are in Amity with the Soveraignes of the Spoilers, ariseth from the opportunity w^{ch} the said Men of Warre have by continuing and abiding in havens, Sea-shoares or Sea-Roades and other harbours of his Ma^{tyes} Kingdomes, whence they gett intelligence of ships and vessels outward and hitherward bound, and accordingly assayle them, where it is most for their advantage, to the great hindrance and interruption of free Commerce and Entercourse, His Ma^{tyes} Will and Pleasure is, That, for the reasons aforesaid, noe shipps of Warre, belonging either to the K. of Spaine, or any his Subjects, or to the said United Provinces, or any of their Subjects shall be permitted or allowed to come, enter, repaire, or arrive in or to any of his Ma^{tyes} Towns, Citties, Sea-Shores, Havens, Harbours, or Sea roades, whatsoever, or there to abide and continue, except they happen to be constrained either by force of Tempest, or buying of Victualls, or other things, or for repairing of shipping, so that they doe no hostile act in the said Places, but demeane themselves honestly and quietly as it becometh Confederates and friends, and so as they stay and remaine not in and about the said Ports any longer then shall be needfull for reparation, and Provision of necessaryes.
3. Albeit his Ma^{ty} doth justly challenge Soveraignety and property in all those his Seas farre beyond the limits hereafter to be described and might with like Justice require from all persons using those his seas a forbearance frõ Injuryes and all hostile actions, yet (in and through all the same) sodenly to tye the hands of his friends and Allyes in open hostility each with other is not for some reasons held convenient at this time. And therefore to avoyde all difficultyes and Colour of Controversies that may be stirred concerning the bounds and extent wherein his Ma^{ty} now professeth to yeild Peace and Security to his friends and neighbours, desiring the same, his Ma^{ty} purposeth to send Plotts of those limits to be affixed in the most publique places of his chiefest Sea-Towns and harbours.
4. Because it is very like, that during the continuance of the Warre betweene the K. of Spaine, and the United Provinces as is aforesaid, each Party may gaine and acquire frõ other in places out of the aforesaid Limitts, ships, and goods, His Ma^{ty} doth declare, That as he will afford to the conquering Partyes, free passage through his Seas for themselves, their ships and prizes, and like free accesse and repaire to all his Ports and harbours, and safe aboad and continuance in the same during their occasions, so his Ma^{ty} shall not understand it to be any breach of his Peace, or violation of that Security w^{ch} he intendeth to mainteine, if the enemyes of the conquering Party shall reconquer or regaine the said Prizes, before the conquering Party shall have brought his said Prizes within any of his Ma^{tyes} harbours, or when after they shall have departed with the said Prizes homewards, or elsewhere from the said harbours, the right of Warre and Law of Nations giving like allowance to either of the said hostile actions, Provided always, that his Ma^{ty} doth not mean hereby to derogate from the Jurisdiction of his Court of Admiralty, but if any action (in forme of Law) shall be lawfully instituted and duly presented in the Admirall Court ag^t the said Prizes and the Takers thereof, his Ma^{ty} will cause Justice to be administred in that behalfe with all possible expedition.
5. Whereas mention is often made in the premisses of his Ma^{tyes} Protection within the aforesaid bounds and limits, his Ma^{ty} is now pleased further to expresse his Intention and meaning to that effect, viz. That he shall readyly give his Letters of Safe Conduct under the Great Seale of his Admiralty to any the Subjects of the Princes or States in league and Amity with his Ma^{ty} desiring the same from the Lords Commiss^{rs} of the Admiralty, to whom his Ma^{ty} will referre the Consideration and allowance of such Petitions, the said Letters of Safe Conduct to be conceived in the best forme. And if any man of Warre or other Person whatsoever shall assault or use any violence to any ship or vessell, or the persons therein, within the limits aforesaid his Ma^{ty} will hold such offender being lawfully convicted thereof for a Pirate, and will cause his Officers to inflict such punishment thereupon, as in Cases of Piracy is usuall, if the said offenders can be apprehended within any his Ma^{tyes} Countrey or Dominions, or any other, or any other ships or goods belonging to them, To w^{ch} purpose his Ma^{ty} will cause notice to be given from the Court of his Admiralty to all his Officers in Ports and Vice-Admiralls and Captaines of his Forts and ships, But if all this notwithstanding, the said offenders cannot be attached or apprehended, then the Party wronged, upon sufficient testimonyes to be recorded in the Court of Admiralty may take out of the said Court Processe, conteining a Monition for the said pretended offenders, to appeare in the Court of Admiralty within 4 moneths next after the date of the said Processe, there to answer for the pretended wrong or violence, the said Processes to be affixed openly in some eminent place of the Royall Exchange, London. And if the said offenders shall not render their bodyes to Justice, then upon faith made, that the said Processe was duly taken out, and the next day after the date thereof was publiquely affixed as is aforesaid, his Ma^{ty} will by his Letters of Request under his Privy Seale to the Soveraignes of the said offenders, or otherwise, pursue such further proceedings ag^t the said offenders, as is agreeable to the Custome amongst Sovereigne States and Princes and the Law of Nations in like Cases.
APPENDIX I.
(P. 289.)
REPORT OF THE ADMIRALTY TO CHARLES I. AS TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE SHIP-MONEY FLEET IN WAFTING AND SECURING FOREIGN MERCHANTS PASSING THROUGH HIS MAJESTY’S SEAS, AND IN PROTECTING FOREIGN FISHERMEN WHO ACCEPT THE KING’S LICENSE.
(State Papers, Domestic. Charles I., Vol. 313, No. 24.)
It may Please your Ma^{ty},
According to your Majesty’s commandment, wee, your Commissioners for ye Admiralty have mett and consulted on those two pointes which you were pleased to recommend to our consideration, touching the imploying of your fleete for yo^r Honor and Proffit. The one for the wafting and securing of Merchants that pass through yo^r Majesty’s seas. The other for protecting all such fishermen in generall as shall exercise that trade by your Majesty’s license upon yo^r seas and coastes.
The first of these that fell into debate was that concerning the fishing, and by S^r Henry Martin it was made evident vnto vs that y^r Ma^{ts} father of blessed memory in ... yeere of his Raigne, was, vpon long and mature deliberacion, satisfied and resolved, that the fishing in his Seas, and upon the coasts of his Dominions, did justly appertain unto him as a right incident to his Crownes, and that in pursuance thereof, he did then sett out his Royall Proclamation, thereby declaring his title, as allso his pleasure, that no stranger of what quality soever should presume to fish there without his expresse license, and so was graciously pleased in the said Proclamation to appoint, that for the Coastes of England and Ireland licenses should be given in London, and for those of Scotland in Edenborough.
And howsoever S^r Henry Martin did allso make it appear unto us that the States of the Vnited Provinces did at that time sende Commissioners into England who presented to his Majesty a paper contayning allegations by w^{ch} they did entend to prove continued custom and a present possession of that fishing, mentioning w^{t}all som treaties that had bene heretofore betwene the Kinges of Englande and the Dukes of Burgundy in fauor of that their fishing, yet upon the whole matter, and after due deliberation, wee were all of opinion and are so still, that the Right and Royallty of that fishing upon yo^r Ma^{ts} Coastes doth undoubtedly belong unto yo^r Majesty by inheritance, so you may iustly prohibit or license all strangers at yo^r Royall will and pleasure.
This being laid for the ground, wee proceeded (according to your Majesty’s directions) to the consideration of what was now fitting to be advised unto yo^r Majesty vpon this present occasion of yo^r strength at sea, and are all of opinion, that this season is most propper again not only to set on foote, but to putt in execucion that yo^r Majesty’s so iust clayme, so as then there only remayned our consultation de modo.
In this wee are now much guided by that which yo^r Majesty yo^r selfe was pleased to declare unto us concerning the protecting of all such fishers as shall take yo^r license. For it is most certain that the Hollanders will by no meanes be so much induced (be the right what it will) as by consideracions of their owne proffitt and safety. Wee therefore thought itt (and do most humbly offer it to yo^r Majesty as our opinion) that vnto the Minister or Ministers of the States residing here, it may be intimated and declared, that yo^r Majesty doth no way relinquish that iust right and clayme of inheritance to the Royall fishings, so divolved unto you from yo^r Royall Predecessors, but are resolved to defende it as the hereditary right and possession of any other yo^r Dominions. Yet least they should think you do now challenge it in a tyme that they have most neede of yo^r favor and grace, it may be tolde them, that it is farr otherwise, for whereas yo^r Majesty’s father did barely offer them licenses, you do now offer them safety and protection w^{t}all, and that w^{ch} further moved you to do it, in this season, is, that by a third Prince, they are of late interrupted and beaten from that fishing even in sight of yo^r Majesty’s harbours; wherein yo^r Majesty is prejudiced in honor and Interest, and they in Proffit.
That it is not vnknown to the States how much their enemies are resolved to interrupt that their fishing, as holding it a most certain way and meanes both to weaken and impoverish them.
That by taking licenses from yo^r Majesty you may justify the drawing yo^r sword in their defence, and likewise for the maintenance of the said licenses against any notwithstanding any league or treaty whatsoever, w^{ch} without that obligation might seeme a breach of that neutrality w^{ch} hitherto yo^r Ma^{ty} hath preserved in yo^r selfe.
And lastly wee tooke into consideration that in case the Hollanders shall willfully refuse to take those licenses upon so gracious and fauorable conditions from yo^r Majesty then we were all cleere of opinion, that yo^r M. should renew and publish the like proclamation to that of the King yo^r father, and prosecute the settling of that yo^r right as a thing so highly concerning you in honor, dominion and profit. And so we do humbly conclude this point, with advice, that all such licenses as shalbe granted, be rated according to the tonne or burden of the vessells, so to be licensed.
Touching that of the Wafting of Merchants strangers shippes that shall passe through yo^r Majesty’s seas, we are cleere of opinion that yo^r M. ought to have a profit by it, seeing that they are thereby preserved from oppression and ruine. But we are not of opinion that this profit should arise by way of a generall Imposition vpon all that passe: for that wold, doubtlesse, draw a iust complaint and clamor from yo^r neighbour Princes and their subjects. But that it should be taken of such as shall desire waftage, w^{ch} yo^r M. may direct not to be denyed to any of what Christian nacion soever that shall demande it, not being men-of-warre.
And because it wilbe a difficult matter to expresse in any Commission or Instructions a certain somme or duety to be taken of every ship so wafted, for that som shippes are rich, others of lesse value; som will require a short waftage, others a longer. Therefore we are of opinion, that for the value, much is to be left to the discretion of yo^r Majesty’s Generall and commanders, and that som honest hable men may be employed to keepe bookes, and to receave the moneyes of all those waftings w^{ch} shall occurr, and be accomptable and answerable for the same. [5 Feb. 1635/1636 Copy by Windebank.]
APPENDIX K.
(P. 389.)
ABSTRACT OF THE THIRTY-SIX ARTICLES PROPOSED BY: THE DUTCH TO ST JOHN AT THE HAGUE, 1651.
State Papers. Foreign. Treaty Papers (Holland), No. 46. 1651.
A Briefe Narrative of the Treatie at the Hague betweene the hono^{ble} Oliver S^t 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 United Provinces begun upon the 20th of March 1650 [1651] and continued vntill the 20th of June 1651 and then broke of re infecta.
A Drafte of the Treatie which is to be made and entred into with the extraordinary Ambassado^{rs} of the Republique of England.
2.
[Sidenote: Confederated ffr^{ds} for defence &c. & against Dystourb^{rs} &c.]
That they shalbe, and remayne confederated friends, vnited, and allyed for the defence, and preservation of the Libertye and freedomes of each others people, and mutuall Com̃erce Navigacion,and Com̃on Interests against all those that shall endeavour to disturbe either of the States in the same by water or land in manner as is herevnder declared and expressed.
17.
[Sidenote: Libertie to dwell in each oth^{rs} lands & to enjoy equall p^{r}ivil^{ges} w^{th} the Natiues &c.]
The subiects, and Inhabitants on both sydes may com̃e, and dwell in each others lands reciprocallye, and take their setled residence there, have their owne houses there to dwell in, and their Warehouses for to bring their goods, wares, and Merchandizes thither, and also vse their trade, and com̃erce there in all securitye, and without hinderance of any one as well at sea, other waters, as at land, enioyeing there, and every where else, the same, privilidges, Libertie, and freedome, as the Inhabitants, and each others subiects doe respectively enioy there in their own Country, and in case any hinderances happen they shall really, and speedilye be removed.
18.
[Sidenote: Free libertie of Fishing &c.]
The subiects, and Inhabitants of either, of what qualitie, or condition soever they be, may sayle, and fish every where at sea freely, without any disturbance Licence, Patent, or Passe port, as well herring, as all other sorte of fish, great and small, and the sayd Fishermen being driven out of the sea by storme, Rovers, Enemyes, or any other accident, and coming in, or to any of the other Havens, or Jurisdictions shalbe well, and freindly receaved, and entreated, and may depart thence againe with their ships, fish, furniture for fishing, and other laedings, (in such case, and not haveing broak bulke there,) freely without payeing custome, or any the least duty.
19.
[Sidenote: No harboring of Pyrates &c.]
[Sidenote: Rouers & Coceal^{rs} to be punish^d & y^e ships & goods restored &c.]
For to make the free Navigation, and com̃erce, on the seas, Rivers, and every where more certeyne, the said Republicke, and Vnited Provinces, shall not receave, nor suffer, or permitt that any Pyrats, or Searovers, be receaved, kept, or harboured by their subiects, in their respective Havens, Lands, Cittyes, or Townes but shall cause as well the said cencealo^{rs}, as Rovers, to be persequuted, apprehended, and punished, for terrou^r to others as is fitt, and the roved ships, goods, Merchandises yet in Esse, and in being, yea though they were there sould, shalbe restored, or made good to the right owners, or to such as have their Assignm^{ts}, or Lett^{rs} of Attorney, who doe sue for, and reclayme the said roved ships, and goods, vpon a iuratory affirmation of the reclaymer till better proofe.
20.
[Sidenote: Sufficient securitie by those who goe out vpon particul^r com̃issions.]
All perticuler persons on either syde, that goe out upon perticular Com̄issions, shalbe bound before they may goe to sea, to put in sufficient securitie before the Judge of the place from whence he setts saile.
21.
[Sidenote: Both to set out Fleets for scouring the Seas &c.]
And to cleare the seas from all Pyrats, and Rovers, of what nation soever they bee, and to defend, and free the Libertie, and freedome of both the Nations Com̃erce, Navigation, and Freefishing as well in the North sea, Ocean, as Mediterranean sea, and all channells, and Streights ruñing betweene ’em; the sayd Republicke of England and the Vnited Netherlands shall provide and añually set out to sea a strong fleete at least of ... [sic] Vessells, and the like proportion of men, munition of warr, Victualls, and all necessary furniture, wherewith each vnder his owne Admirall, and flagg, shall crosse, and scoure the said seas, to witt those of England from ... vntill ... and those of the Lowe countryes from ... till ... beginning the first of ... and stayeing till the last of ... and shalbe bound to seaze on, and master all Pyrats that they shall meete with, the ships of either of the nations by them taken to restore to the true owners, and if it be needfull, and requisite to helpe, and seacond each other, each to keepe his taken bootye, or prises for himselfe, and so to cleare, and free the said seas, and channell, or straights from all Pyrats and searovers.
22.
[Sidenote: Each parties Fleetes to force to Reparacion hinders of y^e Com̄erce navigcion Fish^g &c.]
And for the further defence and advancem^t of the freedome, and Libertie of both the said Nations Com̃erce, Navigation, and freefishinge in the sayd seas, the sayd fleets and alsoe other men of warr, and com̃ission bearers on either syde, shall not only doe against Pyrats in manner aforesayd, but alsoe against all, and singuler persons, whatsoever they be that shall chance to trouble, molest, hinder, exacte, or against the Lawe of all nations burthen, or charge them, or either of them in the sayd freedome, Com̃erce, Navigation, and fishing. It is intended neverthelesse that the dampnifyed partie shall first, and aforehand complayne of the same to the undampnifyed partie, and endeavo^r together by all freindly waies, and intercession, that they who molested them doe make reparation to content, But if it be not so done, that then they shall seaze, take, and surprize in the said seas, not onlie with the said Fleete, but alsoe with all the strength of shipping which they can bring to sea the ships, and goods of the Cittie, and of her inhabitants, who have done the said trouble and so continewe vntill that the dampnifyed partye shall have gott full satisfaction, and every thing be putt agayne in full Freedome, that all dam̃age may be recovered, in case they chance to goe beyond or exceed their com̃ission, and charge.
23.
[Sidenote: Men of warr to protect y^e Merh^{ts} ships of each party or of y^e Allies &c.]
The men of warr of either partye meeting or overtakeing any Marchant shipp, or ships at sea, of the other partie, or of the others subiects, or of the Allyes (alsoe comprehended in this Treatye) and haveing both one course, or goeing both one way shalbe bound so longe as they keepe one course togeather to take them vnder their protection, and to defend them against all, and everyone.
24.
[Sidenote: Retaking of ships taken in one anoth^{rs} Havens.]
In case any shipp, or ships of eithers subiects, or of a Newter chance to be taken in the Havens, or Libertyes of the one or the other by a third partie, being no subiects of either partie, they in or out of whose Havens, or Libertyes the said ship, or ships shall be taken, shalbe bound to help with the other party, to endeavo^r that the sayd taken ship, or ships may be followed, brought back, and restored to the Owners, but all at the charges of the said Owners, or interessed.
25.
[Sidenote: Ships forced into Haven through any Misfortune may depart againe freely w^{th}out paying any Dutie &c.]
In case any Marchants ships of the subiects of either partye chance to com̃e to harbour in the Land of one or the other by tempest, or by pursuite of Searovers, or through any other necessitye, force, or misfortune, they may sayle out agayne from thence freely at their pleasure, without that they shall therefore be bound to goe on shoare, vnlade, or sell their Merchandizes there, nor to paye for the same any duties, or customes, it shall in such cases be enough if they shew their Maritine lett^{rs} and Passe ports without being subiect to any other search.
26.
[Sidenote: None to come into each oth^{rs} Havens w^{th} men of warr to a Number w^{ch} might cause suspition &c. w^{th}out Leaue &c.]
They may not come to, or in, nor stay in the Havens of each others Country with men of warr, and souldiers, to a number which might cause apparent suspition, or ill thoughts, without consent, or leave of those vnder whome the said Havens are, vnlesse they be driven by tempest, or forced to doe soe through necessitye, and to avoyd any dangers of the sea.
27.
[Sidenote: Oth^r men of warre to come & goe freely &c.]
For the men of warr of either syde, not being in soe great a number to cause any suspition, the Havens, rivers, and roades of either party, shall be alwayes open and free for to come in, there lye at Ancher, and sayle out agayne without any hinderance, or trouble; the sayd men of warr regulating themselves neverthelesse according to the lawes, and customes of the respective places.
28.
[Sidenote: Men of warre not to be searcht onely com̄ing into Hauens to shew their Com̄iss^{ns}.]
Provided neverthelesse that none of the men of Warr, or such as have Com̃ission on either syde, shalbe subiect to any search, or visitation there, or on the respective coasts, or alsoe in the full sea, further then only to shew each others Com̄issions, com̄eing into their respective Havens, and not otherwise.
29.
[Sidenote: Like libertie touch^g Prizes &c.]
All perticular Com̄ission bearers on either side, shall likewise enioy the same freedome, in respect of their owne ships, as alsoe of the prises which they shall have taken from their particular on the com̄on Enemy, for to bring the said prises to the place where they are bound according to their Com̄ission, which they shalbe bound to informe, or make knowne to the Officers of the place, or to paie any dutye vnto them, or any else there, they shalbe neverthelesse bound to shew their respective Com̄issions to the sayd Officers.
30.
[Sidenote: Goods of eith^r p^{ty} found in Enemies ships to be prize as well as y^e ships.]
The goods, wares, and merchandizes of the subiects, and inhabitants of either partie, laeden, and found in Enemyes ships shalbe vnfree, and prise as well as y^e ships.
31.
[Sidenote: No Assistance to Enem^s or Rebels by Cōtrab^{da} wares &c.]
[Sidenote: What serues for victuall or mainten^{a}nce of Life to be free &c.]
It is alsoe expressly agreed, that the parties Contracto^{rs} shall not give, nor suffer that out of their respective Countries, by their subiects, or other Newters any assistance be done to their respective enemies, or rebells, of any Contrabanda wares, or Marchandises, as are all manner of fyreworks, and what else belongs therevnto, as Cannon, Musketts, Morterpieces Petards, Guns, Granadoes, Sawsiges, ..., [?,] Rests, Bandeliers, Powder Match, Saltpeter, Bullets; all sortes of armes, as Pykes, swordes, Headpieces, Cuirasses, Holberds, and such lyke; as also souldiers Horses, horse furniture, Pistoll cases, Rapiers, Belts, and all furniture, fashioned, and made for vse of warr, with expresse meaning that vnder the name of Contraband, or forbidden goods, there shall not be comprehended wheat, Corne, and other grayne, Pease, Beanes, Wheat [sic: Meat?], Salt, Wyne, Oyle, nor generally all that serves for food, and maintenance of lyfe, but shalbe free, as other goods above mentioned, And any of the said Contraband goods, being found in each others ships, they may be confiscated after knowledge of the case before a competent Judge, without troubling any other Wares, or goods.
32.
[Sidenote: No carying of anie Portug^{ll} goods &c. vpon Penaltie of Losse of y^e ships &c.]
It is further bespoake, that the subiects, and inhabitants of either side, may not transporte, or carry any Portingall goods, wares, or Merchandises out of America, Asia, or Affrica, or into, or out of Europe, or one parte thereof to another, nor vice versâ from Europe to America, Asia, or Affrica, nor from one part of them to another, upon penaltye of losse of the same ships.
33.
[Sidenote: Ships cast away If claym^d w^{th}in a yeare & a Day to be w^{th} y^e goods restored to the Own^{er}s w^{th}out suite.]
If any ships either for warr, or marchandise, or other of either partye by storme, or any other misfortune, chance to be stranded, or cast away on the coast of either country, the said ships with their Apparell, and all therein may be reclaymed, and brought back againe within the space of a yeare, and a day, by the right owners or there Assignes, or deputies, and shalbe restored againe to them without any forme of suite onlye payeing for the charges done about ’em, and a reasonable gratuitye or salvage money, and in case upon such, and the like accidents, subiects of either side chance to fall to question, the officers of the respective places shall be bound to doe good, and right Justice betweene the partyes, without deteyning them by any formalitye of processe.
APPENDIX L.
(P. 398.)
TROMP’S MEMORANDUM TO THE STATES OF HOLLAND AS TO THE CUSTOM OF STRIKING THE FLAG TO THE ENGLISH. 27th FEBRUARY/9th MARCH 1651.
(Aitzema, Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, in, ende omtrent de Vereenigde Nederlanden, Vol. iii. p. 731.)
Wanneer deses Staets Schepen van Oorloge in Zee quamen te ontmoeten een Engelsch Koninghs Schip, op-hebbende de Vlagge als Admirael, Vice-Admirael ofte Schout bij nacht; dat deses Staets-Schepen hare Admiraels Vlagge ende Mars-zeylen streecken en schoten negen, seven of vijf Eer-schoten (daer op de Engelsche antwoordede met gelijcke Eer-schoten) en lieten de Vlagge gestreken hangen tot sij van malkanderen scheyden, met het schieten van drie of een Adieu-schoot; en weynigh van den anderen zijnde, setten de Staetsche de Vlagge wederom op. Doch voor particuliere Konings Schepen streken geen Vlagge, alleen salueerden malkanderen met eenige Eer-schooten. Maer is verscheyden-malen geschiet, dat particuliere Schepen van weynigh geweldt zijnde, oock naer de Vlagge van Staetsche hebben geschoten, uyt hooghmoet, willende hebben dat men soude strijcken: daer meesten tijdt op is gevolgt, dat de Staetsche wederom na haer hebben geschoten en haer tanden laten sien, en geen macht hebbende de Staetsche daer toe te dwingen, moesten met uytlacchen haer Kours gaen; doch is bij haer en die van desen Staet veel tijdts gesien op de meeste macht, en dan discretie gebruyckt. Binnen haer Havenen ende Casteelen komende, salueerden de Casteelen met Eer-schoten (die oock wederom antwoorden) en namen de Vlagge in, en lieten in plaets een Wimpel waijen, soo lange die van desen Staet binnen haer Havenen lagen, in sonderheydt wanneer eenige Konings Schepen daer waren die de Konings Vlagge lieten waeijen. Doch geen Konings Schepen zijnde, is ’t verscheyde-malen gebeurt, dat de Gouverneurs van de Casteelen een Expressen aen boort stuyrden uyt courtosie, en gaven consent, dat de Staetsche haer Admiraels Vlagge souden opsetten en laten waijen: mits wederom uyt-zeylende ende de Casteelen passerende, de Vlagge streecken en lieten hanghen, totdat men met Eer-schooten haer hadde gesalueert, en sij gheantwoordt; dan wierde wederom de Staetsche Vlagge op geset.
APPENDIX M.
(P. 404.)
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN TROMP AND BLAKE.
(De Zee Betwist. Geschiedenis der Onderhandelingen over de Zeeheerschappij tusschen de Engelsche Republiek en de Vereenigde Provinciën vóór den eersten Zee-Oorlog. Dr M. C. Tideman.)
MONS^R,
Le 19/29 du Mois passé nous entrerencontrans en mer mon invention [sic: intention?] estoit de vous saluer, mais me voyant attacquée de la sorte, et n’ayant peu scavoir la vostre puisque devant ny apres ladite rencontre je n’ay parlé a personne des vostres ne doubtant toutesfois nullemant (selon que m’a tesmoigné Mons^r. le Commandeur Born, par les responses qu’il a faictes et données a celuy que je luy envoyois pour luy communiquer mon ordre et sincere Intention) que ne soions amis et bons alliez, fus contraint, comme un homme d’honneur, tant seulement de me defendere, mais d’autant que aujourdhuy, estant a lancre devant Calais on ma rapporté, qu’un de nos Navires le Capiteyne Tuynemans de Middelbourg auroit este emmené a vostre Rade aux d’unes, lequel je croiois estre coulé en fond, comme celuy seul qu’il nous defailloit. C’est pourquoi je vous supplie en toute amitie que ce soit votre plasir, que ledit navire nous soit rendu et mis en main du porteur de ceste, en forme qu’il a este prins, et me promets, que la bonne alliance et union entre Messeigneurs les Estats de Vostre et de nostre Republycque, nostre Religion et mutuelle amitié fera, que ne voudres le refuser, Sur quoy me tiendray obligé de demeurer, comme veritablement je suis,
Monsieur,
Vostre Tres humble Serviteur, (Signé) M. HARP^{TS}. TROMP.
En notre navire Le Brederode le 2^e Junij 1652 a la Rade de Calais.
The superscription was:--
A Monsieur,
Monsieur N. N. Blake, Collonel et Admirael au Service de Messeigneurs les Estats de la Republicque d’Angleterre, ou en son absence au Commandant a present aux d’unes.
Gardiner (Letters and Papers, 257) gives Blake’s reply “retranslated from the Dutch translation.” The original, which was appended to Tromp’s letter to the States-General, is given by Tideman, as follows, from Lias Admiraliteit: Bijvoegsel bij Tromps brief aan H. Ho. Mo. uit Ostende d. d. 10 Juni 1652.
S^r,
Y^r Letter of the second of June 1652 stilo novo, brought by yo^r Messenger, was read by mee not without much wonder that you stiling yo^r selfe a person off honor should insert therin toe great mistakes after yo^r seeking out the ffleet of the Parliament of the Comonwealth of England instead of performing those usuall respects which off right belong unto them and which yo^r selve have often done, you were pleased to beginn acts off hostility which you call yo^r owne defence against the commonwealth, without the least provocation on the part of their servants thus assaulted by you, and at a time when yo^r Superiours, and their Ambassadors with the Parlyament were in a Treaty and desire of friendshipp with the Comonwealth of England, but that God in whome wee trust, having defeated your purposes of our destruction and some off yo^r ships taken, you thincke fitt to demaund the same off us as if yo^r former accord had been as you call it but a salutation and when that fayled, you would second yo^r high affronts by yo^r paper to which I doe not thincke fitt to returne any other Answere, But that I presume you will find the Parlyament sensible of these greate Iniuries and of the Losse off the innocent bloud of their Countrymen, And you will find likewise ready to obey their comandts,
Yo^r humble Servant, ROB: BLAKE.
DOWNES, 29th May 1652.
APPENDIX N.
(P. 461.)
CONCESSION TO BRUGES TO FISH IN THE BRITISH SEAS.[1405]
(State Papers--King’s Letter Book, 1664-1670. Foreign Entry Book. Vol. 174, p. 119.)
Carolvs &c. Omnibus ad quos præsentes literæ pervenerint vel ullo modo spectaverint salutem. Cum in virtutum albo longè Princeps audiat liberalitas, quippe quæ non tantùm beneficia sed ipsam etiam benevolentiam et humanitatem secum comites trahat, Hinc est, quod Nobilissimæ et antiquissimæ civitatis Brugensis summis erga Nos meritis coacti quodammodo, animique Nostri ductum secuti [sicuti], tum maximè accepti hospitij memores, in hoc unum ferimur [feremur] ut priorum prementes Vestigia grati in eam animi non leve argumentum posteris quoquo modo traderemus; Et sanè affectu tam [tum] singulari non tantùm Sacerdotum, Consulum, Senatorum, et summus ille Nobilium ordo, sed universa passim Urbs et Nos et fratres Nostros iniquitate rerum hospites olim factos fovit semper et propensior indies accepit, ut animo Nostro altius infixa recens adhuc amoris tantó hæreat memoria, eaque jure quodam hæreditario ad Successores Nostros deferenda, ne posteris Nostris tantæ benignitatis ingrata tandem obrepat oblivio, Regnis utique [utque] Nostris ejecti benigniori hospitio in tantum recreari cœpimus, ut iniquam [inquam] fortunæ invidiam æquiori animo tulisse videremur, eo saltem nomine non passuri [possum] unquam ut ad priorem statum reduces ingratorum notâ laboremus. Vellemus quidem eâdem alacritate quâ prædicta Civitas Brugensis (Celeberrimum quondam Emporium tum magnificentiâ, amplitudine et fulgore præ cæteris clarum) benevolentiæ et benignitatis fidem coluit, gratum animum testari, & Civitati de Nobis tam bene meritæ pristinam gloriam et splendorem illæsum prorsus, et [est] integrum præstare. Quâ de causâ à Viro Nobis præcipuè dilecto Marco Alberto Dognati Equite [d’Ognati Equiti] Aurato, Regisque Catholici ad renovandam Belgij Dignitatem Commissario, rebusque Nostris singulari curâ intento à charissimo consanguineo Nostro (et) Illustrissimo Marchione [Marchioni] de Castel-Rodrigo Belgij et Burgundiæ Gubernatore de Commercij libertate hoc tempore faciendâ misso [misse] tum literas, tum Monochroma Novi Opificij, Portus, usque ad Oceanum Ductus [ductos] nuper elaborati et in capacem Navigationis formam redacti, grato animo accepimus; Lætique benignitate pristinâ, Regiam aliquam prærogativam quæ non [non non] ingrate spondeat, in predictam civitatem Brugensem conferre meditamur, plenâ potestate & authoritate Nostrâ Regiâ plenè, liberè sponte, ac motu proprio dantes & concedentes sicuti [sicut] per præsentes pro Nobis, Hæredibus et Successoribus Nostris damus et concedimus, ut prædicta civitas Brugensis quocunque demum impedimento obstante Quinquaginta Naves piscatorias in Mare Nostrum in futurum possit deducere, nec non juxta Regnorum Nostrorum Oras et Littora liberè ac secure piscaturam exercere, tum etiam Haleces [Halices] piscesque alios quoscunque captare. Licebit porrò prædictæ Urbis Civibus ad Portus Nostros Littora et flumina cum prædictis Navibus appellere, retia siccanda [seccanda] et resarcienda in terram exponere, periculis hostium tempestatumque sese subducere, necessaria tum ad victum tum ad alia quæcunque in oppidis alijsque locis Regnorum Nostrorum justo pretio coemere, nullâque aliâ ad hoc speciali facultate aut salvi [salvus] conductûs literis habitis aut petitis inde redire liberèque [libere] recedere ita tamen ut dictæ Civitatis Brugensis Magistratûs literis, præsentium vigore sub sigillo ejus exhibendis, instructi veniant; caveant interim prædictarum Navium piscatoriarum proprietarij, fide prius datâ apud dictum Magistratum per sponsores idoneos, ne per ipsos piscatores, Nautas, aliosvè ad pisces derehendos substitutos, ad loca Nobis et Regnis Nostris inimica hujusmodi onus subrehi sinant [hujusmodi oras sinant et] aut permittant. Volumus igitur et per præsentes decernimus, ut prædicta piscandi libertas juxta numerum Navium supramemoratarum præfatis Urbis Brugensis Civibus solva [sola] semper et integra maneat, et in perpetuum per Nos ac Hæredes et Successores Nostros stabilita continuetur. Nèque quisquam subditorum Nostrorum, cujuscunque statûs, authoritatis, gradûs seu conditionis, huic [hujus] Nostræ liberæ et spontaneæ concessioni [concessionis] gratiæ, favori et privilegio, quoquo modo contravenito. Mandamus igitur et injungimus Fratri Nostro Charissimo Ducé Eboracensi Magno Nostro Angliæ Admiralio [Admirallo] Nec non omnibus et singulis Regnorum Nostrorum Thalassiarchis, Navium Bellicarum capitaneis et Ductoribus Provinciarum, Urbium, Arciumque maritimarum Præfectis et eorum Vicem gerentibus, Judicibus, Officialibus, et alijs quibuscunque Ministris Nostris et juris Administratoribus, &c., ut prædictis piscatoribus in quācunque maris parte vel juxta littora, flumina, Portusve Nostros obviam facti, non modo illis injuriam non inferant, sed eós etiam amicè et benevolè excipiant, ac ubi opus fuerit, ijs opem ferant ijsdemque liberum accessum et recessum reditumque in patriam unà cum Navibus, piscibus, cæterisque bonis suis, nullo facto impedimento seu contradictione quâcunque præstent et permittant. In quorum omnium majorem fidem [fidem majorem] præsentibus hisce manu Nostrâ Regiâ signatis [signatas] Magnum Nostrum Angliæ Sigillum appendi fecimus. Dabantur, &c., Julij 1666 [sic].
APPENDIX O.
(P. 692.)
TERRITORIAL WATERS.
The articles adopted by the Institut de Droit International at Paris in 1894, and accepted with slight modifications by the International Law Association at London in 1895. [Note.--The additions to and alterations of the Rules adopted at Paris, which were made at London, are indicated by italic type.]
L’INSTITUT,
Considérant qu’il n’y a pas de raison pour confondre en une seule zône la distance nécessaire pour l’exercice de la souveraineté et pour la protection de la pêche littorale et celle qui l’est pour garantir la neutralité des non-belligérants en temps de guerre;
Que la distance la plus ordinairement adoptée de trois milles de la laisse de basse marée a été reconnue insuffisante pour la protection de la pêche littorale;
Que cette distance ne correspond pas non plus à la portée réelle des canons placés sur la côte;
a adopté les dispositions suivantes:
ARTICLE PREMIER.--L’État a un droit de souveraineté sur une zône de la mer qui baigne la côte, sauf le droit de passage inoffensif réservé à l’article 5.
Cette zône porte le nom de mer territoriale.
ART. 2.--La mer territoriale s’étend à six milles marins (60 au degré de latitude) de la laisse de basse marée ou de la ligne de laquelle il est parlé dans l’article 3, sur toute l’étendue des côtes.
ART. 3.--Pour les baies, la mer territoriale suit les sinuosités de la côte, sauf qu’elle est mesurée à partir d’une ligne droite tirée en travers de la baie dans la partie la plus rapprochée de l’ouverture vers la mer, où l’écart entre les deux côtes de la baie est de dix milles marins de largeur, à moins qu’un usage continu et séculaire n’ait consacré une largeur plus grande.
ART. 4.--En cas de guerre, l’État riverain neutre a le droit de fixer, par la déclaration de neutralité ou par notification spéciale, sa zône neutre au delà de six milles, jusqu’à portée du canon des côtes.
ART. 5.--Tous les navires sans distinction ont le droit de passage inoffensif par la mer territoriale, sauf le droit des belligérants de réglementer et, dans un but de défense, de barrer le passage dans ladite mer pour tout navire, et sauf le droit des neutres de réglementer le passage dans ladite mer pour les navires de guerre de toutes nationalités. Il n’est pas dérogé par cet article aux dispositions de l’article 10.
ART. 6.--Les crimes et délits commis à bord de navires étrangers de passage dans la mer territoriale par des personnes qui se trouvent à bord de ces navires, sur des personnes ou des choses à bord de ces mêmes navires, sont, comme tels, en dehors de la juridiction de l’État riverain, à moins qu’ils n’impliquent une violation des droits ou des intérêts de l’État riverain, ou de ses ressortissants ne faisant partie ni de l’équipage ni des passagers.
ART. 7.--Les navires qui traversent les eaux territoriales se conformeront aux règlements spéciaux édictés par l’État riverain dans l’intérêt et pour la sécurité de la navigation et pour la police maritime.
ART. 8.--Les navires de toutes nationalités, par le fait seul qu’ils se trouvent dans les eaux territoriales, à moins qu’ils n’y soient seulement de passage, sont soumis à la juridiction de l’État riverain.
L’État riverain a le droit de continuer sur la haute mer la poursuite commencée dans la mer territoriale, d’arrêter et de juger le navire qui aurait commis une infraction pénale dans les limites de ses eaux. En cas de capture sur la haute mer, le fait sera, toutefois, notifié sans délai à l’État dont le navire porte le pavillon. La poursuite est interrompue dès que le navire entre dans la mer territoriale de son pays ou d’une tierce puissance. Le droit de poursuite cesse dès que le navire sera entré dans un port de son pays ou d’une tierce puissance.
ART. 9.--Est réservée la situation particulière des navires de guerre et de ceux qui leur sont assimilés.
ART. 10.--Les dispositions des articles précédents s’appliquent aux détroits dont l’écart n’excède pas douze milles, sauf les modifications et distinctions suivantes:--
1^o Les détroits dont les côtes appartiennent à des États différents font partie de la mer territoriale des États riverains, qui y exerceront leur souveraineté jusqu’à la ligne médiane.
2^o Les détroits dont les côtes appartiennent au même État et qui sont indispensables aux communications maritimes entre deux ou plusieurs États autres que l’État riverain font toujours partie de la mer territoriale du riverain, quel que soit le rapprochement des côtes. Ils ne peuvent jamais être barrés.
3^o Dans les détroits dont les côtes appartiennent au même État, la mer est territoriale bien que l’écartement des côtes dépasse douze milles, si à chaque entrée du détroit cette distance n’est pas dépassé.
4^o Les détroits qui servent de passage d’une mer libre à une autre mer libre ne peuvent jamais être barrés.
ART. 11.--Le régime des détroits actuellement soumis à des conventions ou usages spéciaux demeure réservé.
INDEX.
Aberdeen, 84, 215, 227, 298, 407
Abreu y Bertodano on territorial sea, 559
Admiral, office of, 30, 31, 32, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 266, 329, 363, 364 n.
Admiralty, 18, 31, 248, 249, 260, 261, 262, 263, 266, 277, 280, 286, 288, 293, 318, 328, 520
Admiralty and “striking,” 277, 278, 380-383, 438, 455, 456, 472
Admiralty, High Court of, 54, 120, 122, 124, 243, 244 n., 251, 285, 358, 363, 369, 391, 465 n.; and striking, 513; decisions as to neutral waters, 553; decisions as to three-mile limit, 576, 577
Admiralty jurisdiction, origin of, 6, 17, 30, 32
Admiralty, on extent of British Seas, 20, 438
Adriatic, 52 n.; sovereignty of, 3, 4, 8, 16, 33, 107, 111, 339, 341, 350, 357, 361, 371, 539; fisheries of, 659
Aerssen, François van, Dutch ambassador, 200, 336
Africaine, case of, 641 n.
Agincourt, 8, 35
Agnes G. Donohoe, case of, 663
Albemarle, Duke of. See Monk.
Albertsz, Jan, Captain, 171, 173, 174
Alderney, 103
Alexander, Sir William, Secretary for Scotland, 219, 220, 225 n., 227, 232
Alfred, King, 26
Algarve, fishery treaty with, 67
Algeria, 527; territorial sea, 657
Allin, Sir Thomas, 468, 471, 477
Alverstone, Lord, 692
Alward, G. L., 711 n., 739 n.
Amboyna, 430
America, British North, fishery disputes with United States, 580; fishery limit, 650; ten-mile limit for bays, 626, 627, 628, 629; six-mile limit for bays, 627, 629, 630; fishery rights, 531, 532, 731, 731 n.; Hague Tribunal on, 732 n.; Mixed Commission to delimit bays, 628; modus vivendi with United States, 626, 628, 629; treaties regarding fisheries, See Treaties.
America, fisheries claimed for crown, 235
Amsterdam, 73, 132, 181, 183, 282, 368
Amsterdam Island, 194 n.
Ancient Britons and maritime dominion, 25, 26
Angelus, 351
Angevins, 8, 26, 29, 65, 207
Anglo-Saxons, 26, 27, 28, 541, 542
Anna, case of, 579, 641 n.
Annapolis, case of, 586 n.
Anne of Austria, 117
Anne, Queen, 161, 354, 520, 523
Anstruther Easter, 165, 175 n.
Antwerp, 49, 73, 148; treaty of, 148, 344, 350
Appropriation of sea. See Sea.
Aquitaine, 19, 213; fisheries at, 67
Archer, Walter E., 736 n.
Argentine Republic, claim to great bays, 661; claim to wide limit of exclusive fishery, 661, 662
Argyle, Earl of, 153 n.
Arlington, Lord, 469, 483, 490, 497, 502
Armed Neutrality, 522, 563, 571, 572
Arundel, Earl of, 227, 239 n., 241, 314, 316, 477
Aschehoug, on territorial sea, 686, 688
Assize-herring, 82, 124, 138, 144, 152-154, 163-171, 180, 194-196, 203, 293, 346, 347, 352, 355; proposal to levy from foreign fishermen, 124, 167; demanded from Dutch, 180; how to be levied from Dutch, 195, 196, 757; paid by Dutch fishermen, 169; value of, 195
Auber, on territorial sea, 691
Australia, pearl fisheries, 697
Austria-Hungary, territorial sea, 572, 658; Customs jurisdiction, 594, 659; reciprocal rights of fishery with Italy, 659
Ayrshire, fishermen of, 83
Azores, 106
Azuni, on territorial sea, 564, 565; on range of vision, 546
Bacon, Lord, 73, 163 n., 189, 223
Bagg, Sir James, 280
Baldus, on territorial limit, 351, 360, 539, 540, 541
Balfour of Burleigh, Lord, 730
Ballantrae Bank herring fishery, 238
Balmerino, Lord, 187
Baltic, 61, 409, 432, 434; as closed sea, 572 n.; sovereignty over, 4, 33, 108, 350, 371, 377, 550, 552, 555; territorial limits in, 655
Baltimore, 247
Barbary, 327
Barclay, Sir Thomas, 689 n., 690
Barebones Parliament, 428; on sovereignty of sea, 13, 413
Barents Sea, foreign trawlers in, 713
Barking, 699
Barneveldt, Elias van Olden, 155, 157 n.
Barneveldt, J. van Olden, 152, 159, 162, 170, 173, 191
Barrère, on the freedom of the sea, 595
Barrett, Frank, 738 n.
Bartolus, on territorial limit, 351, 539, 541
Bates, Joshua, on bay of Fundy, 625
Batten, Sir William, 380, 382, 448, 456
Battle of the Downs, 330
Baty, Dr Thomas, Hon. Secretary, International Law Association, 673 n.
Bays. See Territorial Sea.
Bayonne, 52 n.
Beaufort, de, Duke, Admiral of France, 463, 472
Beaufort, Henry, 56 n.
Beaufort, Sir Thomas, 40
Behring Sea, fishery disputes, negotiations with Russia, 581-585; Russian ukase fixing 100-mile limit, 541; gunshot limit accepted by Russia, 582, 585; three-mile limit adopted by Russia, 585; United States on Russian claim, 584; Tribunal of Arbitration, 663, 664, 695, 695 n., 732; Japanese sealers in, 696 n.; whaling in, 585
Belgium, complaints against fishermen of, 615, 616; territorial sea, 658
Bell Rock, territoriality of, 642
Bengal, Bay of, 625
Bergen, 109
Berkeley, Sir William, on striking, 472
Berwick, 49, 60, 73, 219
Beukelsz, invention of herring cure, 61, 426 n.
Beuningen, van, Dutch ambassador, 511
Beveren, van, Dutch ambassador, 302, 303, 304, 312, 315, 316, 317, 320
Beverning, Hieronymus van, Dutch ambassador, 415, 418, 433, 504
Beverwaert, van, Dutch ambassador, 449 n., 450
Binge, Raymond, 109 n.
Binning, Captain, 513
Binning, Lord, 80, 178, 179 n., 186, 187
Birch, 28
Bird, Sir William, 174 n.
Biscay, 255; fishermen of, 67, 98; whalers at Spitzbergen, 183 n.
Biscay, Bay of, 19, 510, 521; fisheries in, 707, 713; territoriality of, 625
Bishop of Isles, 242
Bishop of Ross, 77
Bishop, on territorial sea, 683
Black Book of Admiralty, 7,16, 39-42, 52, 53, 66, 410 n.
Blackburn, Lord, on territorial sea, 589
Black Sea, 371
Blackstone, on Sovereignty of Sea, 580 n.
Blake, General Robert, 408, 421, 422; instructions to, regarding sovereignty of sea, 382, 383; encounter with Tromp, 12, 207 n., 397, 398 n., 401, 403, 404; correspondence with Tromp, 404 n., 772; captures Dutch herring busses, 311 n., 406, 407
Blakeney, 49, 90 n.
Blockade, 209, 264, 265, 268
Bluntschli, on territorial sea, 682, 688
Blyth, 250
Board of Trade on fishery limit, 616; and German territorial limits, 652
Bodin, on territorial limit, 540
Bohemia, 191, 197, 198
Bohemia, Queen of. See Elizabeth.
Bohuslän, herring fishery at, 62
Bordeaux, 28, 61, 97
Boreel, Dutch ambassador, 482, 483, 485, 490
Boroughs, Sir John, Keeper of the Records, on Sovereignty of Sea, 25, 28, 39, 43, 64 n., 254, 364, 365, 366, 411; discovery of rolls, 31, 213, 254; on foreign fishermen, 132
Boston, 73
Boswell, Sir W., British ambassador at The Hague, 212, 213, 257, 258, 259 n., 264, 317, 318, 319, 321
Botetourt, Sir John de, 46 n., 60
Bothnia, Gulf of, sovereignty over, 4, 564
Boulogne, 104, 274, 281
Bourne, Rear-Admiral, meets Tromp, 400; assists Blake, 403
Bouwensz, Joost, 294 n., 298 n., 304
Brabant, 49, 50, 70, 71
Bracton, 66, 362 n., 539
Bradshaw, 409
Braeckel, Captain, 476
Braems, Sir Arnold, 318, 515
Brazil, 327, 393, 430
Breda, conference at, 459, 464, 476; treaty of, 465, 492, 501
Brederode, W. van, 81
Bremen, fishermen and merchants from, 126, 129, 130, 169, 227, 235, 327; negotiations at, 110, 373
Bressay Sound, 129, 131, 215
Briel, 43, 73, 78, 142, 278, 511, 512
Bristol, 96, 108
Bristol Channel, territoriality of, 586, 725
British Colonies, territorial sea, 661
British fisheries, foreigners at. See Fisheries.
British Seas. See Sea.
British subjects in foreign service, 260, 359 n.; in Dutch navy, 251 n.
Brittany, 36, 48, 54, 56, 67, 68, 69, 103, 213, 270
Britton, 539
Brixham, 699
Brood and spawn of fish, 213
Brouershaven, 77
Brown, James, 194
Brown, John, 166, 191 n., 194 n., 195, 195 n., 196; sent to uplift the assize herrings from Dutch fishermen, 169, 170, 171; seized by Dutch and carried to Holland, 172, 173; released, 173; Dutch apologise, 173; counsel’s opinion on seizure, 174
Bruce, King Robert, 76
Bruce, Patrick, 181
Bruges, 43, 52 n., 71, 73; fishing charter from Charles II., 460, 461, 504, 616, 617, 772
Brussels, 71, 318, 335
Bucentaur, 4, 567 n.
Buchan Ness, 131, 166, 227, 233, 321, 406
Buckingham, Duke of, 201, 266 n., 490, 497
Buckland, Frank, on inexhaustibility of fisheries, 636
Burchett, on Sovereignty of Sea, 311 n., 521
Burghs, Scottish, 216, 240
Burgundy, Duchess of, 71, 72
Burgundy, Duke of, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 158
Burgundy, House of, 49
Burgundy treaties, 69, 70, 72, 86, 112, 145, 146, 147, 158, 288, 312 n., 356, 370, 412 n., 425, 500
Burgus, P. B., on dominion of Ligurian Sea, 411, 550
Burnham, 90
Bushell, William, 284
Bynkershoek, Cornelius van, 21, 350, 538, 579, 591, 595, 650, 685, 686; on territorial sea, 555, 556; on range of vision, 546
Cadiz, 246
Cæsar, Sir Julius, 120, 146, 155, 156 n.
Caithness, 126, 227
Calais, 18, 29, 34, 37 n., 45 n., 49, 50, 65, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 103, 104, 204, 205, 266, 273, 274, 278, 280, 282, 327, 401, 440
Callis, Serjeant, on the appropriation of the sea, 54, 66, 358, 363
Calvo, on territorial sea, 340, 682, 688
Camden, 64, 142
Canada, fishery rights at. See British North America.
Cancale, Bay of. See Granville Bay.
Canning, George, on Behring Sea, 583
Cannon range limit, proposed by Dutch, 156. See Territorial Sea.
Canterbury, 41
Cape Bojador, 105
Cape de Verde, 106
Cape Finisterre, 270, 469, 478, 502, 505, 510, 515, 521
Cape of Good Hope, 105, 340, 343, 344
Cape St Vincent, 270, 434, 435, 465, 466 n., 469, 478, 502, 503, 508, 510
Cardinal Infant, 243, 318, 319, 335
Carew, Lord George, 202
Carleton, Sir Dudley, 128, 168, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 185, 190, 192, 193, 197, 212; on Grotius, 351
Carlisle, Earl of, 222 n., 227 n.
Caron, Sir Noel, Dutch ambassador, 151-154, 163, 165, 168-174, 201
Carrick, Earl of, 225 n.
Carteret, Captain, 291, 327
Casaregi, on territorial sea, 558
Castile, 32, 67
Castro, Francis Alphonso de, on dominion of sea, 341
Catalonia, 45
Cats, Dutch ambassador, 391
Cattegat, territoriality of, 653
Cavendish, 5
Cecil, Secretary Sir William, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 105, 114, 115, 128 n., 133, 204
Ceva, Cardinal de, 273 n.
Ceylon, pearl fisheries, 560, 697
Chaleurs, Bay of, 623, 624, 625, 627 n., 628, 629, 630, 692
Chamberlain, Joseph, 628
Champagne, on freedom of the sea, 595, 596
Chancellor, 181
Channel, English, 9, 18, 19, 21, 29, 42, 43, 209, 247, 250, 266, 269, 270, 276, 327, 407, 465; extent of, 432, 465 n. 506 n.; great avenue of commerce, 30; importance of command of, 30; fisheries in, 65 n., 68, 544; licenses for fishing in, 65; disputes with French fishermen, 607, 608; mid-line limit, 542, 544; sovereignty over, 6, 8, 16, 35, 36, 101, 103, 207, 208, 246, 432; striking in, 117, 212, 469, 470
Channel Islands, 29, 36, 103
Charles the Bold, 72
Charles I., 17, 28, 31, 117, 119, 338; asked to free the seas of Hollander busses, 211, 234; opinion on importance of fisheries, 213; initiates fishery association, 214; plan of, 215, 216; lays scheme before Council in Scotland, 218, 219, 220; ill received in Scotland, 220; opposed by Scottish Parliament, 222; debates regarding, 224; his great anxiety for, 225; Scottish Commissioners appointed, 225; his letters on, 232, 233; Royal Fishery Society established, 239; proceedings of, 241; misfortunes and failure of Fishery Society, 241-243; claim to sovereignty of sea, 10, 11, 119, 209-212, 251, 258; proclamation regarding narrow seas and King’s Chambers, 251; draft proclamation re Sovereignty of Sea, 759; personal policy, 253; pretext for equipping a fleet, 253; deceives his Council, 255; secret agreement with Spain, 253, 255, 260, 264; instructions to first ship-money fleet, 259; failure of his policy, 275; report of Admiralty as to employment of second ship-money fleet, 288, 762; instructions regarding license money from foreign fishermen, 295; proclamation forbidding unlicensed fishing by foreigners, 293, 294; licenses to fishermen, 762; negotiations with Dutch as to unlicensed fishing, 305, 306; tries surreptitiously to induce Dutch to accept licenses, 317, 319, 321; Dutch despatch a fleet to protect their fishermen, 321; general dissatisfaction with his actions, 324; his power on sea wanes, 328; pretensions to sovereignty of sea flouted by Dutch, 328, 329; battle of Downs, 335; proceedings regarding Spanish fleet and Tromp, 331, 336
Charles II., his efforts to develop fisheries, 441; Bill to encourage fisheries, 443; directed against foreigners, 444, 444 n.; establishes the Royal Fishery, 446-448; failure of, 449; Dutch embassy, negotiations concerning fishery question, 449, 450, 451, 455; tries to prevent Franco-Dutch treaty, 454; treaty with the United Provinces, 455; disputes about striking, 455; second Dutch war, 457, 458; very popular, 458; course of, 459; terms of peace, 464; claim to exclusive fishing withdrawn, 464; question of striking, 464, 465; extent of British seas, 465, 466; licenses offered to Dutch fishermen, 460; De Witt’s proposals as to striking, 468; verbal arrangement with Louis as to striking, 471, 471 n.; Triple Alliance, 474; secret treaty of Dover, 474; obtains a subsidy, 475; ill-feeling against Dutch fomented, 476; accuses De Witt of secret negotiations with Louis, 476; recall of Sir William Temple, 476; pretext for war in the “honour of the flag,” 476; sends his yacht Merlin to pick a quarrel over the salute, 477, 478, 479; failure of the Merlin, 480; dispute with Dutch as to striking, 482; Dutch asked to acknowledge his dominion of the seas, 482; the Dutch hoodwinked, 482; rejects concessions of Dutch, 483, 484; orders Dutch shipping to be seized, 484, 485; failure of attack on Smyrna fleet, 486, 487; declaration of war against States-General, 487; declaration on the honour of the flag and sovereignty of the sea, 487, 488; arranges salute with Louis, 488; terms offered the Dutch, 490; demands payment for fishery, 491, 491 n.; summons Parliament, 492; subsidy granted, 493; the war intensely unpopular, 493; efforts to stir up animosity against Dutch, 494-498; congress at Cologne, 498; terms of peace offered, 498; question of flag and striking, 498, 499, 501-503, 505, 506, 508; question of fisheries, 498-500, 503-505, 508; negotiations for separate peace, 504-508; peace concluded, 508; establishes a new fishery company, 516
Charles V., 74, 75, 78, 79, 81
Charteris, A. H., 586 n.
Chaterton, Sir Richard, 448
Chatham, 459, 476
Chelchethe, John de, 50
Chelmsford, Lord, on territorial sea, 586 n.
Chester, 96
Chili, territorial sea, 661
Chitty, on Sovereignty of Sea, 580 n.
Chitty, on territorial sea, 597
Christian V. of Denmark, prohibits fishing at Greenland, 528
Churchill, Lieutenant, 486 n.
Cinque Ports, 29, 32, 36, 55, 244, 247, 295, 381 n.; complain about foreign fishermen, 144, 145; fishermen of, 58, 90 n., 144; jurisdiction on sea, 213, 544, 544 n.; licenses to French fishermen, 65
Clarendon, Chancellor, 241, 457
Clee, 90
Cleveland yacht, 511
Clyde, Firth of, foreign trawlers in, 647; fisheries of, 83, 221 n., 233, 235, 239;
Cnut, King, and the sea, 26; charter regarding Sandwich, 542
Cockaine, Sir William, 202
Cockburn, Lord Chief-Justice, on Bristol Channel, 586, 587, 588; on territorial sea, 591, 591 n.
Cockraine, Captain, 437
Cod-fishing, 79, 131, 221 n., 672
Coke, Lord Chief-Justice, 17, 27, 43, 44, 44 n., 46, 66, 213; on appropriation of sea, 363
Coke, Secretary, Sir John, 130 n., 227 n., 268, 269; on the British seas, 20, 264 n.; on the fishery scheme, 215-218, 232, 235-237, 239 n., 241, 243; on sovereignty of sea, 20, 211, 212, 255-258, 264, 271, 302
Coke, Roger, 127 n.
Colbert, French ambassador, 471, 471 n.
Cologne, congress at, 264 n., 323 n., 347 n., 491 n., 498, 506, 510
Colomb, Admiral, 311 n.
Columbus, 106, 340
Commerce, 53, 91, 106, 107, 134, 135, 143, 163, 210, 255, 339, 340, 342, 390, 391, 395, 408, 413, 457; in middle ages, 3, 5, 6, 7, 29, 30, 34 and n., 43, 44, 67, 69, 86; monopoly of, 5, 106
Commercial enterprise, expansion of, 6, 339, 340, 342, 533
Commercial jealousy of Dutch, 10, 422, 441, 457
Commonwealth, instructions as to striking, 380, 381; relations with United Provinces, 384; negotiations for alliance, 384, 385; St John’s mission to The Hague, 384-390; Navigation Act, 391; seizure of Dutch ships, 391; letters of reprisal against the Dutch, 391, 392, 393; renewed negotiations, 392-396; thirty-nine articles considered, 393, 764; differences as to sovereignty of sea, 393, 394; question of striking, 394, 395; question of fishery, 394, 396; question of right of visitation and search, 396; negotiations interrupted, 397; indignation against States-General for attack on Blake, 404; terms offered to Pauw, 405; Dutch ships seized and preparations for war, 405; declaration on sovereignty of sea, 409; Mare Clausum to be translated and printed, 410; peace negotiations with Dutch, 414-435; terms offered, 415; Dutch propose the Intercursus Magnus as basis, 416; liberty of fishing offered, 417; the twenty-seven articles proposed, 419; proposal for fusion of English and Dutch, 416, 417, 418, 419; question of dominion of the sea, 418, 419, 423, 433, 436; of extent of British seas, 429, 431-436; of fishing, 417, 418, 419, 420, 422, 423, 424, 425, 427, 430, 436; of guarding the sea, 421-424, 431, 436; of limitation of Dutch fleet, 421, 422, 423, 436; of the Prince of Orange, 422, 430, 433, 435; of striking, 417, 419, 420, 424, 429, 431, 432, 436; Dutch propose a “regulation” for, 405, 418, 424, 429, 431, 433; Dutch propose to strike in all seas, 432; of visit and search, 420-424, 431, 436; treaty signed, 435
Conception Bay, territoriality of, 588, 589
Conringius, 550
Conway, Viscount, 268, 269, 284 n.
Cook, George M., 728 n.
Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley, 429. See also Lord Shaftesbury.
Cope, Sir Walter, 128 n., 138
Corinth, Gulf of, 661
Cornish, James, on spawning of fish, 610
Cornwall, pilchards, 134, 143
Cornwallis, Lord, 360
Cottingham, Sir Francis, 227 n.
Cottington, Lord, 253, 263
Courcel, Baron de, on three-mile limit, 664 n., 696 n.
Coventry, Lord, 254, 255, 286
Craig, Sir Thomas, 359 n.; on the right of fishery, 357
Crail, 84, 175 n., 242
Craudon, 54, 55, 56
Cromarty, 227
Cromer, 90, 296
Crompton, Sir Thomas, 146
Cromwell, Oliver (see also Commonwealth), 13, 28, 65, 72, 337, 378, 404, 410 n., 414, 451, 495, 505; arguments for exclusive fishery, 425; clandestine negotiations with Dutch, 414, 415, 417, 430 n.; on sovereignty of sea, 419, 423, 424, 435; renews fishing licenses for Zowe, 440
Cromwell, Richard, on extent of British seas, 438
Crow, Captain, 479, 480
Cuba, territorial limit, 665
Cunæus, Professor Petrus, 375
Customs limit. See Territorial sea.
Dana, on territorial sea, 683
Danby, Earl of, 516
Danegeld, 26
Dantzic, 216, 242
Dartmouth, 267
David I., 59
Davidson, Thomas, 84
Davis’ Straits, 184
Deal Castle, 279
Dean, Major-General, 382, 406, 408
Decay of English fisheries. See Fisheries.
Decay of havens and sea-coast towns, 89, 90, 98, 446
Dee, Dr John, 27 n., 95, 111, 125, 203, 214 n., 364 n.; on sovereignty of sea, 99, 101
Delaware Bay, claimed by United States, 574, 599, 629
Delfshaven, 294 n., 298 n.
Delft, 73, 397 n.
Demetrius, Emanuel, 156
Denmark, 26, 45, 54, 464, 527; claim to cod-fishing at Iceland, 528; to whaling at Greenland, 527; fisheries of, 92; fishermen on British coasts, 605; claims to sovereignty of sea, 4, 8, 16, 33, 86, 105, 112, 158, 339, 340, 358; opposed by Queen Elizabeth, 107, 108, 109, 110; on striking, 470, 471, 473; territorial sea, 528, 529, 653, 655, 664; range of vision claimed, 529, 545; inclusion in Cromwell’s treaty with Dutch, 433
Deptford, 266
De Ruyter, 408, 456, 457 n., 458, 459, 463, 472, 479, 481, 489, 493
De Seneterre, 302
Desjardins, on territorial sea, 685, 688
“De Superioritate maris” roll, 8, 31, 41, 43, 44 and n., 45, 49, 50, 54, 363, 740, 744
Devonshire, Earl of, 138
De With, 408, 437
De Witt, Cornelius, 459
De Witt, John, 398, 414, 422, 433, 434, 449; secret negotiations with Cromwell, 430 n., 434, 435; secret negotiations with France regarding fishery and flag, 451-454, 471, 476; attitude on sovereignty of sea, 450, 451, 454, 468, 470; on fishery claim, 450, 451-457; on striking, 14, 452, 457, 467, 468, 470, 471; on striking to a frigate or ketch, 470, 477, 509; on striking to French, 463, 464; assassinated, 491
Dieppe, 49, 50, 61, 65, 116, 440, 473
Digby, Sir Kenelm, 292, 375
Digges, Sir Leonard, 96
Digges, Thomas, on foreshore and bed of sea, 362
Dogger Bank, 131, 407 n., 699, 700
Dominion of Sea. See Sovereignty of Sea.
Dorchester, Viscount, 212. See Carleton.
Dorp, van, 273, 274, 300, 312, 313, 321
Dorset, Earl of, 227 n.
Dort, 73
Dover, 49, 73, 103, 145 n., 204, 205, 265, 400; straits of, 6, 8, 16, 18, 36, 104, 273, 330, 397, 401, 515
Downing, Sir George, English ambassador at The Hague, 454, 482, 483, 488
Downs, The, 120, 245, 259, 260, 265, 268, 270, 274, 290, 323, 330, 331, 332, 334, 335, 336, 400
Drake, Sir F., 5, 107
Drechsel, C. F., Captain, 647 n., 707 n.
Dudley, Sir Henry, 116
Dues levied at Scarborough Castle, 64
Dunbar, 59, 153 n., 166, 221 n.
Dunedin, Lord, Lord Justice-General, on territorial sea, 724
Dunfermline, Earl of, 80, 179 n., 223
Dunkirk, 73, 125, 215, 242, 267, 278, 282, 327; blockade of, 253, 265, 266, 268, 270, 273-275, 276, 290, 327, 330, 334
Dunkirk privateers, 11, 243, 247-250, 261, 263, 265, 273, 282, 289, 291, 296, 302, 304, 318, 322, 327, 328, 330
Dunn, Sir Daniel, 146, 155
Dunwich, 90 n.
Durham, 133
Dussen, E. van der, Dutch ambassador, 185 n.
Dutch, 5, 69, 77, 79, 81, 143, 217, 243, 253, 255, 261, 263, 275, 289; commercial jealousy of, 10, 125, 142, 413; encouraged to settle in England, 515; growth of fisheries and commerce, 10, 62, 87, 143; fisheries, growth and extent of, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 142; on British coasts, 62, 64, 605; on Scottish coast, 82, 83, 187 n., 201; statistics of, 125-132, 158, 190, 438, 439 and n., 534; strength of fishing fleet, 98, 101, 125, 126, 127, 129, 144, 321; value of, 125, 131, 132, 142, 292, 366, 515; exports of fish, 87, 135; embargo on, 460, 462, 489; supply England with fish, 93; herring fishery, 10, 61, 78-85, 87, 93, 95, 112, 122, 125, 131, 134-137, 143-145, 157, 208, 214, 215, 247, 250, 273, 277, 296, 316, 407, 415, 424, 428, 449, 450, 451, 515, 534; description of, 131; exports of herrings, 132, 134; herring fleet attacked by Blake, 406, 407; whale fishing, 194 n., 181, 183, 184, 185, 407, 528; fishermen, frugality and industry of, 137, 141; settled at Stornoway, 216, 221, 237; complaints against, 144, 154, 168, 175, 177, 187, 234, 257, 292, 301, 438; proposal to tax, 141, 214; assize herring, 169-171, 197, 198; licenses to be forced on, 264, 300; proceedings with reference to Northumberland’s fleet, 301-305, 312, 313; payments for licenses to fish, 309, 310, 311; attempt to distribute licenses, 320, 321. See also Fisheries and Sovereignty of Sea.
Dutch, first war with England, 405; second, 457; third, 474
Dutch fleet to protect fishermen, 321
Dutch East India Company, 185, 343, 344
Dutch Republic. See United Provinces.
Dyer, Sir Edward, 103
Dymes, Captain John, 216, 217 n.
East India Company, 194
East Indies, 105, 184, 185, 193, 194, 198, 199, 200, 257, 339, 340, 343, 350, 393, 430, 457, 482
Eastland Merchants Company, 160
Eddystone, territoriality of, 641, 642, 643
Edgar, King, 26, 27, 28, 141, 158, 326, 365, 409
Edinburgh, 216, 228, 298, 324, 351
Edmonds, Sir Thomas, 243
Edward I., 7, 32, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 51, 58 n., 60, 66, 67, 213, 214, 363, 365
Edward II., 52 n., 56, 67, 254
Edward III., 7, 33, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 53, 64, 66, 67, 211, 254, 365, 409
Edward IV., 63, 71, 110
Edward VI., 88, 89, 116
Elbe, 28
Elector Palatine, 198, 271, 303, 315, 316, 320
Elizabeth, Queen, 17, 65-85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 96, 102, 104, 115, 117, 118, 124, 136, 204, 246, 361, 433; asserts freedom of seas, 5, 108-112, 118; opposes claims of Denmark in northern seas, 86, 108-112; opposes Spanish and Portuguese claims, 86, 107; opposes mare clausum, 105, 338; made no claim to sovereignty of seas, 107, 108; policy to foster fisheries, 93; fishing declared free, 111; fishery disputes with Denmark, 106-112; policy regarding territorial waters, 111, 543
Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, 167 n., 198, 303, 305, 314, 315, 316, 321, 385
Emden, 129, 130, 195
England, Sea of. See Sea.
English, new spirit of commercial enterprise in, 124, 136; irritation against Dutch, 134; jealous of their commerce, 413; fisheries, yield of, 215; condition of, 133; decay of, 75, 112, 358; description of, 133; fishermen, indolence of, 91, 137, 516; at Iceland, 108, 109, 110; at Norway, 108; molested by Dutch, 438
Enkhuisen, 139, 170, 171, 173, 298 n., 397 n., 439 n.
Entick, on Sovereignty of Sea, 311 n., 522
Essex, Earl of, 128 n., 473
Ethelred, King, 26
Evelyn, John, 312 n., 508; on Sovereignty of Sea, 514 and n.
Eversley, Lord, 702 n.
Evertsen, Vice-Admiral Jan, 399, 408
Exeter, 96
Exton, Sir Thomas, 513
Faeröe Isles, 175, 176, 528, 529, 545, 647, 711
Fair Isle, 126, 131
Fairlea, 65
Fairlight, 65, 402
Fajardo, Don Louis, 206 n.
Falkland Islands, 650
Falmouth, 276
Farne Isles, 618
Farrer, Sir T. H., 646
Fast-days, 58, 87
Fenton, John, 194, 195, 196 and n., 197, 757
Ferguson, on territorial sea, 684
Fielding, Captain, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324
Fife, 59, 166, 175 n., 445; fishermen of, 61, 83, 165
Finmark, 108, 109, 568
Fiore, on territorial sea, 684
Fish, abuses in trade in, 112, 113
Fish, commerce in, 61, 82, 88, 112, 134, 141; exports, 61, 132 n., 133, 134, 214; imports, 67, 113, 145, 442; prices regulated, 91
Fish days, 58, 87, 88, 90, 92 and n., 93, 94, 99 n., 114, 115, 136, 444
Fish, demand for, in early times, 58
Fish, destruction of spawn of, 608, 609, 610
Fish for victualling army and navy, 58
Fish, fresh, distribution of, 58
Fish, preservation of brood of, 213, 607, 608, 609, 610
Fish, protection of breeding-grounds of, 610
Fish, royal, 66, 362 n., 363
Fish, spawning of, 610
Fish, taxation of imported, 88, 441, 442, 446
Fish tithes, 59, 101, 141, 142, 203, 214, 242, 355
Fish, undersized, 444 n., 608, 636, 704, 706, 707, 708-710
Fisheries, appropriation of, 102
Fisheries, as nursery for navy, 87, 113, 134, 213
Fisheries, charter to Bruges, 461, 772
Fisheries, claim to wide limit by Argentina, 661, 662
Fisheries, claimed for crown, 57, 62, 288, 289, 292
Fisheries, closure of areas, 662, 720. See Territorial Sea, Extra territorial.
Fisheries, cod-fishing at Lofoten Isles, 672 and n.
Fisheries, Conference at Hague, 1881, 632
Fisheries, decay of English, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 115; of Dutch, 534
Fisheries, disputes in North Sea, 631; at Iceland, 110; in North America, 621, 622-630
Fisheries, distant voyages, 57
Fisheries, Dutch, 93, 94, 96, 125-130. See Dutch.
Fisheries, Dutch regulations on British coast, 605, 606 n.
Fisheries, early English law as to, 66
Fisheries Enquiries--Anglo-French in 1837, 611; by Royal Commissions in 1863, 701; in 1878, 702; in 1883, 702; by Select Committee of House of Commons in 1817, 610 n.; in 1833, 607-610; in 1893, 691, 707, 714 n.; by Select Committee of House of Lords in 1904, 710, 711 n.; by Mr Higgin as to disputes in North Sea, 1880, 631
Fisheries, estimated profits of, 137
Fisheries, exclusive limit for, 632, 633
Fisheries, exhaustibility of, 348, 355, 372, 546, 550, 559, 602
Fisheries, for coral, 659, 669, 684, 695; sponges, 659, 669; oysters, 612, 621, 697; pearls, 697
Fisheries, for “floating” fish, 698
Fisheries, freedom of fishing during war, 440, 461, 462, 489, 636
Fisheries, herring, 29, 34 n., 43, 58, 59, 71, 73-75, 90, 97, 130, 143, 157, 187, 190, 193, 197-200, 203, 214-218, 221 n., 238, 241, 264, 265, 272, 273, 302, 336, 378, 462, 491, 605, 698; importance of, 59, 61; at Bohuslän, 62; at Scania, 61; in Channel, 68; Dutch, see Dutch; French, on British coasts, 606, 607, 608, 618; treaties granting liberty for, 67
Fisheries, importance of, 57; in Scotland, 76; for navy, 58, 86, 87, 200, 219, 428; in relation to international territorial limits, 693
Fisheries, impoverishment of grounds, 701, 702, 704, 706-711, 713, 714 n., 733, 738, 739 n.
Fisheries, in Channel, 65, 607
Fisheries, in North Sea. See North Sea.
Fisheries, increase of shipping due to, 135
Fisheries, industries dependent on, 135
Fisheries, International Conference, London, 1890, 706
Fisheries, international investigations proposed, 707 n.; begun, 735, 736, 740; instructions to British delegates, 735, 736 n.; criticism of, 736 and n.
Fisheries, international regulations, 614, 618, 619, 630, 631, 636, 638, 645 n., 648, 704, 729; German proposal to protect fry and small fish, 636
Fisheries, liberty of fishing granted to Sweden, 427
Fisheries, liberty of fishing guaranteed by treaties, 8, 66-74
Fisheries, license for fishing at Zowe, 65, 749
Fisheries, old Scandinavian rights, 677
Fisheries, old Scots Acts regarding, 82, 83
Fisheries, policy of Scottish kings, 59
Fisheries, promoted by Charles I., 213, 214
Fisheries, proposals to develop English, 136, 138
Fisheries, protective legislation and regulation, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 112, 113, 213, 442, 533, 608 n.
Fisheries, regulations beyond three-mile limit, 614, 618, 619, 621, 661, 662, 666, 688, 691, 697, 698, 734, 735; of oyster beds, 621
Fisheries, rise of British, 534
Fisheries, Scottish treaties regarding, 75-82
Fisheries, sealing regulations, Argentina, 662; Uruguay, 663
Fisheries, small-fish grounds, 705, 708
Fisheries, the “Belgian devil,” 631
Fisheries, trawling, 134; methods, 699, 700, 701, 708, 714; development of, 680, 698-701, 711, 713, 739 n.; enterprise of British trawlers, 713; by British vessels on foreign coasts, 680, 711, 712, 713, 730, 735, 737; in Barents Sea, 657, 713; at Faröes, 711; at Finmarken, 680; French West Africa, 713; Iceland, 647, 648, 711; Morocco, 713; Spain and Portugal, 667 and n., 668 n., 713; foreign trawlers on Scottish coast, 647; damage by foreign trawlers, 631; destruction of undersized fish, 714 n.; Board of Trade empowered to restrict, 717; German proposals to restrict in North Sea, 636; restrictive regulations, 662, 698, 714, 733; in England, 715; prohibited beyond ordinary limits in Adriatic, 659; Argentina, 662; Austria-Hungary, 715; Italy, 71; Ireland, 715, 716; Norway, 680, 715; Portugal, 666-668; Scotland, 716-720; Spain, 666-668; bill to prohibit within eight miles of coast, 444 and n.; German proposal to restrict, 636; restrictions desired by English trawlers, 702, 704-710; ten-mile limit desired by English trawlers, 707; voluntary closure of Continental area, 704, 706; international agreement necessary, 732, 734, 735, 738; recent views as to extension of limits, 735, 737
Fisheries, tribute from foreigners proposed, 101, 138, 139, 295
Fisheries, truce for fishing during war, 74, 75
Fishermen, early frequent distant seas, 86
Fishermen, foreign-- On British coasts, 29, 33, 57, 59-62, 65, 69, 76, 83, 91, 92, 98, 101, 126, 129, 145-150, 227, 288, 533, 544 n., 605-608, 611, 615, 617, 618, 631; Belgian, 615-618; Dutch, 60, 62, 64, 77-79, 82-85, 94, and see Dutch; Flemish, 29, 59-62, 83, 101; French, 59-62, 65, 83, 101, 150, 544 n., 606-608, 611, 617, 618, 631; Portuguese, 129; Spanish, 67, 129, 150; cause of increase of, 61; complaints against, 94, 95, 100, 101, 144, 604, 605, 631; against Belgian, 615, 616; Dutch, see Dutch; French, 29, 544 n., 606-608, 611, 617, 618, 631; encouraged in England, 75; prohibited to fish, 9, 33, 150, 202, 227, 293, 294; licenses for, 62, 65, 150, 294; tax on proposed, 101, 138, 139, 214, 295; protection of, 63 On Irish coasts, 33, 92, 98, 101, 150
Fishermen, guardians of, appointed, 63
Fishery Conventions, 604, 693; Anglo-Belgian, of 1852, 61; Anglo-French, of 1839, 612, 613, 644; of 1867, 618, 619, 630, 633, 634, 645; North Sea, of 1882, 634, 637-639; Norway and Sweden decline to adhere to North Sea Convention, 636
Fishery, reciprocal right of, 626, 627, 658, 659, 665, 666; old Scandinavian rights, 677
Fishery, right of, Boroughs on, 364; Callis, 363; Craig, 357; Digges, 362; Fiore, 684; Graswinckel, 412; Grotius, 346, 351, 356; Hall, 688; Hautefeuille, 601, 602; Wicquefort, 495; Malynes, 358; Meadows, 525; Pontanus, 376; Puffendorf, 551; Rayneval, 596; Sarpi, 547; Selden, 372, 373; Stubbe, 497; Vasquius, 341; Vattel, 560, 561; Welwood, 354, 355; Wheaton, 599; Wolff, 559
Fishery rights, British North America. See America.
Fishery Societies and Associations, 96, 97, 124, 128 n., 136-140, 160-162, 202, 203, 211, 214, 218, 222, 225, 227, 230 n., 232, 235-243, 266, 267, 292, 301, 328, 346, 439, 442, 444, 494, 515, 516, 533, 534
Fishing boats, 33; question of neutrality of, during war, 636
Fishing boats, varieties of, 63, 90, 126, 129
Fishing, old limit on Scottish coast, 79
Fishing, safe-conducts for, 62, 71, 72, 79
Fishing vessels, armed, 34 n., 43, 70
Fitton, Sir Henry, 64
Fitzmaurice, Lord, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on territorial sea, 630, 730, 731
Flag, “honour of.” See Striking.
Flanders, 29, 30, 34, 43, 45, 52 n., 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 83, 88, 92, 101, 125, 209, 253, 255, 329
Fleta, 539
Fletcher, George, 225 n., 239 n.
Flushing, 142
Fogg, Captain, 322, 323
Foggo, Robert, 78
Folkestone, 33, 145 n.
Foreign Enlistment Act, 589
Foreshore, ownership of, 361-363
Forth, Firth of, 221 n., 273 n., 298; herring fishery, 59, 61, 77
Four Seas, 17, 18, 119 n., 251, 363
France, 8, 12, 14, 20, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 44, 50, 57, 60, 61, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 83, 88, 92, 97, 101, 103, 105, 117, 127, 129, 134, 151, 158, 189, 212, 246, 264, 265, 269, 275, 286, 413, 426, 451, 452, 463; Customs jurisdiction, 594; differences with United Provinces as to striking, 452, 463; regulation of fisheries beyond three miles, 657; territorial sea, 657; treaty with Dutch regarding fishery question, 451-454
Francis I. of France, 74, 75
Franconia, case of, 580 n., 590, 591
Frankland, 311 n.
Freiras, F. S. de, on Mare Liberum, 350
French fishermen on British coasts, 101, 129, 130, 150, 605; whalers at Spitzbergen, 182, 183 and n.
Frezno, Marquis of, 508
Friesland, 28, 45, 60, 62, 75, 81, 92, 104
Froissart, 32
Fryer, C. E., 619 n.
Fundy, Bay of, 623, 624, 625
Fyvie, Lord President, 223
Galiani, on territorial sea, 563; first to suggest three miles as equivalent to range of guns, 563
Galicia, 98, 469
Gama, Vasco da, 340
Garde, Baron de la, 116
Gelderland, 81
Genoa, 30, 45, 45 n., 402, 476, 504; sovereignty of Ligurian Sea, 4, 158, 339, 341, 371, 411, 473; limit of territorial sea, 570
Gentilis, on appropriation of sea, 122, 358, 359
Gentleman, Tobias, 128 and n., 129, 132, 134, 137, 358, 364 n.
Gerbier, 318
German Ocean, 19, 209
Germany, 45, 61, 197, 198, 199, 216, 373, 377; territorial waters of, 652, 653
Ghent, 71, 73; negotiations at, 581
Ghent, van, 462, 479, 480, 481, 482
Glanville, 539
Glückstadt, 473
Goch, Johan van, 185 n.
Godey, on range of vision, 546
Godolphin, 52 n., 53, 515
Godsdue, Richard, 162
Gondomar, Count of, 206, 208
Goodwin Sands, territoriality of, 640, 640 n.
Gorée, 477, 478, 490, 511
Goring, George, 314
Grange, case of, 574
Granville Bay, 612, 619, 697
Graswinckel, Dirck, 305, 354 n., 366 n., 375, 376 n., 411, 412, 550
Gravelines, 68, 282, 327
Greece, territorial sea, 661
Greenland, 4, 28, 108, 181, 184, 199, 257, 376, 393, 407, 430, 437; whale fishery at, 200, 527
Grey, Sir Edward, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on territorial sea, 732, 733
Grimaldi, Reyner. See Grimbald.
Grimbald, Reyner, 44 n., 45 and n., 47-51, 54, 409, 740, 744
Grimsby, 32, 699; trawlers of, in Moray Firth, 722, 727-729
Groningen, 81
Groningen-Watt, 578
Groot, de, 504
Groot, Cornets de, 344 n.
Groot, Hugo de. See Grotius.
Grotius, 5, 105, 118, 148, 157 n., 158 n., 173, 174, 185 n., 190, 191 n., 256 n., 353, 366, 370, 530, 538, 546, 591; appearance of, Mare Liberum, 338, 342; object and genesis of, 342, 343, 344; arguments of, 344-350; defends a Dutch mare clausum, 340, 356; ‘Rights of War and Peace,’ 347 ; on appropriation of sea, 356; on Portuguese and Spanish claims, 339; on range of gun limit, 157 n., 158 n., 549; on Selden’s Mare Clausum, 375; on Welwood, 356
Grotius and James I., 346, 347 n., 351, 357
Guard for fishing fleet, 248
Guernsey, 36
Guiccardini, 125
Guise, Duke of, license to fish at Zowe, 65, 426
Gulf of Nuevo, 661
Gulf of St George, 661
Gulf of San Matias, 661
Guns, range of. See Territorial sea.
Guthrie, Lord, on territorial sea, 623
Haas, Captain Adrian de, 486
Haddington, Earl of, 179 n.
Hagaland, 110
Hague, The, 81, 152, 172, 176, 212, 256, 305, 314, 335, 351, 367, 384, 414, 426, 474, 479, 482, 488; Conference at, 1881, 632; Tribunal N. American Fisheries Arbitration, 732 n.
Hale, Lord Chief-Justice, 18, 66, 363, 374, 543
Halifax Commission, 627
Halifax, Viscount, 490
Hall, H. van, 605 n.
Hall, on Sovereignty of Sea, 48 n., 312 n., 580 n.; on territorial sea, 687
Halleck, on territorial sea, 683
Halsbury, Lord, on territorial sea, 522, 730
Halse, Sir Nicholas, 130, 132, 142, 162 n., 292
Hamburg, 129, 130, 140, 195, 235, 485, 528; conference at, 336
Hamburgers, 117, 126, 141, 178 n., 227, 255
Hamilton, Marquis of, 186, 225 n.
Hamilton, Sir Thomas, 179 n., 223
Hampden, 324
Hansards, 30, 61, 62, 73
Hardy, Sir T. Duffus, 41
Harfleur, 70
Hargrave, 374; on Sovereignty of Sea, 580 n.
Harris, Captain Joseph, condemned to death for striking to Spaniard, 512
Harvey, Sir William, 162
Harwich, 274, 699
Hastings, 33, 40, 41, 145 n., 544 n.
Hatherly, Lord, on territorial sea, 586 n.
Hautefeuille, on territorial sea, 601
Hawkins, Sir John, 5, 117
Hay, Sir George, 186
Hay, Sir John, 217, 218, 220 n., 221, 225 n., 227, 239 n.
Headland doctrine, 360, 622, 624. See Bays.
Heath, Attorney-General, 252
Heaton, Captain, 437
Hebrides, 153 n., 230, 234, 241 n., 301
Heemskerk, Jacob van, 5, 118, 183, 343
Heffter, on territorial sea, 600; on range of vision, 546
Helgeland, 108
Heneage, Lord, 728 n., 739
Henrietta Maria, Queen, 380, 382
Henry I., 16, 29, 31, 40, 41
Henry II., 28
Henry II. of France, 117
Henry III., 31, 66
Henry III. of France, 117
Henry IV., 43, 56, 67, 68, 69, 70
Henry IV. of France, 159, 204
Henry V., 8, 34, 41, 42, 43, 70, 108
Henry VI., 38, 70, 109
Henry VII., 63, 72, 73, 109, 387
Henry VIII., 62, 73, 75, 89, 109, 116
Henry, Prince, of Scotland, 81, 169
Herbert, Captain, 512
Herbert, Sir John, 146
Hermetra, 241 n.
Herring busses, 74 n., 162, 447
Herring fishery. See Fisheries, herring.
Herrings, commerce in, 61, 132, 242; price of, 97
Herschell, Lord, on territorial sea, 592 n., 731
Hervey, Lord, 202
Heywood, Thomas, 326 and n.
Higgin, W. H., inquiry on North Sea fishery disputes, 631
Highlanders, 216, 242
Hitchcock, Captain Robert, 64, 95, 105, 125, 133, 136, 138, 203, 364 n.
Hoek, Dr P. P. C., 707 n.
Holland, 45, 60, 62, 64, 71, 72, 74 n., 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 84, 92, 94, 95, 104, 125, 129, 132, 135, 139, 144, 151, 171, 172, 175, 190, 195, 197, 215, 292, 374, 384, 407, 433, 450, 460
Holland, Earl of, 77
Holland, fishery treaty with, 71, 72
Holland, Prof., 359 n.; on territorial sea, 691 n.
Hollanders. See Dutch.
Holmes, Captain Sir Robert, 455, 456 n., 458, 484, 485, 486
Hoorn, Simon van, 449 n.
Horn, Andrew, 542
Hovering Acts, 593
Howard, Lord William, 117
Hübner, on territorial sea, 562
Hull, 43, 94, 96, 108, 194 n., 699
Humber, 133
Hume, 311 n.
Huxley, Professor, 702 n.
Hythe, 145 n.
Iceland, 4, 28, 86, 88, 97, 108, 109, 112, 113, 133, 145, 247, 248, 339, 376; area of fishing-grounds at, 739; English fishermen attacked by Danes, 109, 110; English traffic with, 339; Danish claims at, 528, 529, 567; fisheries at, 57, 94; English at, 87, 89, 90, 113, 408; foreign trawlers at, 700, 707, 711, 714 n.; fishery dispute between Denmark and United Provinces, 529; fishery limit at, 647, 648; seven-mile limit, 739, 740 n.
Idle persons, 98, 115, 116
Impressment of ships, 32
Indies, 107, 135, 215, 257, 341, 360, 457
Insecurity of sea, 247, 248, 249, 253
Institut de Droit International, on territorial sea, 689-692; articles on, 774
Intercursus Magnus, treaty, 72, 73, 80, 86, 157, 158, 256 n., 368, 386, 388, 394, 416, 425, 430, 449, 500
International fishery investigations. See Fisheries.
International Law Association, on territorial sea, 689-692, 774; Articles on, 774
Inveraray, 83 n.
Ipswich, 247
Ireland, 29, 70, 88, 97, 98, 143, 201, 226, 257, 359; fisheries, 92; oyster fisheries, 697; foreigners prohibited from fishing at, 33, 63; restrictions on trawling beyond three-mile limit, 716; Spanish fishings at, 67, 98; territoriality of oyster-beds, 620, 621
Irgens, J., Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs, 673 n.
Isabel of Portugal, 70
Islay, 230
Isle of Man, fishery regulations, 698
Isle of May, fishing tithes, 59, 76
Italian jurists, 6, 35, 101, 347, 360, 539
Italian Republics, 3, 6, 340
Italy, 358; Customs jurisdiction, 594, 661; reciprocal rights of fishery with Austria, 659; territorial sea, 659
James I., 9, 17, 62, 73, 75, 81, 136, 257, 346, 347 n., 351, 353, 357
James I., a new policy, 118; antecedents of, 124; proclamation forbidding hostilities in King’s Chambers, 9, 119, 360, 750; concludes peace with Spain, 125; proclamation restraining foreigners from fishing on British coasts, 9, 145-148, 150, 541, 755; remit of Council on, 146; deliverance of Committee on, 147; attitude of French towards, 151; negotiations with Dutch, 151, 155-159, 170, 178-180, 185-194, 197, 198; proclamation suspended, 159; orders records to be searched, 162, 179, 187; grants of assize herrings, 165, 166; instructs assize herrings to be levied from foreign fishermen, 168, 757; indignation at capture of Brown, satisfaction demanded, 172, 174; forbids Scottish fishermen to fish within a land-kenning at the Faroes, 176; requests Dutch not to fish within sight of land, 176; requests Scottish Council to prevent the Hollanders fishing within sight of land, 178; again demands assize herrings from Dutch, 180; claims seas around Spitzbergen as British, 183; appoints commissioners to treat with Dutch envoys, 186; Dutch ambassadors without power to treat of herring fishery, 188, 189; indignation with Dutch ambassadors, 189; again gives way on the herring fishery question, 192; requests Dutch to prohibit fishing within fourteen miles, 192; negotiations with Dutch as to whale fishery, 193; Carleton advises fixing a limit, 193; Dutch agree to keep out of sight of shore, 193; orders assize herrings to be again collected, 194, 196; Dutch embassy appointed, 198; Dutch ambassadors without instructions to deal with fishery question, 199; speech to Dutch ambassadors, 199; indignation against Dutch, 200; Dutch ambassadors advise States-General to settle fishery question, 200; failure of policy of assize herring, 203
James II., 517
James III. of Scotland, 83
James V. of Scotland, 77, 78, 83, 218
James VI. of Scotland, treaty with Dutch, 80, 81
Jan Mayen, sealing at, 695; whaling at, 527
Japan, territorial sea, 661
Jenkins, Sir Leoline, judge of the High Court of Admiralty, judicial decisions regarding neutral waters, 553; plenipotentiary at Cologne, 498; on case of the Merlin, 480; on confiscation of Smyrna fleet, 486; on sovereignty of sea, 484 n.; on striking, 477, 480, 481, 501-503, 511, 512, 513
Jenkinson. See Lord Liverpool.
Jennings, Edward, 115
Jersey, 36
Joachimi, Dutch ambassador, 155, 256, 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 384
John’s ordinance, 6, 16; on striking, 39-43, 278, 365, 409
Johnsen, Hans, on Moray Firth, 728 n.
Jongestal, Dutch ambassador, 415, 417, 433
Jonson, Ben, 115, 196 n.
Juridical controversies about sovereignty of sea, 338-340, 410-413
Kanin, Cape, 657, 713
Kemble, 27, 28
Kennet, 311 n.
Kent, on territorial sea, 599
Kerouaille, Mademoiselle de, 475
Ketelby, Captain, 281
Keymer, John, author of the “Raleigh” tract, 126, 127, 128 n., 131, 358
Killigrew, Sir William, 280
King James’s Newland, 183
King John’s ordinance. See John.
King, Thomas, 446, 448
King’s Chambers, 50, 54, 209, 260, 262, 263, 359, 360, 373, 539, 553, 598, 622, 723 n.; declaration of Trinity House as to limits of, 753; description of, 120; defined by James I., 9, 118, 120; extent of, 122, 251; proclamation concerning, 251, 750; question of validity of, 576, 577; restricted to neutrality, 122, 251, 548; violation of, 10, 245, 247, 255, 256, 258, 259, 326, 328, 330-333, 336
Kirkelee, 49
Kishinouye, Dr, 661 n.
Kleen, on territorial sea, 685
Klüber, on territorial sea, 597
Kronberg, striking at, 473, 520
Kyllachy, Lord, on territorial sea, 725
Lake, Sir Thomas, 359 n.
Lampredi, on territorial sea, 562
Lampreys, 244
“Land-fishing” in Scotland, 222, 226
Land-kenning in Scotland, 77, 84, 144, 154, 175, 176, 177 n., 178, 192, 193, 211, 218, 221, 222 n., 223, 228, 235, 545, 546; at Faroes, 175. See Territorial Sea, Range of Vision.
Land-van-Staten, 506, 508, 510, 515
Larrey, 311 n.
Latour, on territorial sea, 595, 685
Laud, Archbishop, 243, 306, 314, 316, 368, 376 n.
Lauderdale, Lord, 187, 483, 507
Laughton, Professor, 521 n.
Law, early English, as to fishing, 66
Lawrence on territorial sea, 683, 688
Laws of Oleron, 6, 40, 42, 44 n., 51, 52, 54, 213, 363, 365
Laws of the Sea, old, 30, 52 n.
Lawson, Vice-Admiral Sir John, 437, 456, 457 n., 463, 472
Leda, case of, 586 n.
Lediard, 167 n., 311 n.
Lefevre, Mr Shaw. See Lord Eversley.
Leghorn, 402, 473
Leicester, Earl of, 96, 264 n.
Lennox, Duke of, 130 n., 166, 168, 170, 172, 186, 195 and n., 230 n., 353, 461; grant of assize herrings to, 166, 168
Lent, 75, 87, 88, 114, 136, 214, 242, 244; difficulties in enforcing observance of, 114, 115; laxity of observance of, 88, 89; measures to enforce observance of, 88, 114. See also Political Lent.
Leon, 32
“L’Espagnols sur Mer,” battle of, 37, 67
Levant, 340
Levi, Leoni, on territorial sea, 664 n.
Lewes, 216, 217, 220, 221, 224, 227, 234, 235, 237, 241, 242
Lewis, 216, 217 and n.
Leybourne, Lord William de, 45 n.
Leyden, 73, 342
Libelle of Englyshe Polycye, 18, 30, 37, 38 n.
Licenses for foreign fishermen, 62, 63, 111, 141, 210, 235, 257, 264, 288, 292, 294, 425, 426, 430, 453; for Dutch, 272, 488, 489; distributed to the busses, 300; sums received for, 309, 310, 311; offered to Dutch, 317; to French, 440, 454; to Swedes to fish in British seas, 427; Danish to fish at Iceland and northern seas, 108-112
Liens, Joachim, Dutch Ambassador, 185 n.
Ligurian Sea, sovereignty of, 4, 339, 341, 371, 411
Lindsay, Thomas, 242
Lindsey, Earl of, 250, 256, 257, 267, 270, 271, 275 n., 282, 284, 286, 287, 380; appointed Admiral of the first ship-money fleet, 259; his instructions from the Admiralty, 260; private instructions from Charles I., 264; to force licenses on Dutch fishermen, 264; punctilios of, as to flags, extent of British Seas, 264, 265, 266, 269; dissatisfaction of Charles with, 268; and the Dutch herring busses, 272; proceedings of the fleet, 259-274
Lisle, Viscount, 428, 429
Liverpool, Lord, on neutral rights, 596
Lizard, 103, 122, 269, 437
Loccenius, on territorial sea, 550
Loch Broom, 83
Loch Fyne, 83, 153 n.
Loch Maddy, 241 n.
Lofoten Isles, 672
Logan, Sir Robert, 77 n.
London, 7, 49, 50, 61, 88, 94, 96, 114, 124, 140, 189, 198, 199, 214, 223, 241, 266, 299 n., 330, 358, 384, 396, 404, 407, 428, 439, 443, 446, 448, 449; consumption of fish in, 87, 97; fish supply of, 131, 134, 144, 241 n.; and Fishery Society, 443; fishmongers of, 89
Long Parliament, 336, 414; attitude towards Sovereignty of Sea, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382
Lord Mayor, 115, 202, 214, 443, 448
Loreburn, Lord, on territorial sea, 732
“Lords of the Sea,” English kings as, 8, 28, 35, 36, 38 n., 39, 209, 210, 211, 244, 373
Lothian, Firth of, 153 n., 233, 235, 239
Lottery for Fishery Society, 244, 446, 447
Louis of Nassau, 449 n.
Louis XIV., 463, 465, 474, 476, 483, 490, 493, 503, 518, 526; on fishery question, 453; intrigue with Charles, 459; reveals to Charles De Witt’s negotiations, 471; his policy, 474; declares war against States-General, 488; on striking, 518
Low Countries, 73, 77, 94; fisheries of, 98; fishermen of, 94, 100, 144. See also Dutch and Netherlands.
Lowestoft, 249, 307, 469
Lucas farthing, 470 n.
Lundy, Laird of, 188
Lushington, Dr, on territorial sea, 586 n.
Lynn, 49, 77 n., 90, 108, 247
Mackerel fishery, 134, 150
MacLeod, Sir Reginald, 667 n., 673 n.
Madrid, 150, 201, 253, 318
Mainwaring, Sir H., 65 n.
Malynes, Gerard, 128 n., 130 n., 138 n., 160; on the appropriation of the sea, 358
Manning, on territorial sea, 600
Mansel, Sir Robert, 219 n.
Mare Clausum, 11, 19, 20, 251, 254, 257, 258 n., 286, 287, 288, 289, 302, 315 n., 330, 365, 369, 375. See Selden.
Mare Liberum, 255, 256 n., 257, 338, 340, 342, 374, 410. See Grotius.
Margaret of Savoy, 73
Marine laws, 51, 52, 54
Maritime laws, 41, 42, 44
Marlborough, Duke of, 486 n., 531
Marion, Professor A. F., 667 n.
Marten, Sir Henry, 155, 174, 244 n., 251, 263, 264, 278, 283, 288, 295
Martens, F., 194 n.
Martens, G. F. von, on territorial sea, 563
Martens, Professor de, on territorial sea, 686, 688
Martin, Martin, 241 n.
Martin, Sir Henry, 39, 119 n., 762
Mary, Queen, 64, 88, 91, 117, 141, 206
Mary, Queen, of Hungary and Bohemia, 80 and n.
Mary Stuart, Queen, 79, 81, 83
Mason, Capt. John, 153 n., 167 n., 216, 219 n., 220 n., 241, 364 n.; grant of assize herrings to, 165, 166, 167 n.
Massé, on territorial sea, 602
Masson, Professor, 195 n.
Masterman, Captain Walter S., 711 n.
Masterman, Dr A. T., 735 n.
Maurice, Count, 173
Maximilian of Austria, 72
Meadows, Sir Philip, on sovereignty of sea, 397, 428 n., 510, 524, 694; proposes a convention for fishery limits, 525
Mechlin, 71
Medina Sidonia, Duke of, 142
Mediterranean, 28, 30, 134, 143, 340, 347, 372, 389, 437, 457, 485; striking in, See Striking.
Meerman, Dutch ambassador, 483
Melrose, Earl of, 179 n.
Mendoza, 107
Merchant Adventurers, 160, 292
Merchant Associations to secure the peace of the sea, 6, 30
Mercurius Politicus, 410
Merlin, the King’s yacht, 15, 477-482, 510; encounter with Dutch fleet, 479; inquiry by Sir Leoline Jenkins on, 480
Mervin, Sir Henry, 284, 287, 296, 297, 300, 327
Mexico, Customs jurisdiction, 594; pearl fisheries, 697; treaties with, 679 and n.
Mid-line (Thalweg), 3, 101, 102, 111, 226, 361, 373, 541, 542, 652
Miles, Scots, 233 n.
Milton, John, 410, 428 n., 524
Minch, 230
Mirror of Justice and mid-line, 542
Molloy, on sovereignty of sea, 514; on striking, 557
Monk, Duke of Albemarle, 408; on Dutch commerce, 457, 459
Monson, Sir William, 130 n., 132, 135, 143, 202, 204, 205, 206 n., 208, 216, 219 n., 259
Montague, General. See Earl of Sandwich.
Monteith, Earl of, 224, 225 n., 239 n.
Moore, on sovereignty of sea, 580 n.; on territorial sea, 691 n.
Moray Firth, 233, 235, 239; prohibition of trawling within, 718, 720; foreign trawlers in, 647, 720-728; Norwegian-registered trawlers in, 721, 727; prosecution and conviction of foreign trawlers, 722, 723, 724, 727; case of Catalonia, 722; of Emmanuel Mortensen, 722, 724-727; of Martin Olsen, 722; of Niobe, 722, 724; of Pinewold, 723; of Verbena, 723; High Court of Justiciary decides prohibition applies to foreigners, 722, 724-727; protest by Norway, 727, 728; Norway favours a convention, 728, 730; and warns Norwegian trawlers to cease fishing in Moray Firth, 728; actions against British subjects on foreign trawlers, 728, 729; views of Foreign Office, 729, 730; proposal of International Council, 737; territoriality of, 723-728, 729, 732, 734; opinions of Scottish judges as to territoriality of, 724-727
Moray Firth, herring fishery in, 61
Morocco, 5, 256, 668; trawling at, 713
Morton, Earl of, 225 n., 239 n.
Moser, on territorial sea, 562
Muncke, Levinus, 155, 156 n.
Mundesley, 247
Murray, Captain David, 172, 195 n., 196
Muscovy Company, 160; whale fishery of, 181, 182, 183, 184, 194 n.
Musselburgh, 175 n., 445
Nansen, Dr Fridtjof, Norwegian Minister, 673 n., 728
Nantes, 97
Narrow seas, the, 8, 18, 19, 26, 29, 30, 34, 36, 113, 212, 213, 214, 253, 256, 260, 261, 270, 274, 287, 324 n., 327, 328, 361, 363, 381, 408, 430, 458, 459 n.; description of, 18; herring fisheries in, 67; hostilities prohibited in, 261, 262, 263; prizes taken in, 359 n.; striking in, 204-206, 270, 402. See Channel.
National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, 667 n., 706, 728 n., 740
Naval Salute. See Striking.
Navare, Michel de, 49
Navigation, freedom of, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 20, 33, 34, 35, 43, 67, 86, 106, 158, 341, 346, 358, 360, 365, 421, 497, 676
Navigation Act of 1651, 391 and n., 392, 413, 416, 419; of 1660, 441, 451, 464
Navy, 2, 5, 10, 11, 22, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 58, 68, 91, 92, 113, 117, 134, 246, 251, 252, 255, 257, 286, 288, 379, 428, 475, 517, 523; under Charles I., 246; under Edward III., 33, 36, 38; under Henry IV., 68; under Henry VI., 38; complaint of Commons on, 38
Navy and fisheries, 428
Needham, Marchamont, 410, 411
Netherlands, 21, 74, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 93 n., 94, 105, 112, 125, 126, 127 n., 138, 144, 168, 185, 200, 203, 312, 380, 397; prohibit their fishermen from fishing within two leagues of Scottish coast, 605, 606; territorial sea, 658. See Dutch.
Neutral waters, 22, 119, 120, 359 n., 548, 586, 622, 641 n., 665, 685, 775; decrees regarding, 569-571; limit of, 546; proclamations and decisions regarding, 553, 554; Scandinavian limit of, 568; treaties regarding, 571, 572; usage in seventeenth century, 552, 553, 554
Newcastle, 34 n., 96, 114, 248, 249, 252, 273 n., 428
Newfoundland, 86, 88, 92, 97, 113, 219, 589; fishery rights at, 531, 532
Nicholas, Secretary of Admiralty, 44 n., 213, 262, 263, 275 n., 278, 292, 295, 318, 322
Nicholl, Sir John, on territorial sea, 586 n.
Nicolas, Sir N. H., 37, 45 n., 46 n., 53, 56
Nieuport, 60, 327, 400
Nieuport, William, Dutch ambassador, 395, 415, 417, 433
Nootka Sound, 573
Nordland, 108
Norfolk, 46 n., 63, 90, 94, 101, 162, 248
Norham, 60
Norman Conquest, 6, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 59, 372
Normandy, 29, 36, 43, 48, 50, 59, 62, 69, 74, 97, 103, 129, 213
Northampton, Earl of, 138, 353
North Cape, 58, 86, 478, 502, 503
North-east passage, 343
Northmen, sea power of, 26, 28
North Sea, 21, 22, 43, 246, 247, 382, 432, 434, 465, 466 n.; fisheries, 43, 60, 87, 89, 130, 131, 133, 408, 470; Conference at Hague on, 1881, 632; Fishery Convention, 1882, 634, 637, 638, 639, 644, 721, 722, 725, 726, 735, 737; defects in definitions, 641; question of limit of exclusive fishing on other coasts, 643, 644, 645, 646; Sweden and Norway decline to join, 636; development of trawling in, 699, 700; impoverishment of fishing-grounds in, 706-710, 711, 738, 739 n.
Northumberland, Earl of, 131, 243, 264, 266 n., 278, 279, 319, 320, 322, 323, 327, 379, 380, 388, 425, 426, 557; appointed admiral of second ship-money fleet, 287; instructions of Admiralty, 289, 290; instructions from Charles, 295; proceedings of fleet in Channel, 290, 291; proceedings of fleet against Dutch fishermen, 295-300, 307-311; forces licenses on Dutch fishermen, 12, 291, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 308; appointed admiral of the third ship-money fleet, 319; appointed Lord High Admiral, 329
Norway, 34, 45, 169 n., 339, 527; area of fishing-grounds, 738; Customs jurisdiction, 594; declines three-mile limit, 633, 678; declines to adhere to North Sea Convention, 636, 783; disputes with England as to fisheries, 108, 110; fisheries, 92; fisheries in Vestfjord, 672, 677; fishery limit early fixed, 528; special fishery limits, 671, 672, 678, 679; foreign trawlers seized for illegal fishing, 680; registered trawlers in Moray Firth, 721, 727, 728; sovereignty of sea of, 4; territorial sea, 653, 669-681, 685; method of computing, 653, 655, 669, 670, 676, 678, 685; respected by foreign fishermen, 677, 678
Norwegian Sea, sovereignty over, 4, 16
Nottingham, Earl of, 206, 353
Nova Zembla, 184
Okhotsk, Sea of, foreigners fishing in, 585
Oldenbarneveldt. See Barneveldt.
Oldys, 127 n.
Oleron, Laws of. See Laws.
Onward Ho! case of, 657 n.
Oppenheim, on territorial sea, 688
Oquendo, Don Antonio de, 330-334
Orange, Prince of, 190, 197, 303, 306, 314, 315 n., 384, 387, 422, 430, 433, 434, 460, 462, 490, 491, 492, 503, 517
Orfordness, 49, 277, 553
Orkney, 88, 108, 126, 165, 169, 180, 201, 215, 221, 227, 230, 234, 406
Orkney, Earl of, 169 n.
Ormonde, Marquis of, 450
Ortolan, on territorial sea, 601
Orwell, 54
Ossory, Lord, 485, 486 n.
Ostend, 43, 309
Ouwers, Egidio, 273 n.
Overbury, Sir Thomas, 127 n.
Over-Yssel, 81
Owen, Captain, 382
Oxford, 358
Oyster fisheries, special treatment of, 657; question of territoriality of Irish, 620, 621; reserved for French, 612, 619, 620
Pacius, on Venetian dominion of sea, 351
Palatinate, 198, 199, 210, 253, 265, 271, 274, 275, 286, 302, 305, 306, 314, 315, 316, 331
Papal Bulls, 5, 105, 106, 107, 339, 342, 344, 372
Pardessus, 41, 42
Parliament, 67, 77 n., 116, 211, 214, 367, 409, 414, 443, 449, 457, 458, 475, 483, 492, 493, 503, 506, 532; on safeguarding the sea, 34; petitions for dues on navigation of Channel, 35; on navy, 38
Parliament of Ireland, 33, 63
Parliament of Scotland, 82, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225
Parry, Sir Thomas, 155
Pauw, Adrian, Dutch ambassador, 405, 414
Pearl fisheries, 697; Vattel on, 560
Pedrogue, John de, 45 n., 49, 50
Pembroke, Earl of, 227, 239 n., 240-244, 446
Pendennis Castle, 280
Penn, Sir William, 383, 408, 456
Pennington, Sir John, 208, 212, 244, 259, 261, 264, 274, 275 n., 287, 290, 296, 297, 321, 322, 324, 327, 328, 379, 403; instructions as to striking, 261-263, 276, 277; suggestion as to neutral waters round a King’s ship, 262; on striking, 277, 278, 279, 280, 283; action at Battle of Downs, 329-335
Pepys, Samuel, 312 n., 513, 514; on Fishery Society, 447 n., 448, 449; on striking, 456; on second Dutch war, 458, 459; on state of navy, 517
Perels, on territorial sea, 652, 684, 688
Perkins, Sir Christopher, 146, 155
Perre, Van de, Dutch ambassador, 391, 415
Petersen, Gisbert, fishing license to, 460
Philip, Archduke of Austria, 72
Philip the Fair, 44
Philip II., 64, 81, 107, 141, 205, 425, 426, 544
Philip III., 350
Philip IV., 350
Phillimore, 312 n.; on territorial sea, 682
Picardy, 29, 62, 74, 88, 103, 130
Picaroons, 273, 276
Pilchard, 134, 143, 227, 235, 447
Piracy, prevalence of, 4, 5, 7, 30, 43
Pirates, 68, 72 n., 78, 79, 82, 91, 247, 253, 254, 260, 269, 274, 284 n., 291, 292, 327, 339, 390, 421, 456, 471
Pistoye and Duverdy, on territorial sea, 602
Pitt, on fishery arrangements with France, 532
Pittenweem, 59, 175 n.
Plague, 299 n.
Plancius, 183
Plantagenets, 8, 11, 30, 43, 75, 209, 211, 213, 258, 368, 421
Plegher, 80
Plowden, on sea of England, 102, 111, 361, 543
Plumleigh, Captain, 208, 277, 280
Plymouth, 33, 117, 267, 268, 327
Poland, 61; claim to Baltic, 4, 371, 377
Political Lent, the, 87, 88, 89, 112, 114
Pontalis, on fishery question, 453 n.
Pontanus, J. I., on Selden’s Mare Clausum, 376, 550
Pope, the, 28, 105, 106, 107, 212, 277 n., 339, 371
Popham, Col. Edward, 382
Porpoise, 88
Portland, 267
Portland Castle, 256, 279
Portland, Earl of, 239 n., 241, 253
Portsmouth, 114, 408
Portsmouth, Duchess of, 475
Portugal, 91, 268; area of fishing-grounds, 738; fishermen visit British coasts, 129; and Irish coast, 98; fishery treaty with, 67; foreign trawlers at, 713; claim to sovereignty of sea, 5, 86, 105-108, 112, 340, 343, 344, 350; territorial sea, 569, 664, 668
Pradier-Fodéré, on territorial sea, 684, 688
Prerogative of crown, 236
Pribilov Islands, 695
Privateers, 462
Prize, law of, 359 n.
Prussia, 34, 216; fishermen on British coasts, 605
Prynne, Keeper of the Records, 17, 25, 27 n., 39, 43, 44 n., 213, 326 n., 352 n., 367 and n.; on the sovereignty of the sea, 493
Puffendorf, on territorial sea, 551
Quarantine Acts, 594
Rainsford, Richard, 64, 138, 141, 142, 145, 159
Raleigh, Sir Walter, 127 and n., 136, 204, 413
Raleigh tract. See Keymer.
Ramsgate, 699
Range of guns, Grotius on, 349; range of modern guns, 21; range of gun limit, 549; range of guns and salute, 473 n.; range of vision, 175, 193, 544; claimed by Denmark, 529; Grotius on, 347; old English law, 544; prescribed by Philip II., 544 See Land-kenning and Territorial sea.
Rapin, 167 n., 311 n.
Rayneval, on range of vision, 546; on territorial sea, 596
Reddie, on territorial sea, 600
Reformation, 67; influence of, on fisheries, 75, 87, 89, 92
Reprisals between Scots and Dutch, 77, 78, 79, 84; between traders, 53, 54
Reserved waters. See Scotland.
Restoration, the, 14, 441
Revocation, Act of, 226
Rhé, Isle de, 246, 290
Richard I., 32, 40, 41, 51, 52
Richard II., 33, 62, 363
Richard III., 63, 72 n.
Richelieu, Cardinal, 12, 210, 246, 261, 270, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276 n., 283, 291, 314, 526
Right of fishery. See Fishery.
Right of search, 13, 330, 389, 393
Rio de la Plata, territoriality of, 663
Ripperda, Joachim, Dutch ambassador, 449
Rivalry in trade between English and Dutch, 10, 441, 457
Rochelle, 97, 267, 276 n., 290
Roe, Sir Thomas, 240, 276, 303, 306, 314, 315, 316 n., 323, 324
Roman law as to sea, 3, 344, 353, 356, 360, 539; as to fishing, 66
Romans and sovereignty of sea, 26
Rool d’Oleron. See Laws of Oleron.
Rose, Richard, 324 n.
Rosny, Sieur de, 204
Rostock, 195
Rotterdam, 79, 171, 327, 397 n., 511
Rouen, 61
Royal fishery, Pepys on, 447 n., 448
Roxburgh, Earl of, 225 n., 239 n.
Rupert, Prince, 382, 493
Russia, 29, 61, 110, 142, 158, 358; Behring Sea question, 581, 582; Company, see Muscovy Company; Customs limit, 656, 657 n.; territorial sea, 656
Ruyter, Captain, 298 n., 304
Rye, 33, 54, 65, 145 n., 483
Ryley, William, Keeper of the Records, 409, 410 n.
Ryswick, 466 n.
Saen, Joris van der, 402, 404
St Andrews, 352
St George’s Channel, 142
St John, Lord Chief-Justice, 72; proceeds to The Hague, 384; negotiations with Dutch, 385-390; his proposals for alliance and coalescence, 385; Intercursus Magnus taken as basis of treaty, 386, 387; his seven articles, 387; the Dutch thirty-six articles, 388; abstract of, 764; as to fishing, 388, 389; Dutch proposals as to sovereignty of sea, 389; for a joint fleet to police the seas, 389, 395; Dutch withdraw proposal as to striking, 390; failure of negotiations, 390; leaves The Hague, 391
St Lo, Captain George, on fishery limit at Yarmouth, 546 n.
Safe-conducts for fishing, 7, 33, 74
Salisbury, Earl, 64, 130 n., 150, 151, 155, 159, 223, 227 n., 359 n., 360; on 100-mile limit, 541
Salisbury, Marquis of, on territorial sea, 592, 731
Salisbury, Miss E., 45 n.
Salmon fishing, 26, 233, 234, 235
Salute. See Striking.
Sandwich, 73; Knut’s grant of, 542
Sandwich, Earl of, 438, 463, 472
Saracens, 5, 339
Sarpi, on territorial sea, 547
Savage, Viscount, 239 n.
Savoy, Duke of, 540
Scania, 34, 362 n.; decline of herring fishery at, 61
Scarborough, 49, 89, 108, 142, 247, 250, 256, 273, 274, 322; castle, 64
Scaw, three-mile limit at, varies, 640 n.
Schaep, Dutch ambassador, 391
Schelde, 28
Scheveningen, 460
Schiedam, 78, 79, 318, 397 n.
Schmalz, on territorial sea, 597
Scilly Isles, 269, 390, 398, 399
Scotland, 48, 49, 59, 88; Draft Treaty of Union with England, 1604, 84, 192, 223, 227, 228, 230, 232, 694; fish exported from, 61; fisheries of, 93; importance of, 76; claim to, 76, 82; exclusive spirit as to, 76; policy towards, 82; treaties regarding, 75-82; foreigners at West Coast fishings, 83, 130; jealousy of foreign fishermen, 77, 124; fishing in bays and lochs prohibited, 202; attacks on Dutch fishermen, 77; complaints against Dutch fishermen, 144, 168, 177, 201, 234, 301; complaints against French fishermen, 606, 617; Dutch edicts re fishing, 201; old fishery limits, 226-229; old limit against Dutch, 83, 84; herring fishery in, 59, 61, 76, 79, 83, 143, 221 n.; extra-territorial jurisdiction in, 698; instructions of Privy Council re assize herrings, 757; fishery Acts, 76; fishery scheme, 225, 227; fishery society, 444; fishing in lochs claimed, 218; “land fishing” described, 222 and n.; land-kenning, see Land-kenning; limits of territorial sea, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230; limit of 14 miles in Draft Treaty of Union, 223; limit of two leagues fixed by Dutch, 605, 606; reserved waters, 77, 84, 209, 211, 218, 220, 222, 223, 226-230, 234, 236-238, 445, 547
Scotland, royal burghs, 76, 216, 217, 220, 221; ask that the Dutch be removed within a land-kenning, 221; and fishery society, 445; oppose assize herrings, 166; territoriality of firths, 692; trawling restrictions on, 715, 716; Fishery Board empowered to restrict, 717; Bill to extend prohibition of, 720; Act fixing thirteen-mile limit for, 720; treaties with the Dutch, 188 n.
Scotland, Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1895, 592
Scott, Thomas, 284
Scott, Sir William. See Stowell, Lord.
Scottish Seas, the, 226
Scudamore, Lord, 272
Sea, appropriation of, 537, 539; in Middle Ages, 3; reasons for, 5; Roman law on, 539, 541; opinions of Italian jurists, 101, 104; opinions of modern jurists on, 552; Bynkershoek, 555; Callis, 363; Lord Chief-Justice Coke on, 363; Gentilis on, 358, 359; Graswinckel on, 411, 412; Loccenius, 550; Puffendorf, 550; Lord Salisbury on, 361; Selden, 370-374; Lord Stair, 545 n.; Vattel, 560
Sea, exhaustibility of. See Fisheries.
Sea, “High Seas,” 50, 54
Sea, insecurity of, 5, 6, 30, 53, 54, 57, 70, 247-257
Sea, measures for guarding, 31, 32, 33, 34
Sea, sovereignty of. See Sovereignty.
Sea of England, 7, 8, 9, 11, 20, 31, 41, 101, 209; extent of, 15, 16, 54, 55, 56; seizure of ships in, by Grimbald, 49, 50; sovereign lordship of, 43, 46, 51, 54, 55; Callis on, 363; Plowden on, 102; terms applied to, 16, 17; the “Two Seas,” 17; the “Three Seas,” 17; the “Four Seas,” 17, 18, 251
Sea, property in bed of, 362
Seaforth, Earl of, 216, 220, 221, 222 n.
Sealing, 695, 696
Seals, 88
Seas, British, extent of, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 26, 208, 264 and n., 381, 418, 419, 429, 431-437, 459 n., 465, 466 and n., 469, 470, 477, 495, 505, 506 and n., 510, 515, 521; Admiralty on, 437, 438; reluctance of Admiralty to define, 20, 264 and n.; boundaries intentionally left undefined, 20; Dee on extent of, 101-103; dispute as to extent of, 437; Richard Cromwell on extent of, 438; Thurloe on extent of, 434; Trinity House on extent of, 20, 477, 478; on striking in, 469, 470, 501-505; claim to, gradually died out, 21
Sebastian, King, 107
Secretary for Scotland, 219, 227 n., 232
Seine, 26, 28
Seines, Bill to prohibit, within ten miles, 444 n.
Selden, 11, 17, 20, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45 n., 48, 49, 55, 56, 62, 64 n., 66, 119 n., 183, 186 n., 213, 251, 254, 258 n., 279, 286, 305, 352 n., 353, 363, 410 n., 456, 469, 546, 550, 551; controversy with Graswinckel, 411, 412; imprisonment and release of, 367; requested by Charles to write Mare Clausum, 366; on British seas, 19; on English sovereignty of sea, 373, 374; on exhaustibility of sea, 372; Mare Clausum, 11, 20, 254, 258 n., 315 n., 330, 389, 425, 456, 502, 504, 509 n., 543; history of, 365, 366; publication of, 288, 367; political importance of, 368, 369; importance of, in English law, 369, 374; satisfaction of Charles with, 368, 369; arguments of, 369-374; anxiety in Holland about, 374, 375; translated, 410
Semeyns, Meynert, 242 n.
Servat, William, 50
Seven Stones Rocks, territoriality of, 642, 643
Shaftesbury, Earl of, 492; on the Dutch, 506
Sheerness seized by Dutch, 459
Shetlands, 4, 76, 88, 89, 90 n., 108, 113, 126, 129, 131, 151, 165, 169, 180, 201, 215, 221, 227, 230, 234, 238, 241, 406, 443, 534
Shields, 84
Ship-money, 324, 329, 379
Ship-money fleet, first, 256, 259 n.; object of, 260, 264, 265; proceedings of, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274; failure of, 274, 275. See Lindsey. Second, 286; its object, 287, 288; opinion of Admiralty on convoying foreign vessels, 288, 289, 762; on protecting foreign licensed fishermen, 288, 762; proceedings of fleet, 290, 291, 295-301, 307-311; failure to meet with French, 290; instructions of Charles as to foreign fishermen, 295; licenses distributed to Dutch herring busses, 298, 300, 308; amount received as convoy and license-money, 309, 310, 311. See Northumberland. Third, 319, 323. Fourth, 327.
Ship-money writs, 36 n., 211, 253, 254, 286
Ships, impressment of, 32
Shookius, 550
Shovel, Sir Cloudesley, 520
Shrewsbury, Duke of, 520
Sicily, 29
Skagerrack, 438 and n.; territoriality of, 636, 653
Sleeve, the, 260
Slingsby, Capt., 327
Sluys, battle of, 36, 37, 38
Smeerenburg, 194 n.
Smith, Captain John, 312 n., 494
Smith, Lieut. Thomas, dismissed for forcing French to strike, 521
Smith, Northumberland’s Secretary, 328, 331, 332
Smith, Simon, 242 n., 244 n., 442, 443 n., 448
Smyrna fleet, 485, 486, 487
Society of Fishing Merchants, 138, 159
Solebay, battle of, 489
Solinus, 25
Somerset, Earl of, 56 n.
Sommelsdijck, Lord of. See Aerssen.
Sound, the sovereignty over, 4, 8, 16, 108; toll levied at the, 4, 8, 35, 91, 108, 110, 154, 190, 339, 501
South America, territorial sea, 661
Southampton, 68, 73, 94
Southwold, 90 n., 534
“Sovereign of the Seas,” the, 28, 326
Sovereignty of the sea, among ancients, 371 n., 373
Sovereignty of sea, decadence of claim to, 15, 517, 522, 523, 566
Sovereignty of sea, juridical controversies about, 5, 410-413; liberty of navigation, 8, 11, 33, 34, 54. See Navigation.
Sovereignty of the sea, meaning of, 2; striking as a symbol of, 39
Sovereignty of sea, treatises on, 364 n.
Sovereignty of the sea, Barrère on, 595; Blackstone, 580 n.; Boroughs, 364-366; Champagne, 595, 596; Chitty, 580 n.; Secretary Coke, 272; Cromwell, 423, 424; Dr Dee, 99, 103; De Witt, 454, 468, 470; Evelyn, 514; English writers, 493, 494, 513; Gentilis, 359; Hall, 580 n.; Hargrave, 580 n.; Italian jurists, 6; Jenkins, 484 n.; Loccenius, 550; Molloy, 514; Moore, 580 n.; naval historians on, 521; Selden, 370-374; Stubbe, 496-498; Wicquefort, 495; Baltic, 4, 33, 552; Bothnian Gulf, 4
Sovereignty of sea, Denmark, 4, 8, 16, 33, 105, 108, 158, 339, 371, 376, 530, 552, 567; contested by Elizabeth, 86; England, origin of English claims, 6, 29, 30; nature of, 8, 30; defects of, 33; early history of, 25; under ancient Britons, 25, 26; under Romans, 25, 365; under Anglo-Saxons, 26; under King Edgar, 27; before Norman Conquest, 27; after Norman Conquest, 29; under Plantagenet Kings, 30, 40, 51, 52; rolls concerning, 8, 43, 44, 45, 740, 744; not claimed, by Tudors, 86, 111; importance of claim under Stuarts, 9, 10, 118; claimed as a prerogative of the crown, 211; aimed against Dutch, 10, 125; extravagant claims under Charles I., 209, 251, 264, 274; under the Commonwealth, 378-382, 394, 395, 409, 412; under Charles II., 441, 458, 487, 488; decadence of claim, 15, 517, 522, 523; of France, 287; of Genoa, 4, 339, 341, 371; of Norway, 4, 16, 530; of Pisans, 371; Poland, 4, 377; Portugal, 5, 105-108, 112, 338, 339, 341, 371, 552; Spain, 5, 105-108, 112, 118, 158, 330, 339, 341, 371, 552; Sweden, 4, 350, 552; Tuscans, 371; Venice, 3, 4, 8, 16, 33, 338, 339, 341, 350, 351, 351 n., 371, 552, 566
Sowe. See Zowe.
Spain, 20, 30, 33, 45, 57, 87, 91, 95, 107, 189, 198, 199, 203, 205, 212, 245, 247, 253, 255, 264, 266, 268, 275, 286, 304, 493; claim to sovereignty of sea, 5, 86, 105-108, 112, 118, 188, 339; fisheries, 92; area of fishing-grounds, 738; foreign trawlers at, 713; fishermen of, on British coasts, 67, 129, 150; peace with England, 125, 358; war with United Provinces, 9, 119, 139, 148, 201, 243 n., 251; territorial sea, 644-668; limits of, 569, 664; Customs limit, 594; disputes with Great Britain and United States as to territorial sea, 664, 665
Spaniards forced to strike, 117, 206
Spanish Netherlands, 266, 272, 275
Spanish whalers at Spitzbergen, 182, 183 n.
Spelman, 27
Spitzbergen, 4; whaling at, 112, 164, 181, 182-185, 193, 194, 194 n., 198, 199, 200, 527. See also Greenland.
Spragge, Sir Edward, 485, 489
Sprat fishery, 133
Stair, Lord, on territorial limit, 545 n.
Star Chamber, 243
Start, the, 260
State merchant, 136
States-General of the United Provinces, 84, 178, 186, 190, 192, 258, 292, 343, 351, 415, 481; conclude treaty with James VI., 81; conclude peace with Spain, 148; consider James’s proclamation on unlicensed fishing, 148, 150; decide to maintain freedom of fishing on British coast, 151; send embassy to James about, 155; arguments used, 155, 159; proclamation suspended, 159; apologise for the capture of Brown, 173; send the Captain responsible to London, 174; publish an edict forbidding their fishermen to interfere with Scottish fishermen, 179: negotiations with James, 189; disputes as to whale fishing at Spitzbergen, 181-185; send another embassy to London, 185; no instructions as to fishery question, 188, 189; order their fishermen to keep out of sight of shore, 193; send another embassy to James, 199; again without instructions as to fishery question, 199, 200; renew their edicts and order their fishermen not to go too near Scottish coast, 201; proceedings regarding licenses of Charles I., 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 312, 313, 314, 315; instructions to Evertsen as to striking, 399; to Tromp, 399, 402 n., 405; send Van Dorp to protect the busses from Northumberland, 300; order Van Dorp to prevent acceptance of licenses, 312, 313; send Aerssen van Sommelsdijck as ambassador, 336; on Selden’s ‘Mare Clausum,’ 375; resolve to increase their fleet, 393; and question of striking, 390, 392; attitude to the Parliament, 381; send ambassador to London, 384; negotiations with St John, 384-391; another embassy to London, 391; consider and postpone question of striking, 392, 399; resolve to strengthen their fleet, 393; negotiations interrupted by Tromp’s encounter with Blake, 397; disown Tromp’s action, 405; instruct him to strike, 405; send the Grand Pensionary to London, 405; recall ambassador and prepare for war, 405, 406; send four deputies to the Parliament, 415; negotiations for peace, 414-435; peace concluded, 435
States-General and Charles II., action on fishery Bill, 449, 450, 451; embargo on fisheries, 460, 462; propose freedom of fishing during war, 461, 462; differences with France as to, 463; decision as to striking, 469, 481; orders to their men-of-war on striking, 473; drawn into dispute about striking, 482; yield as to striking, 483, 484; sue for peace, 490; terms offered, 490; reject terms, 491; negotiations for peace, 498-506; peace concluded, 508
States-General. See Dutch, Netherlands, United Provinces.
States of Holland, 151, 155, 190, 303, 375, 384, 398, 407, 414
Stebbing, 127 n.
Stephens, Violet, 139
Stewart, Lord Robert, 169 n.
Stirling, Viscount, 239 n.
Stornoway, 216, 242
Stowell, Lord, decisions respecting territorial limit, 577, 578, 641 n., 681, 682; on three-mile limit, 641 n.
Straddling, Captain, 207 n., 282, 327
Straits of Dover. See Dover.
Strange, Lady, 283
Stratherne, Earl of, 239 n.
Strauchius, 550
Strickland, Walter, 384, 392, 429
Striking as an acknowledgment of maritime sovereignty, 3, 210; origin of, 7, 42, 207; first instance of, 43; John’s ordinance on, 39-43; under Tudors, 116; under Henry VIII., 116; opposed by French, 117; under Elizabeth, 117, 204; under James I., 204-208
Striking under Charles I., 11, 12, 210, 212; becomes very prominent, 276; arrogance of English officers regarding, 280, 281, 282; under Commonwealth, 378, 380, 381; under Charles II., 496; James II. and after, 552; decay of claim to, 327, 518, 519, 522; abandoned after Trafalgar, 15, 523; Admiralty instructions concerning, 260, 261, 277, 278, 380-383, 456, 469, 523 n.
Striking, rules and customs of, 206-208, 277, 278, 398, 463, 464, 466, 469-472, 481; not well understood, 277, 456, 466, 469, 470, 478, 479
Striking at foreign ports and coasts, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 327, 381, 473, 477, 557; before forts, 256, 279, 280, 472; in British seas, 502, 503; in Mediterranean, 327, 413, 456, 468, 473, 488; in narrow seas, 206, 207 n., 208, 277, 402
Striking by merchant vessels, 206, 207, 282, 513; British, 260, 275, 283, 284, 285, 519; foreign, 207, 275, 513
Striking by Danes, 266, 282; claim to, by Danes, 473, 520; by Dunkirkers, 275, 282, 327
Striking by Dutch, 12, 13, 117, 204, 205, 208, 267, 269, 270, 276, 277, 279, 280, 281, 300, 327, 328, 330, 334, 383, 390, 392, 397, 398, 400-403, 437, 438, 449, 452, 455-457, 466-469, 472, 473, 477-481, 485, 486, 490, 491 n., 495, 501, 510-513, 520; States-General consider question, 390, 392, 397; De Witt’s proposals regarding, 467, 468, 469, 470; on striking to a frigate or ketch, 468-470; question of whole fleet to single ship, 477, 478, 479, 482; terms offered Dutch, 490, 491 n.; offer to strike in all seas, 432, 505, 506, 510; by Dutch to French, 276 and n.; by English to Dutch, 512
Striking by French, 117, 204, 212, 267, 270 and n., 271, 272, 275, 276, 279, 280, 283, 291, 313, 327, 332, 333, 471, 477, 488, 512, 513, 518, 520, 521; French demand salute from English vessels, 212; force English merchant vessels to strike, 268, 277, 283, 327; by Hamburgers, 117; by Spaniards, 205, 327, 330, 477; by English to Spaniards, 512; by Swedes, 382, 455, 456 n., 520
Striking, Bynkershoek on, 556; Jenkins on, 480, 481; jurists on, 557; Molloy on, 515; Wicquefort on, 495; Duke of York on, 469
Striking, treaties regarding, 382, 455, 508, 517, 522-572 n.
Striking, arrangement between Charles and Louis, 488
Striking, arrangement between France and the United Provinces proposed, 452
Striking, differences between French and Dutch as to, 452, 463
Striking, French edicts on, 513
Striking, Richelieu’s proposals, 271, 272
Striking, Tromp’s memorandum on, 398, 770
Stuarts, the, 9, 57, 65, 118, 378
Stubbe, Henry, on sovereignty of sea, 496, 497, 498
Sturgeon, 66, 88, 363
Stypmannus, 550
Suffolk, 63, 94, 101, 248, 462
Suffolk, Earl of, 227
Sully, Duke of, 204
Sunderland, 249
Sweden, 60, 62, 142, 158, 358, 474, 490, 498; asks for and obtains liberty of fishing in British seas, 427; claim to sovereignty of sea, 4, 350, 377; and striking, 208, 382; territorial sea, 653, 664, 669, 674, 675; method of computing, 669; Customs limit, 594; declines to adhere to North Sea Convention, 636
Taurus, case of, 640
Taxation of foreign fishermen, 203
Teind fish, 195, 196
Temple, Lady, 478, 479, 480
Temple, Sir William, 470, 481; on striking, 467, 468; concludes Triple Alliance, 474; recalled from The Hague, 476; negotiates peace, 508; on the article regarding striking, 509, 510
Territorial sea, agreements between Great Britain and Germany, 634, 652; Anglo-Danish Convention concerning Iceland and Faroes, 647, 648; boundaries begin to be fixed, 554, 573; by treaty, 526, 565; Gulf Stream as a boundary, 575, 650; British Foreign Office on, 665, 667 and n., 730, 731, 732, 738; wishes territorial waters in North Sea to remain undefined, 632, 633, 634; Parliamentary Committee recommend extension of, 707 and n.
Territorial sea, bays, and gulfs, 77, 348, 544, 545, 547, 548, 552, 574, 575, 581, 585, 589, 598, 599, 601-603, 610, 614, 619 n., 622-630, 632-634, 639, 649, 652, 666, 668, 670, 678, 718, 723, 725, 726, 730; of Bengal, 625; Biscay, 564, 625; Bothnia, Gulf of, 564; Cancale, see Granville; Chaleurs, 623, 624, 628, 629, 630, 692; Conception, 588, 589; Delaware, 574, 599, 629; Fundy, 623-625; Granville, 612, 619, 692; Hudson’s, 561; of Argentina, 661; Norway, 670, 672, 674, 677; Scotland, firths, 222, 223, 230, 233, 239, 545, 622, 692; Moray Firth, 721. See also Fisheries and King’s Chambers.
Territorial sea, British Foreign Office on, 629, 730, 731 and n., 732, 733; delimitation of North American, 622, 627-630; French Government on, 632; Hague Tribunal on, 732; Institut de Droit International on, 691, 775; International Law Association on, 691, 775; inter fauces terræ, 544, 547; measurement of, 639; old English law regarding, 547; omitted in Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 593; principles regarding, 548; six-mile line for, 627, 629, 630, 632, 730, 731; treaty stipulation in 1521, 548; usage regarding, 547, 548
Territorial sea, closed seas, 339, 564, 572, 582, 584, 585, 598, 657; straits, 547, 561, 564, 586, 692, 776
Territorial sea, Dano-Swedish limit in Baltic, 655; decisions of law courts as to extent of, 585-592; definitions in Acts, 589, 591, 718; in Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 591, 592
Territorial sea, not absolutely defined by any State, 651, 652, 657, 660
Territorial sea, not defined by Great Britain, 593
Territorial sea, discussion between Spain, Great Britain, and United States, 665
Territorial sea, discussion as to limit in North Sea, 632, 633, 634
Territorial sea, distinction between limit under international law and in treaties, 644; between exclusive fishery limit and territorial limit, 644, 660; distinction between “coasts” and “bays,” 622; meaning of “coasts,” 641 n.
Territorial sea, historical evolution of, 537
Territorial sea, in peace and war, 636, 651, 665
Territorial sea, in relation to fisheries, 693; for “floating” fish, 698; for coral, 684, 695, 697; oysters, 611, 612, 619, 620, 621, 697; pearls, 560, 697; seals, 662, 663, 695, 696; whales, 674, 695, 696; exclusive fishery limit, 639; on British and Irish coasts, 646, 647; outside the North Sea, 643, 644, 645, 646; extra-territorial regulations, 657, 661, 662, 663, 695, 699, 704, 707, 708, 716, 720, 725, 726, 727; international regulations, 733, 734, 735; trawling, 698, 707, 735; jurisdiction for Customs, 593-595, 609, 665, 676, 679 n.; for public health and slave-ships, 593-595; under common law of England, 546; over foreigners, 589, 590, 591; navigation in, 78, 676
Territorial sea, need of distinguishing different rights in, 690; neutral waters, decrees respecting, 569-570; proposed limit for, 690, 775
Territorial sea, possession of opposite shores, 35, 43; principle of thalweg or mid-line, 541-544
Territorial sea, proposals of International Law Association, 690-692, 774; question of banks and flats, 633, 634, 635, 639, 640 and n., 641 n.; of consistency of soil, 641 n.; of depth, 562; of islands, 618, 634, 639, 641 n.; of rocks and islets, 641-643, 649; of tide-marks, 579, 641, 652, 659, 661, 666, 669 and n.; of true boundary of, 539; Scottish firths, 692; statutes referring to, 589-594
Territorial sea, usage in seventeenth century, 552; in eighteenth, 566; modern, 650
Territorial sea, modern usage, Algeria, 657; Argentine Republic, wide claim by, 661, 662, 663; in Rio de la Plata, 663; Austria-Hungary, 572, 658; in Behring Sea, 585, 695 and n., 696; Belgium, 658; Chili, 661; Cuba, 665; Denmark, 528, 529, 530, 538, 567, 568, 653, 655, 664; in Cattegat, 653; Iceland and Faroes, 647, 648; Skagerrack, 636, 653; France, 657; Germany, 652; Great Britain, origin of, 538; in Bristol Channel, 586-588; at Bell Rock, 642; at Eddystone, 641, 642, 643; at Seven Stones Rocks, 642, 643; British colonies, 661; British N. America, 531; Greece, 661; Italy, 659; Japan, 661; Netherlands, 658; in Zuiderzee, 635, 636; Norway, 457, 528, 538, 568, 653, 664, 669-681, 685; method of measuring, 669, 670, 685; rejects three-mile limit, 633, 636, 678, 681; reasons for wide limit, 676, 677; in Varangerfjord, 674; in Vestfjord, Lofotens, 672-674, 677; special limits in, 671, 672, 678, 679; Portugal, 538, 569, 664, 668; Russia, 656; White Sea, 564, 657; Scandinavian limit, 528, 567 and n., 653, 655; Spain, 538, 569, 664-668; South America, 661; Sweden, 538, 653, 664, 669, 674, 675; method of computing in, 669; United States, 661; various limits claimed by, 575; Uruguay, 663; Venice, 571
Territorial sea, opinions of publicists in first part eighteenth century on, 565, 566; of recent publicists, 603, 605, 681, 688, 689
Territorial sea, opinions of Abreu y Bertodano, 559; Aschehoug, 686, 688; Auber, 691; Azuni, 564, 565; on Bays, 565; Bishop, 683, 689; Bluntschli, 682, 688; Bodin, 540; Burgus, 550; Bynkershoek, 555, 556; on range of vision, 546; Calvo, 682, 688; Casaregi, 558; Lord Chelmsford, 586; Chitty, 597; Conringius, 550; Baron de Courcel, 664 n.; Craig, 357; Dana, 683, 689; Desjardins, 685, 688; Lord Dunedin, 724; Ferguson, 684, 689; Fiore, 684, 689; Lord Fitzmaurice, 630, 730, 731; Galiani, 563; Gentilis, 540; Graswinckel, 550; Sir Edward Grey, 732; Grotius, 549; on range of vision, 545; Lord Guthrie, 723; Chief-Justice Hale, 543; Hall, 687, 689; Halleck, 683, 689; Lord Halsbury, 592; Lord Hatherly, 586 n.; Hautefeuille, 601, 688; Heffter, 600, 689; Lord Herschell, 692 n.; Holland, 691; Hübner, 562; Kent, 599, 689; Kleen, 685; Klüber, 597, 688; Lord Kyllachy, 725; Lampredi, 563; Latour, 595, 685; Lawrence, 683, 688; Leoni Levi, 664 n.; Loccenius, 550; Lord Loreburn, 732; Lushington, 586 n.; Manning, 600, 689; Massé, 602, 688; de Martens, 686, 688; G. F. von Martens, 563; on bays, 564; on straits, 564; Moore, 691 n.; Moser, 562; Sir John Nicholl, 586; Oppenheim, 688; Ortolan, 600, 688; Perels, 684, 688; Phillimore, 682, 688, 689; Pistoye and Duverdy, 602, 688; Pontanus, 550; Pradier-Fodéré, 684, 688; Puffendorf, 550; on bays and gulfs, 551; Rayneval, 596; Reddie, 600; Lord Salisbury, 592; Sarpi, 547; Schmalz, 597, 688; Shookius, 550; Lord Stowell, 641 n.; Strauchius, 550; Sir Travers Twiss, 683, 689, 691 n.; Valin, 562; Vattel, 560, 689; on bays, 561; on straits, 561; Lord Wensleydale, 586 n.; Westlake, 691 n.; Wheaton, 598, 689; Wolff, 559, 689; Woolsey, 683, 689; opinions of early English lawyers, 539; of early Italian jurists, 539; of Institut de Droit International, 689-692, 774; of International Law Association, 689-692, 774; of judges in Franconia case, 590
Territorial Sea. Various limits proposed or adopted for different purposes: Three-mile limit, proposed by Galiani, 563; by Azuni, 565; introduced for neutrality by United States, 573, 574; introduced into English jurisprudence, 576, 577; originated in neutral rights, 694; applied to fisheries, 581; confusion of, with range of guns, 591 and n., 598, 682, 683, 689; not equivalent to range of guns, 21, 576; discussion on, 650-652; generally adopted through influence of the United States and Great Britain, 21, 681; an Anglo-American doctrine, 681, 684; not generally accepted by publicists, 580, 680, 681, 688, 775; common adoption of, 21, 650; in some international fishery conventions, 581, 612, 614, 617, 619, 621, 634, 635, 647, 649, 652; generally for fisheries, 616, 647, 663, 680; inadequacy of, 21, 604, 615, 617, 651, 679, 682, 683, 686, 687, 690, 693, 694, 707 and n.; in relation to next great maritime war, 22; British Government on, 730, 732; refuses to recognise jurisdiction beyond three miles, 663, 667 and n., 738; wishes three-mile limit extended in war, 665; rejected by four European States, 664; refused by Norway, 633, 636, 678, 681; complex on Norwegian coast, 672, 676 Four-mile limit, 653; five miles, 575, 665, 691, 698, 715; six miles, 559, 563, 565, 566, 575, 582, 605, 606, 664, 665, 690, 691, 694, 775; adopted by International Law Association for Fisheries, 690, 775; limit for Dutch on Scottish coast, 605, 606; eight miles, 665, 694; nine miles, 563, 564 n., 608 and n., 611, 618, 679, 679 n., 691, 698, 737; on French coast, 608 n., 609; recommended by English trawlers for North Sea, 702; ten miles, 665, 668, 687, 694, 696, 698, 707, 737; in Argentina, 661; recommended for North Sea by English trawlers, 702; twelve miles, 575, 593, 594, 662, 665, 668, 715; thirteen miles, 703, 720, 738; for fishery on Scottish coast, 720; fourteen miles, 77, 84, 192, 193, 545, 694; twenty-eight miles, 77, 84, 545; thirty miles, 572, 696; forty miles, 178, 585; sixty miles, 3, 540, 696; eighty miles, 79, 355; 100 miles, 3, 169, 353, 360, 373, 539, 541, 559; claimed by Russia in Behring Sea, 582 Range of guns, 21, 349, 549, 552, 593, 646, 658, 660, 676, 681, 685-687, 690, 716; first proposed by Dutch ambassadors, 156, 549; Bynkershoek’s dictum on, 556; merits of, 558; fixed in treaties and decrees, 570-572; generally adopted, 576; incorporated in international law, 558; generally accepted by publicists, 688; the true principle of delimitation, 595, 602, 603; and neutral rights, 557, 559, 571, 572; and salute, 556, 557; as “zone of respect,” 690, 775 Range of vision, 175, 193, 347, 544-546, 571, 574, 596, 602, 694; defects of, 546; adhered to by Dutch, 546; claimed by Denmark, 529, 545; proposed by some modern publicists, 546, 565, 600 (see Land-kenning); subsistence limit of Sarpi, 547
Territorial waters. See Territorial sea.
Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 580 n., 590, 591, 592, 717, 718, 731
Teutonic invaders, seafaring habits of, 26
Texel, 18, 409; battle of, 498
Thalweg. See Mid-line.
Thames, 49, 60, 76, 131, 133, 219, 443, 444, 459, 462, 472, 476
Thanet, 49, 68
Thorpe, 27, 28
Three-mile limit. See Territorial sea.
Three seas, 17
Thurloe, 432, 434, 436, 497, 498 n.
Tithes of fish. See Fish.
Tlieff, Captain Andrees, 171, 174, 175
Top-sails, lowering of. See Striking.
Tordesillas, treaty of, 5, 106
Traders, hostilities between, 53, 54
Trafalgar, 15
Trawling. See Fisheries.
Treaties, England and Burgundy, 1405, 1408, 69; 1417, 70; 1439, 70; 1467, 71; 1478, 72; 1496 (Intercursus Magnus), 72; 1499, 73; 1506, 73; 1515, 73; 1520, 73; and Castile, 1351, 67; and Denmark, 1468, 110; 1490, 109; 1523, 109; 1583, 110; and Flanders, 1320, 55; and France, 1303, 44-46, 49; 1403, 67; 1471, 72; 1528, 75; and Portugal, 1353, 67; 1439, 70; and United Provinces, 1585, 433; Scotland and the Emperor, 1541, 78; 1550, 79, 179; Scotland and the Netherlands, 1291, 1321, 1323, 1371, 1401, 1407, 1412, 1416, 76; 1531, 1541, 188 n.; and United Provinces, 1594, 81, 157, 169, 173, 188 n., 257, 388; Great Britain and Belgium, 1852, 617, 645; 1882, 637; and Denmark, 1882, 637; 1901, 647, 740; and France, 1686, 526, 622; 1786, 572; 1839, 612; 1867, 619; 1882, 637; and Germany, 1882, 637; and Mexico, 1888, 679 n.; and the Netherlands, 1625, 433; 1654, 435, 436, 455; 1662, 455; 1674, 508; 1689, 517; 1784, 522; 1882, 637; and Russia, 1825, 583; and Spain, 1630, 425; 1790, 573; and Sweden, 427; and United States, 1783, 622; 1794, 574, 622; 1814, 581; 1818, 581, 627; 1854, 625; 1871, 627; 1888, 628; Denmark and Sweden, 1780, 572 n.; 1899, 655, 675; France and Algeria, 1689, 527, 573; Burgundy, 1468, 71; the Emperor, 1521, 74, 119; Russia, 1787, 572; and United Provinces, 1635, 276; 1662, 453; Norway and Mexico, 1886, 594, 679; Porte and Naples, 1740, 546; Russia, Denmark, and Sweden, 1780, 572 n.; and the two Sicilies, 1787, 572; and the United Provinces and Prussia, 1781, 572 n.; Spain and Morocco, 1861, 668; and Portugal, 1494, 106; 1878, 1885, 1893, 665, 666; and Tripoli, 1784, 572; and the United Provinces, 1609, 148, 344, 350 n.; United States and Morocco, 1785, 572; and Russia, 1824, 583
Treaties concerning fishery, British North America, 526, 531, 532, 574, 622, 625, 627, 628
Treaties guaranteeing liberty of fishing on English coasts, 66-74
Treaty of Antwerp, 148, 344, 350 n.; of Breda, 464, 465; of Dover, 475; of Ryswick, 466 n.; of Southampton, 388; of Tordesillas, 5, 106; of Troyes, 8, 35; of Union, England and Scotland, 1604, 192, 545; of Utrecht, 531
Treport, 65, 426
Trinity House, 114, 120, 447; on limits of King’s Chambers, 9, 753; on extent of British Seas, 20, 465 n., 477, 478; on jurisdiction of Cinque Ports in Channel, 544; on striking, 477
Triple Alliance, 467, 471, 474, 476, 481, 483, 490
Tromp, Lieut.-Admiral Martin Harpentz, 329, 390, 395, 408, 411 n., 415, 422, 436, 477, 511; attacks Oquendo in the Straits of Dover, 330; in the Downs, 245, 331; strikes to English, 330, 334; his letter to Pennington, 334; commands Dutch fleet, 329; puts to sea to prevent search of Dutch vessels, 397; no instructions as to striking, 397, 399; his memorandum on striking, 398, 770; reluctance to strike, 400, 401, 403, 404; encounter with Blake, 12, 207 n., 397, 403, 404, 421; correspondence with Blake, 404 n., 771; story of broom, 408, 409
Tudors, 85, 86, 87, 118
Tunny fishery, 142, 504
Tweedmouth, Lord, 691, 720
Twee Gebroeders, case of, 576, 577, 641 n.
Twiss, Sir Travers, 39, 40, 41, 42, 52 n., 53, 312 n., 689, 691 n.
Two seas, 17
Tynemouth, 214
Tyrrhenian Sea, sovereignty of, 371
United Provinces, 9, 12-14, 81, 119, 125, 126 n., 151, 157, 170, 179, 187, 191, 197, 198, 201, 243 n., 246, 251, 253, 257, 264, 265, 275, 288, 301, 302, 304, 340, 342, 364, 384, 399, 405, 416, 441, 454, 460, 470, 474, 517, 527-529. See States-General, Dutch, Netherlands.
United States of America, disputes and negotiations regarding British North American fisheries, 532, 581, 621-630, 731 and n.; regarding Behring Sea, 541, 583, 584, 695 n.; territorial sea, 599, 661; fixes three miles for neutrality, 21, 93, 573, 574; various limits claimed, 574, 575, 650; influence of, in adoption of three-mile limit, 650
Uruguay, territorial sea, 663
Ushant, 103, 290, 399, 437
Utrecht, 81; treaty of, 531, 582
Vagabonds, 98
Valck, Jacob, 81
Valin, on territorial sea, 562
Vane, Sir Henry, 269, 414, 422 n., 439
Varangerfjord, 674, 695
Vardö, or Vardöhuus, 86, 97 n., 108, 109, 110
Vasquez. See Vasquius.
Vasquius, Ferdinand, on dominion of sea, 341, 351, 353
Vattel, on territorial sea, 560; on appropriation of fisheries, 561
Venice, 30, 91, 186 n., 191; sea sovereignty of, 3, 4 and n., 16, 33, 54, 107, 158, 339, 341, 350, 351, 361, 371, 540, 547, 552; limit of territorial sea, 571
Vestfjord, 672, 677
Vic, M. de, Vice-Admiral of France, 204
Violation of ports, 247, 249, 250
Virginia, 388
Visit and search and gun range, 557
Visitation of English ships, 268
Wagenaar, 80, 167 n., 311 n.
Walderswick, 90 n.
Walker, Sir Richard, 280
Walmer Castle, 279
Warbeck, Perkin, 72, 387
Wardhouse. See Vardö.
Warwick, Earl of, 206 n, 276, 379, 380
Wash, the, 18
Washington, George, 573, 681
Wells, 90
Welwood, William, 342 n., 343, 371, 546, 551; on appropriation of the sea, 353; dominion of the sea, 354; exhaustibility of sea, 355; on Grotius, 352; on limit for Dutch on Scottish coast, 79, 84; sea laws of Scotland, 352; attack on, by Graswinckel, 412
Wensleydale, Lord, on territorial sea, 586 n.
Wentworth, Viscount, 227 n.
West Friesland, 453
Westlake, Professor, on territorial sea, 691 n.
Westmoney Islands, 109, 247
Weston, Lord, 227, 239 n., 241, 281
Weymouth, 268
Whale-fishing, 187, 189; in Behring Sea, 585; at Greenland, 407, 527-530; at Jan Mayen, 527; at Spitzbergen, 112, 164, 181-184, 193, 194 n., 200, 527; in Varangerfjord, 674; regulations, 695
Whales, right to, 66, 363
Wharton, 312 n.
Wheaton, on territorial sea, 598
Whestone, Admiral, 520
Whitby, 462
Whitelock, 414
White Sea, sealing at, 695; territoriality of, 657; trawling at, 680
Whitstable Fishery, case of, 586 n.
Wicklow, 63
Wicquefort, on sovereignty of sea, 495
Wilkins, 27
Willes, John, 43
William of Malmesbury, 27
William III. and sovereignty of sea, 517-520
William the Lion, King, 59
Williamson, Sir Joseph, plenipotentiary at Cologne, 496, 497, 498, 511
Willoughby, 181, 183
Wilson, Thomas, 163 n.
Wimbledon, Viscount, 227 n.
Winchelsea, 37, 49, 50, 73
Windebank, 243, 250, 253, 263, 267, 287, 295, 302, 319, 320, 322, 323
Winwood, Sir Ralph, 130 n., 152, 162, 168, 172
Wolff, on territorial sea, 559
Wolseley, Sir Charles, 429
Wolsey, Cardinal, 74, 119, 548
Woolsey, on territorial sea, 683
Worcester, 27
Worcester, Earl of, 56 n.
Worsley, Dr Benjamin, 515
Wotton, 162
Wreck, right to, 66, 362, 363, 542
Yarmouth, 34 n., 46 n., 49, 58, 60, 62, 73, 90, 96, 97 n., 100, 108, 126, 129, 130 n., 131, 133, 134, 143-145, 151, 162, 214, 247, 248, 249, 295, 307, 308, 391 n., 438, 455, 461, 462, 463, 515, 546
York, Duke of, 446, 448, 456, 457, 458, 469, 472, 485, 493, 516
Yorkshire, 133
Young, Captain, 207 n., 401, 402
Ypres, 71
Zealand, 45, 60, 62, 64, 71, 72, 73, 74 n., 75, 81, 88, 92, 94, 95, 125, 195
Zierikzee, 45 n.
Zorgdrager, 194 n.
Zouch, 515
Zowe, fishing-bank, 65 and n., 189 n., 276 n., 426 n., 440, 544, 749
Zuiderzee, territoriality of, 635
THE END.
PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The possession by Venice of this maritime sovereignty was symbolised each year for many centuries by the picturesque ceremony of “espousing” the Adriatic. On Ascension Day the Doge was rowed to the strains of music in a magnificent gilded state barge, the Bucentaur, to the channel of Lido, where he cast a ring into the water, exclaiming as he did so, “We espouse thee, O Sea, in sign of a real and perpetual dominion” (“Desponsamus te mare in signum veri perpetuique dominii”). The Papal nuncio and representatives of other states assisted at the ceremony.
[2] Twiss, The Law of Nations in Time of War, 142. Maine, International Law, 76.
[3] Twiss, op. cit., 143, 144. Reddie, Maritime International Law, i. 41.
[4] Nicolas, Hist. Navy, i. 157.
[5] “Il sera banny hors dAngleterre et de mer appartenant au roi dAngleterre,” Article in Black Book, i. 58, ascribed to the reign of Henry I. (A.D. 1100-1135); “Ad piscandum in mari nostro, prope Jernemuth,” Edward I., A.D. 1295, Fœdera, ii. 688; “la meer Dengleterre,” A.D. 1306, Chanc. Rolls, Misc. Treaties, &c., Bd. 14, No. 15; “super mare Anglicanum” (Rot. Pat., 14 Edw. II., pt. ii. m. 26, d.), A.D. 1320, &c., &c.; “partibus maris infra regnum nostrum Angliæ,” A.D. 1317, Edw. II., Fœdera, iii. 469; A.D. 1406, Hen. IV., giving freedom of fishing, “ubicumque supra mare, per et infra dominia, jurisdictiones, et districtus nostra”; “Seigneur de la mer,” A.D. 1320, Fœdera, iii. 852; “reges Angliæ domini maris Anglicani circumquaque,” A.D. 1336, Rot. Scot., i. 442; “domini maris et transmarini passagii,” A.D. 1336, Fœdera, iv. 721; “le roi de la mier,” A.D. 1372, Rot. Parl., ii. 311; “seigneurs del meer,” A.D. 1420, ibid., iv. 126, &c., &c.
[6] Fœdera, xvi. 395; State Papers, Dom. 1604, 11, 40; Fœdera, xix. 211; Libelle of Englyshe Polycye; Dee, General and Rare Memorials, 6; State Papers, Dom. 1662, 66, 50, “It is a fundamental Maxime of England, that the sea flowing about the Isle of Great Britaine is of the same dominion with the isle”; “the dominion of the ambient seas.”
[7] Rot. Escheat., 41 Hen. III., A.D. 1259, referred to by Coke, 1. 107_a_; Bracton, Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ, lib. v. c. xxx. fol. 437 (A.D. circa 1259); Statutes of the Realm, 18 Edw. I. Stat. 4 (A.D. 1290); Rot. Parl., 13 Ric. II., “deinz les quatre miers Dengleterre,” &c.
[8] Hall, On the Rights of the Crown in the Sea Shores of the Realm, p. 1.
[9] “The guardian of his Majesty’s three seas” (A.D. 1607). Cæsar Papers, MS. Brit. Mus. Lansd., 142, fol. 373.
[10]
“Thene here I ende of the comoditees Ffor whiche nede is well to kepe the sees; Este and weste, sowthe and northe they be; And chefely kepe the sharpe narowe see, Betwene Dover and Caleise.”
[11] Acts of the Privy Council of England, N.S., i. 232, 242.
[12] Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 50.
[13] Mare Clausum, ii. c. xiii.
[14] Selden, Mare Clausum, lib. i. c. viii., lib. ii. cc. ii.-viii.
[15] Polyhistor., c. xxiv.
[16] Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xi.
[17] Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xii. “Canutus autem Rex suæ ditionis esse Oceanum Britannicum verbis expressissimis item est testatus.” Prynne uses the same argument. Animadversions on Coke’s Fourth Institute, 88.
[18] Ed. Petrie, 395.
[19] Gesta Regum Anglorum, i. 235; Eng. Hist. Soc. “Ego Edgarus totius Albionis Basileus nec non maritimorum seu insulanorum Regum circumhabitantium.”
[20] “Ego Edgardus Anglorum Basileus omniumque Regum insularum, Oceanique Britanniam circumjacentis cunctarumque nationum quæ infra eam includuntur Imperator et Dominus,” &c. Dee, General and Rare Memorials, 58, 60; Selden, Mare Clausum, ii. c. xii. (quoting from a charter of Inspeximus, Rot. Pat., 1 Edw. IV., m. 23); Prynne, op. cit., 87.
[21] Concilia, i. 432.
[22] Ibid., i. 239.
[23] Codex Diplomaticus, ii. 404, vi. 237.
[24] Diplomatarium Anglicum Ævi Saxonici, 211.
[25] Cartularium Saxonicum, iii. 377.
[26] “Insularum oceani quæ Brytanniam circumjacent.”
[27] Worsaae, An Account of the Danes and Norwegians in England, Scotland, and Ireland; Depping, Histoire des Expéditions maritimes des Normands; Beamish, The Discovery of America.
[28] Burrows, Cinque Ports, 62, 81.
[29] Cunningham, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Early and Middle Ages, 173.
[30] Twiss, The Law of Nations in Time of Peace, 244; ibid., In Time of War, 142.
[31] See p. 51.
[32] Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xiv.
[33] “Pour garder la mere,” “la garde du meer,” “la sauve garde du meer,” “pro custodia maris,” “de custodia maritimæ,” &c. See Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England; Nicolas, History of the Royal Navy; Prynne, Animadversions.
[34] Fœdera, i. 861; Nicolas, op. cit., i. 279, 437.
[35] Twiss, The Law of Nations in Time of Peace, 245.
[36] Vide Twiss, Black Book of the Admiralty, i. 420.
[37] Op. cit., lib. ii. c. xviii.
[38] Twiss, ibid., i. 64.
[39] Nicolas, op. cit., i. 131, 231, ii. 45, 84, 130, 176; Rot. Pat., 65 (1206); Fœdera, i. 96 (1208).
[40] Chronicles, ii. 497.
[41] Op. cit., lib. ii. cc. xiii., xx.
[42] Rot. Parl., iii. 46b; Nicolas, op. cit., ii. 260-280; Laughton, Studies in Naval History, 16-22. The Yarmouth herring fishing suffered severely in these years, and the fishermen equipped and armed vessels for their own defence,--Chronicon Angliæ, ab A.D. 1328 usque ad annum 1388, p. 170, Rolls Series.
[43] Op. cit., lib. ii. c. xv.
[44] Rot. Parl., iii. 63b, 391a; Fœdera, vii. 220. “C’este l’ordinance et grante par l’advis des Marchaundz de Londres, et des autres Marchaundz vers la North, par assent de touz Communes de Parlement par devant le Comte de Northumberland et le Meair de Londres, pur la garde et tuicion du Mier,” &c. The specified dues throw some light on the commerce and fisheries of the period: (1) all vessels or crayers navigating the seas within the limits of the admiralty of the north were to pay a duty of sixpence a ton-tight, going and returning, with the exception of those bringing wines and goods from Flanders to London, or carrying wool and skins to Calais; (2) vessels laden with goods belonging to merchants of Prussia, Norway, or Scone (Scania) were to pay sixpence a last; (3) vessels carrying coals from Newcastle were to pay sixpence a ton every three months; (4) sixpence a-week per ton was to be paid by all vessels fishing for herrings within the said admiralty, and sixpence every three weeks per ton by boats fishing for other fish.
[45] A.D. 1420, Rot. Parl., iv. 126. “Item, priount les ditz Communes, que par l’ou nostre très soverain seignour le Roy et ses nobles progenitours de tout temps ount esté seignours del meer, et ore par la grace de Dieu est venuz que nostre dit seignour le Roy est seignour des costes d’ambeparties del meer d’ordeigner que sur toutz estraungers passantz parmye le dit meer tiel imposition à l’oeps nostre dit seignour le Roy apprendre qui à luy semblera resonable, pur la salve garde del dit meer.”
[46] Rotuli Scotiæ, i. 442, “Nos advertentes quod progenitores nostri reges Angliæ Domini Maris Anglicani circumquaque et etiam defensores contra hostium invasiones ante hæc tempora extiterint,” &c. Part of the language of this mandate was copied by Charles I. in his ship-money writs. See p. 211.
[47] Fœdera, iv. 722. “Consideratio etiam quod progenitores nostri, Reges Angliæ, in hujusmodi turbationibus, inter ipsos et alios terrarum exterarum dominos motis, domini maris et transmarini passagii, totis præteritis temporibus, extiterunt,” &c.
[48] Nicolas, op. cit., ii. 49, 106.
[49] Political Poems, ii. 157. The author states that it was coined after Edward captured Calais, when
“The see was kepte, and thereof he was lorde, Thus made he nobles coigned of recorde.”
But Edward did not take Calais till 1347, while the noble was issued in July 1344. Nicolas, loc. cit.
[50] Oppenheim, A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy, i. 7.
[51] Cunningham, op. cit., 361. In the Libelle it is asked--
“Wher ben our shippes, wher ben our swerdes become? Our enmyes bid for the ship set a sheep”;
and the rubric of an anonymous commentator states that the advice quoted was owing to the fact that while in the time of Edward III. the English were lords of the sea, they were now in these days mad (vecordes), vanquished, and for waging war and guarding the sea, like sheep. The jest is also alluded to by Capgrave, Liber de Illustribus Henricis, 135.
[52] “Tous les pays tenoient et appelloient nostre avandit seigneur, le Roi de la Mier.”
[53] Rot. Parl., ii. 311.
[54] Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xxvi.
[55] Animadversions, 108.
[56] Nicolas, op. cit., i. 156, but cf. ii. 481; Hannay, A Short History of the Royal Navy, 15. Hannay, as well as the writer of the naval articles in Social England (i. 138), was not apparently aware of the labours of Sir Travers Twiss mentioned in the text.
[57] The Black Book of the Admiralty, i. Intro. xiii et seq., 129; iii. Intro. i, x.
[58] “Item ordonne estoit a Hastynges pour loy et coustumes de mer ou temps du roy Johan lan de son regne second par advys de ses seigneurs temporelz que se le lieutenant en aucun voyage ordonne par commun conseil du royalme encontrent sur la mer aucunes nefz ou vesseaux chargees ou voide que ne veullent avaller et abbesser leurs trefs ou commandement du lieutenant du roy ou de ladmiral du roy, ou son lieutenant, mais combatant encontre iceulx de la flotte que silz puent estre pris quilz soient reputez comme ennemys et leurs nefs, vesseaulx, et bien pris et forfaitz comme biens des ennemys tout soit que les maistres ou possesseurs dicelles vouldroient venir apres et alleguer mesmes les nefs, vesseaulx, et biens estre biens des amys du roy nostre seigneur, et que le mayne estant en icelles soient chastiez par emprisonnement de leur corps pour leur rebellete par discrecion.” The above is given by Twiss from the Whitehall MS. of the eighteenth century; it does not materially differ from the others. The Cottonian MS., which is stated to be the earliest and purest, reads in both places “le lieutenant du roy ou ladmiralle du roy ou soun lieutenant.”
[59] The Black Book, Intro. xix, lxxvii. It is Vespasian MSS., B. xxii.
[60] The Black Book, iii. Intro. viii, x. See p. 410.
[61] Collection des Lois Maritimes, iv. 199.
[62] Collection des Lois Maritimes, i. Intro. pp. li, 129; iii. Intro. p. xi.
[63] Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xxvi.
[64] “Quanquam tamen, ad primam vocem ipsorum Anglicorum, idem Johannes Willes velum suum declinavit,” &c., Fœdera, viii. 273; “omnes tamen inermes, et velum suum, ad primum clamorem Anglicorum declinantes,” ibid., 277.
[65] Chancery Rolls, Misc. Treaties and Diplomatic, Bdle. 14, No. 15. It is endorsed De Superioritate Maris Angliæ et Jure Officii Admirallatus in eodem. There are several copies on separate membranes in the bundle--viz., 1, 8, 12, 14, 15,--and they differ from one another, as indicated in the transcript in Appendix A. Prynne (Animadversions, 109) says that besides the roll in the Tower from which Lord Coke and Selden quoted, he discovered “an ancient copy of it in the White Tower Chapple,” and among the Admiralty papers is a memorandum by Nicholas, undated, but before 1631, on the records in the Tower respecting the Laws of Oleron and the Sovereignty of the Seas, in which he says that “in ye little closset there” a record in French exists, dated in the time of Edw. I. or II., referring to the depredations of Grimbald. There is also a transcript in a collection of MSS. in the British Museum (Harleian, 4314) and a translation of the roll, in a hand of the seventeenth century, in MS. Otho. E. ix. fol. 14.
[66] Fourth Institute, cap. 22, p. 142.
[67] Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xxvii., xxviii., xx., xxiv.
[68] Rot. Pat., 26 Edw. I., part 2, memb. 24, in dorso.
[69] Fœdera, i. 954.
[70] Selden, op. cit., lib. ii. c. xxvii., quoting from Rot. Pat., 31 Edw. I., m. 16, which reads as follows: “Des enterprises, mesprises, et forfaitz en Treue ou en Sufferance, entre nous et le dit Roi de Fraunce, dune part et dautre, es costeres de la mer Dengleterre et autres per decea et ausint per deuers Normandie et autres costeres de la mer per de la.”
[71] The King of France ordered John de Pedrogue, a celebrated seaman of Calais, to collect a fleet there and proceed with it to Holland against the Count of Flanders, who had invested Zierikzee. Included in the fleet were eleven Genoese galleys, under Reyner de Grimaldi, who was given the chief command by Philip, with the title of “Admiral,” John de Pedrogue acting under him. Nicolas (op. cit., i. 373) gives a description of the fight.
[72] The translation, for which I am indebted to Miss E. Salisbury, is from membrane 12.
[73] The expression is also used in a document of 1297, when Lord William de Leybourne is described as “Admiral of the sea of the said King of England.” Fœdera, i. 861.
[74] Coke (op. cit., 143) states that this refers to “De Botetourt,” who, he says, was Admiral “of the sea coasting upon Yarmouth in Norfolk (right over against France) and of that station in anno 22 Edw. I.” Nicolas (op. cit., i. 270, 407) states that Sir John de Botetourt was made commander of the northern fleet in 1293, and in the following year, when Edward divided his fleet into three squadrons, the ships of Yarmouth and the adjacent ports were placed under his charge.
[75] The rest is on the back of the membrane.
[76] The part within brackets is to be found on the membranes 1, 14_d_, and 15, but not on 12.
[77] Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xxvii. Hall, in his excellent Treatise on International Law (p. 141), and with reference apparently to this roll, says that exclusive dominion over the English seas by the English king was acknowledged as early as 1299 (sic), at a commission in Paris, by the representatives of the merchants and mariners of the countries mentioned in the above document.
[78] See Appendix A.
[79] Chancery Miscel. Rolls, France, Bdl. 5, No. 6.
[80] See translation in Appendix B.
[81] Chancery Rolls, Misc., Bdle. 14, n. 15, memb. 4.
[82] “Infrascripti sunt articuli generales super quibus et fines ad quos Justiciarii domini nostri Regis sunt consulend’, et dominus noster Rex de eorum consilio certificand’ in Cancellar’ sua in scriptis citra festum, &c.
“Item ad finem, quod resumatur et continuetur ad subditorum prosecucionem forma procedendi quondam ordinata et inchoata per avum Domini nostri Regis et ejus consilium ad retinendum et conservandum antiquam Superioritatem Maris Angliæ et jus officii Admirallatus in eodem, quoad corrigendum, interpretandum, declarandum, et conservandum leges et statuta per ejus antecessores Angliæ Reges dudum ordinata ad conservandum pacem et Justitiam inter omnes gentes nacionis cujuscunque per Mare Angliæ transeuntes, et ad cognoscendum super omnibus in contrarium attemptatis in eodem, et ad puniendum delinquentes et dampna passis satisfaciendum; quæ quidem leges et statuta per Dominum Ricardum quondam Regem Angliæ in reditu suo a Terrâ Sancta correcta fuerunt, interpretata, declarata, et in Insula Oleron publicata, et nominata in Gallica lingua La loy Olyroun.”
According to Godolphin (A View of the Admiral Jurisdiction, 1661), the “form of proceedings” refers to the statute of the Writ of Consultation, 24 Edw. I., with regard to the proceedings of the Courts. The following is on another membrane in the same roll (mem. 2_d_), which contains ordinances agreed upon between the masters and mariners of England, Bayonne, and Flanders, at Bruges, 8th March 1286. It is in the handwriting of the time of Edward III.
“Item a la fin qe veues et considerees les formes des proces et des lettres ordeinees per les consaillers le dit aiel nostres seigneur le Roi pur eux et la dite nacioun Dengleterre a recouerer et receuer les ditz subgitz aidaunz et alliez et a faire redresser a eux toux les damages a eux donez en Mier et en terre duraunz les dites trewes pees et confederaciouns et countre la forme dycelles par les ditz Fraunceys aidaunz et alliez et eschuire clamour de poeple sur la dite denatureste, &c., et les damages quiex de tiel clamour purroient auenir et especialment a retenir et meintener la souereignete qe ses ditz auncestres Rois Dengleterre soleyent auoir en la dite mier Dengleterre quant alamendement declaracioun et interpretacioun des lois per eux faites a gouerner toutes maneres des gentz passanz per la dite mier. Et primerement a son admirail et as meistres et mariners des nefs des Sync Portz Dengleterre et des autres terres annex a la Corone Dengleterre entendaunt a sa armee en la dite mier pur retenir et meyntenir la garde des lois auauntdites et la puniscioun de toux faitz al encountre en la mier susdite Semblables formes des proces et lettres soient desors tenues od toux les amendementz quiex purrount estre ordeinez par le sage Counsail nostre Seignur le Roi a profist et honur de lui et des soens.”
[83] Twiss (Black Book of the Admiralty, ii. xliii; ii. xi), who collected the old sea laws of Europe, states that the most ancient extant source of modern marine law are the Decisions of the Consuls of the Sea of the City of Trani, on the shores of the Adriatic, which purport to be of the date A.D. 1063; and that the next most ancient are the Judgments of Oleron, of which there are still copies, belonging to the reign of Edward II., in the archives of the Guildhall, for use no doubt in the City court, which administered the Law Merchant and the Law Maritime.
[84] Op. cit., i. 484.
[85] Op. cit.
[86] Op. cit. The specification of the duties within the cognisance of the Admiralty occupies several pages; they included “all cases of seizures and captures made at sea, whether jure belli publicis, or jure belli privati by way of reprisals, or jure nullo by way of piracy ... all causes of spoil and depredations at sea; robberies and pyracies,” &c., &c.
[87] M’Pherson, Annals of Commerce, i. 475, 485, quoting from Fœdera.
[88] 18 Edw. III., st. 2, cap. 3. Several articles in the Black Book show the same desire to encourage foreign merchants, and severe penalties were prescribed for the robbing or wronging of foreign ships, or interference with their freedom to trade.
[89] The Reading of the Famous and Learned Robert Callis, Esqr., upon the Statute of Sewers, 23 Hen. VIII., c. 5, &c., 1622; ed. 1824, p. 48.
[90] “Sur la mere d’Engleterre, devers les parties de Craudon.”
[91] “Et prierent que le Roi, de sa seignurie et poer real, fait sente dreit et punissement del dit fait, de siccome il est seigneur de la mer, et la dite roberie fut fait sur la mer dans son poer, sicomme dessus est dit.”
[92] Nicolas, who gives the details referred to, says that there is no record of these proceedings in the rolls of Parliament. Op. cit., i. 388.
[93] “Et cum dicti nuncii ad tractandum de novo super hujusmodi dampnis per dictum dominum nostrum Regem admissi fuissent, ipsi nuncii, prout alii nuncii præfati Comitis, in tractatibus supradictis, inter cetera quæ requirebant, ante omnia supplicabant, ut dictus dominus Rex ad sectam suam de potestate sua Regia inquiri et justitiam faceret de quadam deprædatione quibusdam hominibus de Flandria nuper de vinis et aliis diversis mercimoniis suis super mare Anglicanum, versus partes de Crauden, infra potestatem dicti domini nostri Regis, per homines de regno Angliæ. Ut dicebant facta asserentes quod vina et mercimonia prædicta eisdem Flandrensibus deprædata adducta, fuerunt infra regnum et potestatem dicti domini Regis, et quod ipse est dominus dicti maris, et deprædatio prædicta facta fuit supra dictum mare infra potestatem suam.” Rot. Pat., 14 Edw. II., pt. ii. m. 26, in dorso. Selden quotes this document (lib. ii. c. xxix.), but his text varies from the above, thus: “... potestatem dicti domini Regis, et quod ad ipsum Regem pertinuit sic facere pro eo quod ipse est dominus dicti maris.”
[94] Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xxix. p. 282.
[95] That “Crowdon” was in Brittany appears from a letter, dated from Plymouth, 9th December 1402, from Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Lincoln, the Earl of Somerset, and the Earl of Worcester, who were sent to escort Joan of Navarre, Duchess of Brittany, the second wife of Henry IV., to England. “Et par fin force pur un temps nous faut demurrer en Bretaigne car la ou nous avoioms envoie au dite nostre treshonuree et tresredoutee dame pur venir, noz niefs ne poiont ne osent aler en le temps dyver. Et faut qele eit un leisir pur venir pardevers nous, dont le havene que nous pensoms aler ove leide de Dieu est Crowdon.”--Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, i. 190.
[96] Allard, Du Poisson, considéré comme Aliment dans les Temps anciens et modernes.
[97] Garrad, The Arte of War.
[98] In the itinerary of a journey from England made by a Scottish nobleman to join Edward I. in Scotland, it is recorded that herrings were purchased nearly every day--at Dunstable, Newport, Northampton, Leicester, Nottingham, Sherburn, &c. Sixty fresh herrings at York, nearly forty miles from the sea in a straight line, cost eightpence, and fresh haddocks and codlings were also bought.
[99] “Prohibeo etiam firmiter ne quis decimas suas eis injuste detineat sicut habuerunt in tempore regis Davidis super meum forisfactum et ne quis in aquis eorum piscari presumat ... nisi per eorum licentiam.”
[100] Fœdera, ii. 23. “Gent de Flaundres estre venuz sur mer, come Pescheurs,” &c.
[101] Ibid., ii. 37. The Flemish fishermen had probably gone up the Tweed after salmon.
[102] Ibid., ii. 688, dated 28th September. “Quia intelleximus quod multi homines, de partibus Hollandiæ, Zelandiæ et etiam Frislandiæ, qui sunt de amicitia nostra, ad piscandum in mari nostro, prope Jernemuth,” &c.
[103] Lundberg, Det Stora sillfisket i Skåne under medeltiden oeh nyare tidens början. Worms, Hist. commerciale de la Ligue Hanséatique.
[104] Fruin, Tien Jaren uit den Tachtigjarigen Oorlog, 181.
[105] Brit. Mus. MSS. Galba, B. iii. 16. Henry apparently acceded to the request; vide “John Heron’s accompte for waftynge of the herring fleete in the parties of Norfolk and Suffolk, anno quarto R. Henrici VIII.” State Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Hen. VIII., i. 1512.
[106] Ljungman, Nägra ord om de stora Bohus-länska Sillfiskeri.
[107] Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xxi.
[108] Rot. Pat., 22 Edw. IV., m. 2; ibid., 2 Ric. III., i. m. 3; ibid., 3 Hen. VII., part ii. dorso; Mare Clausum, lib. ii. xxi.
[109] The Statutes at Large passed in the Parliaments held in Ireland, i. 30. 5 Edw. IV., c. vi. “An Act that no Ship or other Vessel of any Foreign Country shall go to the Fishing in the Irish Countries, and for Custom to be paid of the Vessel that cometh from Foreign Lands to Fishing.”
[110] Britannia, Gough’s edition, ii. 248.
[111] A Pollitique Platt, &c.
[112] State Papers, Dom., James I., xlviii. 94.
[113] Malines, Lex Mercatoria, 189, from whom Selden quotes it, with the remark, “There are some also who affirm that the King of Spain,” &c. Mare Clausum, ii. c. xxx. It is also given by Boroughs and other writers.
[114] State Papers, Dom., Charles I., clxxx. 96.
[115] One of the licenses, which ran for a year, is printed in Appendix C. The Zowe was described in 1630 as “a bank which lies between Rye and Dieppe, and the outermost part is nearly one-third over the sea. This zowe which they call the small zowe is 3 leagues long and 3 broad, and 26 and 28 fathoms deep. The French make it 10 leagues, because they fish till they bring Beachy Head N., fayre Loo (? Fairlea, Fairlight) W.N.W., and fish in 30 fathoms.” Sir H. Mainwaring to Coke, “A Short Discourse or Propositions concerning the French fishing uppon the Zowe, theyr abusing it, and the Remedy” (ibid.) It was described as the “chief nursery for turbetts, hollibatts, pearles (brill), soules, weavers and gurnetts.” In Queen Elizabeth’s time only four licenses were granted, but James increased the number to fourteen or fifteen. They were carefully entered in the records of Dover Castle and the Hundred Book of Rye.
[116] Henrici de Bracton, Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ, lib. i. c. 12; lib. iii. c. 3. Rolls Series, Introd., by Sir Travers Twiss, i. ii. Güterbock, Henricus de Bracton und sein Verhältniss zum Römischen Rechte, 14, 55.
[117] Fœdera, v. 719. “Il est convenu, &c., &c. Item, que pessoners de la seignurie del roi de Castelle et del counte de Viscay peussent venir et pescher fraunchement et sauvement en les portz d’Engleterre et de Bretaigne, et en touz autres lieux et portz où ils vorrontz, paiantz les droits et les custumes à les seignurs du pais.”
[118] Ibid., v. 763.
[119] Fœdera, viii. 306, 336. “Q’en ceste presente harenguison les pescheurs de l’une part et d’autre puissent pescher plus seurement en la mer la harenk et toutz autres poissons, depuis hable de Grauelinguez et l’isle de Tanent, jusques a l’entree de la riviere de Saine, et au hable de Hautoune.”
[120] Ibid., viii. 451.
[121] Fœdera, viii. 459. “Pro Piscatoribus, sub Dominio Ducis Burgundiæ: ... toutz pescheurs, tant de nostre dit roiaume d’Engleterre et de Caleis, et dez autres noz villes et lieux, come dez ditz conte et paiis de Flandres, dez paiis de Picardie, de Normandie, et de Bretaigne, et generalment de tut le dit roiaume de Fraunce, puissent paisiblement aler par tout sur meer, pur peschier et gaigner lour vivre, saunz en estre reprins ne empeschiez en ascun manere ... et par ainsi que semblablement soit fait et otroie, de lez dites parties de Flandres, Picardie, Normandie, Bretaigne, et autres del dit roiaume de Fraunce, a la seurte dez ditz pescheours de nostre dit roiaume d’Engleterre.”
[122] Ibid., viii. 469, 472. Dumont, Corps Universel Diplomatique du Droit des Gens, &c., II. i. 302. Proc. and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, i. 282.
[123] Ibid., viii. 530, 548, “Et les pescheurs generalment aler pescher sur mer pour gaignier leur vivre paisiblement.”
[124] Fœdera, ix. 483.
[125] Rot. Parl., iii. 643_b_.
[126] Pikes and bows and arrows were used. Later, in the early part of the seventeenth century, a regular part of the equipment of a herring-buss was half-pikes and muskets, an estimate for one being--ten half-pikes, £1; muskets with bandaleers, rests, and moulds, £6, with 6 lb. of gunpowder and 6 lb. of leaden bullets.
[127] Fœdera, x. 730, 736, 761, 791. The article on the fishery was as follows: “Que tous pescheurs, tant d’Engleterre, d’Irlande, et de Calais, comme des paiis de Brabant et de Flandres, pourront paisiblement aler par tout sur mer, pour peschier et gaignier leur vivre, sans empeschement ou destourber de l’une partie ne de l’autre. Et avec ce, se fortune ou autre aventure chassoit ou amenoit les diz pescheurs de la partie d’Engleterre, en aucun des ports, havres, destrois, et daugiers des dites paiis de Brabant ou de Flandres, ou les diz pescheurs des dites paiis de Brabant et de Flandres en aucuns des dites ports, havres, destrois, ou daugiers du royaume d’Engleterre, Yrland, et de Calais, que ilz y soient paisiblement et franchement receuz et traictiez raisonnablement d’une coste et d’autre, en paiant aux lieux, ou ils arriveront, les toulieux et devoirs accoustumez, et d’illec puissent liberalment retourner a tout leurs nefs, applois, et biens sans destourbier, arrest, ne empeschement; pourveu que, par les diz pescheurs, d’un coste et d’autre, ne soit commise aucune fraude, ou fait dommaige.” Intercursus continuandus pro spatio duodecim annorum inter Anglos et Flandros, Gandanos, Iperos et civitatis de Brabant. Ibid., xi. 143.
[128] “Et pur toutz sez autres paiis et seigneuries.”
[129] “Et sans qu’il leur soit bosoigne sur ceo requirer ne opteiner ascune license, congie, ou saufconducte.” 5 Jan. 1467/1468. Ibid., xi. 591, 592, 595, 609. Dumont, op. cit., III. i. 592.
[130] Dumont, III. i. 400.
[131] Fœdera, xi. 683.
[132] Ibid., xii. 67. In 1484 Richard III. issued a commission to Thomas Lye, sergeant-at-arms, to make restitution for fishing-boats belonging to subjects of Maximilian, Duke of Austria, which had been taken, laden with fish, by English pirates. Ibid., xii. 227.
[133] “Item, conventum, concordatum et conclusum est quod piscatores utriusque partis partium prædictarum (cujuscunque conditionis existant) poterunt ubique ire, navigare per mare, secure piscari absque aliquo impedimento licentia seu salvo conductu: Et, si contingat aliquos ex piscatoribus unius partis per fortunam, tempestatem maris, vim hostium, aut alio modo compelli intrare aliquem portum vel districtum alterius partis, ibidem pacifice et amicabiliter recipientur et tractabuntur (solvendo in locis ubi applicabunt jura et theolonia prædicta) et ab illis portubus et locis poterunt libere recedere et redire, cum eorum navibus et bonis, sine impedimento vel contradictione quacunque; dummodo tamen per ipsos piscatores non committatur fraus neque dolus, seu per eos aliis dampnum minime fiat.” 24 Feb. (1495)/(1496). Fœdera, xii. 583. Dumont, III. ii. 338.
[134] Fœdera, xii. 714; xiii. 132, 539, 714.
[135] Ships of war were used to convoy the herring-busses of Holland and Zealand at least as early as 1440.
[136] Cal. State Papers, Foreign and Domestic, iii. Nos. 1534, 1535.
[137] Fœdera, xiii. 752. Dumont, IV. i. 352.
[138] Dumont, IV. i. 515. “Pourront aussi les Sujets des Païs, Roiaumes, Terres et Seigneuries dessusdites, librement, et sans détourbier, ni empêchement, pêcher à harangs, et autres poissons en la mer, où ladite Treve aura lieu, et là où la pêche dudit harang s’adonera, comme ils faisoient avant la Guerre, et pourroient et sont accoûtumez de faire au tems de Paix.”
[139] Fœdera, ii. 529, 545. Mieris, Groot Charterboek der Graaven van Holland, &c., ii. 268; iii. 257; iv. 223, 378, 692, 816. Kluit, Historiæ Federum Belgii Federati, 284. Yair, An Account of the Scotch Trade in the Netherlands, 6, 27, 36.
[140] Mieris, op. cit., iv. 146. About this time the Scots also did their best to drive away English fishermen from their coasts. In 1400 they fitted out a small fleet under Sir Robert Logan for this purpose, but it was apparently insufficient, and Logan himself was captured by the men of Lynn. Walsingham, Hist. Anglicana, 364. In 1420 complaint was made to the English Parliament that the Scots had at divers times attacked and taken English fishing vessels. Rot. Parl., iv. 127_a_.
[141] State Papers, Dom., Charles I., clii. 63. See p. 218.
[142] “Dat hy voorhadt, de haringvisscherij omtrent zyne kusten te beletten.” Wagenaar, Vaderlandsche Historie, v. 209.
[143] Resol. Staten van Holl., 5/15 September 1540. Bosgoed, Bib. Pisc., 319.
[144] Treaty of Binche, 9/19 February 1540/1541. Dumont, op. cit., IV. ii. 208.
[145] “Et quant au dernier article de la commission du Sr. de Limdy [Lundy] ambassadeur, concernant le fait de la pescherie, ladite Dame Reine [the Queen Dowager of Hungary and Bohemia] veuille par bonne et meure deliberation proceder en telles et semblables affaires, se fera informer sur le contenu dudit article, pour après en ordonner comme il sera trouvé étre de raison, équité, et justice d’une part et d’autre pour la conservation de la paix et amitié mutuelle desdits Sieurs.” Op. cit., and see footnote next page.
[146] Wagenaar, op. cit., 355.
[147] Res. St. Holl., (29 Nov.)/(9 Dec.) 1544; (23 Feb.)/(5 Mar.) 1545, &c. Bosgoed, op. cit., 320.
[148] Dumont, IV. iii. 12. “Circa piscationem verò ac liberum usum maris, ea quæ per supradictum Tractatum anno 1541, 19 Februarii, Binchii inter Serenissimam Reginam Mariam et supra nominatum Oratorem Regis Scotiæ; inita, conclusa ac conventa fuerint debite ac sincere observari debebunt.”
[149] In 1618, when there was much searching of the records in Scotland (where they were kept in a most careless and slovenly manner) to establish the claim of James to the fishing in connection with the approaching visit of the Dutch ambassadors, the Earl of Dunfermline wrote to Lord Binning in London, forwarding a copy, in French, of the treaty of 1541, and said, “Albeit ye will perseive by the last article of the same annent the propositions of the fishings, the Queen of Hungarie and Bohemia, who was for the Emperour Governant of the Low Countries--we call her commonly Frow Mary--in that takes her to further advysement with her Councill, and no thing resolved if any further proceeding; I pray God ye may find it otherwayes.” MSS. Advoc. Lib., 31. 2. 16.
[150] The heads of the treaty and the ratifications are given by Dumont, Corps Diplomatique, V. i. 507. The treaty itself is published in full by Bor, Vervolgh Vande Nederlantssche Oorlogen ende Geschiedenissen, iv. fol. 48-52.
[151] E.g., in 1573, that “all maner of fischeris that occupyis the sey and vtheris persounis quhatsumeuer” that catch herrings or white fish “vpon the coist or within the Ilis or outwith the samin within the Fyrthis” should bring them to free ports to be sold. Acta Parl. Scot., iii. c. 7.
[152] Leslie, De Origine Moribus et Rebus Gestis Scotorum, 24. A point of land near Inveraray in Loch Fyne was long known, and is still known, as Frenchman’s Point or French Farl, the tradition being that it was to this place that herrings were brought to be sold and cured. Old Statistical Account of Scotland, v. 291.
[153] Register Privy Council of Scotland, i. 482.
[154] De Dominio Maris, 16. In another work Welwood says, “And for the eastern seas, direct from Scotland, what is more antiently notorious than that covenant twixt Scottish men and Hollanders, concerning the length of their approaching toward Scotland by way of fishing.” An Abridgement of All Sea Lawes, c. 26.
[155] Register Privy Council of Scotland, iv. 216.
[156] Much information on the fisheries of the Netherlands will be found in Professor A. Beaujon’s History of Dutch Sea Fisheries, 1884.
[157] 33 Hen. VIII., c. 2.
[158] 37 Hen. VIII., c. 23; 5 & 6 Edw. VI., c. 17; 7 Edw. VI., c. 11; 1 Mary, st. 2, c. 13.
[159] Acts of the Privy Council of England, i. 103, 104, 106, 112, 114, an. 1543.
[160] 2 & 3 Edw. VI., c. 19. Certain exceptions, of those licensed, ill, or very old, or in prison, were made.
[161] State Papers, Dom., Addenda, Edw. VI., iv. 56. The paper, which is endorsed by Cecil, “The Answer of the Fishmongers,” is undated, but that it belongs to the reign of Edward VI. (1547-1553) is proved by the words, “the reign of our late sovereign, Henry VIII.” The return of 1528, referred to by the fishmongers, is among the State Papers (Foreign and Domestic Letters and Papers, Hen. VIII., iv. pt. 2, No. 5101). It states that 149 vessels went to the Iceland fishing, mostly from Yarmouth, Blakeney, Cromer, Dunwich, Walderswick, and Southwold; the herring-fishing in the North Sea employed 222, of which 110 belonged to the Cinque Ports, while 69 went to Shetland, the total being 440. Shetland lings were in those days greatly prized, and brought very high prices.
[162] State Papers, Dom., Addenda, Edw. VI., iv. 57. “The decaied Porte Townes w^{th} nombers of good villages a longe by the sea cost of this realm, within these twentie or thirtie years;” undated, but belonging to the same period, with Cecil’s calculations written on the back.
[163] State Papers, Dom., Elizabeth, xxvii. 71, February 1563. Endorsed, “Arguments for Increase of the Navy,” and “Arguments to prove that it is necessary for the restoring of the navy of England to have one Day more in ye weeke ordained to be a fish day, and that to be Wensday rather than any other.”
[164] The exportation, without license, of herrings, among other things, had been forbidden by 1 & 2 Ph. and Mary, c. 5 (1554); but by 1 Eliz., c. 17, subjects were permitted to export sea fish taken by subjects in English ships free of customs for four years.
[165] “The causes of the decay of fishing must be the lack of the vse of fishing, which must be divided into ij partes, small eating of fisshe in ye Realme, and not selling of it abroad.”
[166] The number of French vessels engaged in the Newfoundland fisheries is placed at 500, with 15,000 men; and over 100, with at least 1000 men, fished at Iceland for “herrings,”--but no doubt for cod and ling.
[167] There are many other memoranda amongst the State Papers, some in Cecil’s handwriting, which deal with fish-days. One gives in detail a note of all the fish-days throughout the year, amounting to 186, and in addition “a number of sayntes evens were fastyng dayes that now be not observed.” Ibid., xxxi. 41, 42 (1563).
[168] 5 Eliz. c. 5. The debate on the Wednesday proposal lasted three days, the clause being ultimately carried by 179 to 97 (Commons Journals, i. 68). It was in view of the expected opposition that the long paper above referred to was prepared. The Wednesday was not put on quite the same footing as the Fridays and Saturdays, since “one only usual competent dish of flesh and no more” was allowed, provided that at the same table “three full competent usual dishes of sea fish of sundry kinds, either fresh or salt,” were served and eaten “without fraud or covin.” Another clause explained that the object was “meant politically for the increase of fishermen and mariners, and repairing of port towns and navigation”, and not for any superstition “regarding choice of meats”; any one stating the contrary was to be punished.
[169] Among the imports of fish from the Low Countries at this time were “cods-heads, cod-fish, eels, ‘gull-fish,’ haddocks, herrings, ling, salmon, salt-fish, sturgeon, and ‘staple-fish.’” Hall, A History of the Customs Revenue in England, ii. 237.
[170] State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xxxv. 36.
[171] 13 Eliz., c. 11.
[172] State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xlviii. 83.
[173] Hatfield MSS., i. 1177, 27th June 1568.
[174] 13 Eliz., c. 11. In the preamble it is said the former Act “is a very good Act, and greatly increased the navy and fishermen.”
[175] State Papers, Dom., Eliz., lxxv. 16.
[176] In the same year the author, at a dinner he gave at Westminster to the burgesses representing “all the stately port towns of England,” explained the substance of his “plat”; several of them suggested that a subsidy should be raised on land and goods to set the scheme afloat; and the Speaker remarked that “a Parliament had been called for a less cause.”
[177] Burghley Papers, A.D. 1572, MSS. Lansd. 14, No. 30. As the catalogue states, the signature is erased, and the paper is entered as anonymous; but careful scrutiny shows that it was signed “Rob^{t.} Hitchcock.”
[178] A Pollitique Platt for the honour of the Prince, the greate profite of the publique state, relief of the poore, preseruacion of the riche, reformation of Roges and Idle persones, and the wealthe of thousandes that knowes not howe to liue. Written for an Newyeres gift to Englande and the inhabitantes thereof, by Robert Hitchcok, late of Cauersfeelde, in the Countie of Buckyngham, Gentleman. London, 1st Januarie 1580.
[179] In the early MS. copy presented to the Queen the 400 vessels were to be from 100 to 200 tons, costing £400 each, and the crew was to consist of a master, nine mariners, and thirty “rogues and lustie vagabonds” obtained in the same forcible way.
[180] This place, frequently mentioned in old works and papers referring to the fisheries, was Vardö, or Vardöhuus, at the mouth of the Varangerfjord, Finmarken, on the north-east coast of Norway, or, as it was often described, Lapland. The king of Denmark had a castle on the island, and dues had to be paid for liberty to fish. A number of English vessels went there in spring, returning towards the end of summer.
[181] In France at this time, according to other records, Flemish herrings brought £25 per last; Yarmouth, £10; Irish, £18; “coast” herrings and Scotch, £11.
[182] The Pollitique Platt is earnest and even religious in tone, and it is obvious that the author spent much time in collecting the information and elaborating his scheme, which in all sincerity was meant for the good of his country. Even after three centuries one learns with regret (from his letter preserved at Hatfield) that he had to petition the Privy Council, “for his relief and maintenance in these his now declining years” (1596), to cause every innkeeper, &c., to purchase from him, for sixpence, and put up publicly, a printed table, or “breviate,” describing the “benefits that growe to this Realme by the Observance of Fish-Daies.”
[183] Better known by its running title, The Brytish Monarchie. It is a very rare work, only 100 copies having been printed. The author’s own copy is in the British Museum.
[184] P.7.
[185] Sir John Constable’s case. Moore, Hist. Foreshore, 225, from Hargrave MSS., 15, fol. 95_d_. In the case for the crown the claim to the sea is very briefly put: “Car quant est floud est parcel del mere que est solement en le Roign et nemy en ascun subject; car est pur passage pur chescun, mes owner de ceo nul si non le Roign.” Anderson, Les Reports du Treserudite, i. 86. (ed. 1664). In a MS. in the Cottonian collection (Galba, C. 11, “Acta inter Angliam et Belgium, 1564-1567”) it is said the jurisdiction of the Prince in the adjoining sea extends for a distance of 100 miles unless (1) in seas lying between the territories of two princes which contain less than a hundred miles, in which case it extends to the mid-line--usq’ ad mediũ eiusdem maris extenditur; (2) where another prince has a right to the whole sea. The authorities referred to are Bartolus, Angelus, Paulus de Castro, and Joan de Platea.
[186] Op. cit., 21.
[187] Two MS. copies exist, one bound up with Dee’s copy of the General and Rare Memorials in the British Museum, which was sent to Dyer with the MS., the other in Harleian MSS. 249, fol. 95. The latter, which is a draft, is addressed “To my very honorable frende Syr Edward Dyer, Knight,” and a note inscribed on it says, “Written by Dr John Dee, out of whose library I bought it after his death A^o D^o 1625, S.D.” The title on both MSS. is ΘΑΛΑΤΤΟΚΑΡΤΙΑ ΒΡΕΤΤΑΝΙΚΗ: Miscelanea quædam extemporanea de Imperii Britannici Iurisdictione in Mari; and both are dated 8th September 1597.
[188] Lat. 49° 6´ N., long. 2° 49´ W.
[189] “All those that pass within our sea jurisdiction (either absolute or respective) and therein commit any notable offence against us may lawfully by our power be taken; and the same offenders may as lawfully and justly be punished, as if on our land territory an offence like, or of like degree of injury, were by them against us committed.” “Absolute” jurisdiction applied to the sea where both coasts belonged to England; “respective” where it terminated half seas over.
[190] In 1597 Dee expressed his grief and surprise that so little had been done or attempted with regard to the sovereignty of the sea, “and so my labours (after a sort) vaynely employed.” MS.
[191] Bullarium Romanum Novissimum, i. 346. “Insulæ novi Orbis à Ferdinando Hispaniarum Rege, et Elisabeth Regina repertæ, et reperiendæ, conceduntur eisdem, propagandæ fidei Christianæ causa ... omnes insulas et terras firmas inventas et inveniendas, detectas ad detegendas versus Occidentem et Meridiem fabricando, et construendo unam lineam à Polo Arctico scilicet Septentrione, ad Polum Antarcticum, scilicet Meridiem, sive terræ firmæ, et insulæ inventæ et inveniendæ sint versus Indiam aut versus aliam quamcumque partem, quæ linea distet à qualibet Insularum, quæ vulgariter nuncupantur de los Azores y cabo vierde, centum læucis versus Occidentem et Meridiem,” &c. Art. 8, “prohibet aliis accessum ad illas insulas pro mercibus habendis absque Regis licentia.”
[192] Harrisse, The Diplomatic History of America, 78.
[193] Selden, Mare Clausum, i. c. xvii.
[194] Selden, loc. cit.
[195] Camden, Annales, 225 (ed. 1635).
[196] Hatfield MSS., ii. 684. “Whether Your Majesty’s Subjects may lawfully trade into the Indies.” Undated, but calendered under the year 1578.
[197] Hautefeuille, _Hist. des Origines, des Progrès, et des Variations du Droit maritime international_, 15. Hall, _A Treatise on International Law_, 142.
[198] Rot. Parl., iv. 79_b_. The petition declared that owing to the fish having deserted the coasts where they used to be taken, the fishermen had been forced to go to Iceland and other places for six or seven years past in order to catch them. English fishermen, however, had frequented Iceland long before that time.
[199] Fœdera, ix. 322.
[200] Rot. Parl., iv. 348, 378. 8 Hen. VI., c. 2.
[201] Fœdera, xii. 381.
[202] Ibid., xiii. 798.
[203] State Papers, Dom., Elizabeth, clxxx. 26, 15th July 1585.
[204] Ibid., ccxiii. 92.
[205] Fœdera, xvi. 278. A license granted in 1570 to an Englishman, one Raymond Binge, for fishing at Iceland for seven years, gave permission for his boats to be kept and wintered in the ports there, on payment of the customs and abstaining from trading, as well as freedom of fishing except where prohibited by royal edicts, reserved for the king’s use, or granted to others. Brit. Mus. Vespasian MSS., C. xiv. fol. 21.
[206] Complaint of the Mayor of Kingston-upon-Hull to Cecil, 2nd July 1599. State Papers, Dom., cclxxi. 68.
[207] Fœdera, xvi. 395, 432.
[208] Brit. Mus. Vespasian MSS., C. xiv. fol. 22. Fœdera, xvi. 431.
[209] State Papers, Dom., cclxxiv.
[210] Fœdera, xvi. 433.
[211] Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MSS., 142, fol. 380.
[212] 23 Eliz., c. 7, 1580-81. Brit. Mus. Lansd. MSS., 14.
[213] 39 Eliz., c. 10.
[214] The price of stock-fish had risen from £12 a last in 1584 to £18 and £20 in 1597, and the price of cured ling in the same time advanced from £3 to £5, 5s. per cwt. State Papers, Dom., cclxv.
[215] A commission of eleven peers, three bishops, and two law-officers had been appointed in 1593 for the repeal of the Act respecting the importation of salted fish and herrings. Ibid., ccxliv. 84.
[216] Ibid., cxlvii. 21, 22.
[217] 27 Eliz., c. 11.
[218] 35 Eliz., c. 7.
[219] Jeninges, A briefe discouery of the damages that happen to this Realme by disordered and vnlawfull diet, 1593. Hitchcock, A briefe note of the benefits that grow to this Realme by the observation of Fish-Daies, Hatfield MSS., 1595. State Papers, Dom., cclxv. 25. Remembrancia, 391 et seq.
[220] Every Man in His Humour, Act 3, sc. 4.
[221] Froude, Hist. England, iii. 69.
[222] King Edward’s Journal, in Burnet, Hist. Reformation, ii. (v. of ed. 1865). Oppenheim, Hist. Administration Roy. Navy, 106.
[223] Acts of the Privy Council of England, iv. 37. 7th May 1552.
[224] Selden, Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xxvi.
[225] Raleigh, A Discourse of the Invention of Ships, Collected Works, viii. 326. Monson, Naval Tracts, in Churchill’s Collection of Voyages and Travels, iii.
[226] Monson, op. cit. Laughton, Fortnightly Review, Aug. 1866.
[227] Froude, op. cit., viii. 68. Laughton, loc. cit.
[228] An undated State Paper, calendared under the year 1604, entitled “Reglement for Preventing Abuses in and about the Narrow Seas,” contains a claim by the king to a most absolute dominion over the Four Seas (State Papers, Dom., James, xi. 40). It appears, however, to be merely a copy of the similar regulation prepared in 1633 by Sir Henry Martin (see p. 252). It is not contained in the volume of royal proclamations published in 1609, and is not referred to by Selden. It has no doubt been wrongly calendared.
[229] It is given in Appendix D, from A Booke of Proclamations, published since the beginning of his Majesties most happy Reigne ouer England, &c., Vntill this present Moneth of Febr. 3, Anno. Dom. 1609. Cum Priuilegio, p. 98.
[230] “Item, conventum et conclusum est, quod, dicto bello durante, nullus subditus principum prædictorum, intra portus et sinus maris quoscumque, flumina, ostia fluminum, gurgites, aquas dulces, stationes navium, et præsertim stationem vulgariter vocatam les Dunes, aut alia loca maritima quæcumque jurisdictioni dicti Regis Angliæ subjecta aliquam navem mercatoriam, onerariam, armatam vel non armatam, onustam seu vacuam, cujuscumque quantitatis aut oneris fuerit, de quacumque natione eadem navis extiterit, capere, spoliare, diripere, seu merces, victualia, aut armamenta quæcumque, ab eisdem navibus, aut earumdem nautis auferre, nec eisdem vim, violentiam, aut molestationem aliquam inferre possit, aut debeat,” &c. Dumont, Corps Diplomatique, IV. i. 352.
[231] This interesting document is printed in Appendix E, from State Papers, Dom., James I., vol. 13 (1605), No. 11; No. 12 is another of the same. It is not the original, but a copy, the names being all in the same hand as the body of the paper. Diligent search among the records has failed to furnish the “plott” referred to, but there is no reason to doubt that the reproduction of it by Selden (Mare Clausum, lib. ii. c. xxii.), and shown here on fig. 3, is an accurate representation. Selden states that the plott or chart was engraved, and copies sent to the officers concerned.
[232] It will be noticed from fig. 4, where the lines between the headlands are shown on a modern map, that some of the “chambers” on the east coast have entirely disappeared, no doubt owing to the erosion or silting up of the coast at those places during the last three hundred years.
[233] In stormy weather as many as 300 or 400 sail of Hollanders took refuge in St George’s Channel at a time. State Papers, Dom., xlv. 23 (1609).
[234] Cunningham, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce, i. 424.
[235] Gardiner, Hist. England, i. 103.
[236] Declaratie van de visscherijen in Holland Zeeland en Vlaanderen. Fruin, Tien Jaren uit den Tachtigjarigen Oorlog, 1588-1598, p. 186.
[237] Descrittione Di M. Lodovico Gvicciardini Patritio Florentino, Di Tvtti i Paesi Bassi, Altrimenti Detti Germania Inferiore, Antwerp, 1567, p. 21. The value of the cod caught was placed at £150,000 sterling per annum.
[238] Hadrianus Junius, Batavia, p. 203. The work was written between 1565 and 1569, and published in 1588.
[239] Hitchcock, A Pollitique Platt. The author says that when he was at the wars in 1553, more than 400 busses were set forth from twelve towns in the Low Countries. Dee, General and Rare Memorials.
[240] Faulconnier, Description Historique de Dunkerque, i. 47, 53, 121.
[241] Van Meteren, Historie der Nederlandscher ende haerder Naburen Oorlogen (1614), fol. 466. This author says the maritime power of the States was shown in the same year, when between 800 and 900 ships departed for the Baltic within the space of two or three days’ tides.
[242] John Keymer’s Observation made upon the Dutch Fishing about the year 1601. Demonstrating that there is more Wealth raised out of Herrings and other Fish in his Majesties Seas, by the neighbouring Nations in one Year, then the King of Spain hath from the Indies in Four. London, Printed from the original Manuscript, for Sir Edward Ford, in the year 1664. Keymer states that he found in Holland more than 20,000 sail of ships and “hoyes,” more than was possessed by England, France, Spain, and other eight countries in Europe. The same figure is given by Sir Thomas Overbury, who visited the Netherlands in 1609 (Observations in his Travels, upon the State of the Seventeen Provinces, 1626).
[243]
Observations touching Trade and Commerce with the Hollander, and Other Nations; presented to King James, wherein is proved that our Sea and Land Commodities serve to enrich and strengthen other Countries against our own. Raleigh’s Collected Works, viii. 351. Oldys, in his Life of Raleigh, which was published in 1736, says there was some reason to doubt whether Sir Walter Raleigh was the author of this treatise: it was first printed in 1653, first associated with Raleigh’s name by being bound up with his “Remains” in 1656, and first definitely said to be Raleigh’s by Roger Coke in his Detection of Court and State; and he gives reasons for the opinion that it was written by John Keymer and not by Raleigh (Collected Works, i. 441). But, as Raleigh’s latest biographer states, Raleigh still has the credit of it (Stebbing, Sir Walter Raleigh, 267). I have, however, found the original signed manuscript copy among the State Papers for 1620 (State Papers, Dom., 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.