Chapter LXVII: Appendix: O (4)

[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.