Chapter LXVIII: Appendix: O (5)

[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_.