Chapter LXX: Appendix: O (7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[850] 16 & 17 Car. II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[857] See p. 617.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[871] See p. 474.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[909] See p. 461.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[916] P. 513.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[968] Maine, _International Law_, 77.

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

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

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

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

[973] _Loc. cit._

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

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

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

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

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

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

[980] See p. 102.

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

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

[983] See p. 35.

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

[985] See p. 547.

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

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

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

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

[990] See p. 528.

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

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

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

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

[995] See p. 119.

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

[997] _Discussiones Historicæ de Mari Libero_, 1637.

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

[999] _Imperium Maritimum_, 1654.

[1000] _Dissertatio de Imperio Maris_, 1676.

[1001] _De Imperio Maris._

[1002] _Jus Maritimum_, 1652.

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

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

[1005] _De Jure Naturæ et Gentium_, 1672.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1013] _Ibid._, cap. ii.

[1014] See p. 381.

[1015] _De Jure Maritimo_, p. 150.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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