Chapter Second: Of the liberty of the Spaniards to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope1. Some may think that this navigation is prohibited to the Spaniards by the treaties of peace, and that on this account we have not established a commerce like that of the Dutch, English, French, Swedes, Danes, and other nations. But it is certain that there is no such prohibition, and that our natural inactivity, laziness, and lack of application to commerce, has been the cause of our not undertaking the aforesaid navigation, which is equally free to us as to all the other powers. For the prohibition that the Englishman, the Dutchman, and the rest can lay upon us is, that our ships may not enter their ports, just as they have been forbidden to enter our ports; but they cannot hinder us from navigating in all the seas of the world, in accordance with natural right and the law of nations. That law does not allow the dominion of the sea to any power, according to Grotius, Heinsius, and others—contrary to theMare clausum[i.e.,“closed sea”], of the Englishman Selden,24who in regard to the dispute of the year 1653 defended the [English] dominion of the White Sea, and the right of forbidding this navigation to the Dutch; but they maintained their freedom with powerful fleets, and with the same arguments which justify the freedom which the Spaniards possess for navigating by way of the Cape of Good Hope.2. As the Dutch have always regarded these islands with suspicion, fearing some injury to their own commerce, they likewise have striven in every way to make amends for the damages which they fear. One of these is the extension of our commerce, because it diminishes their own; and, in order to hinder it, they have sometimes chosen to avail themselves of article 5 in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and of article 10 in that of Utrecht in 1714—in which is confirmed the said article 5, wherein it is provided that “the Spaniards shall retain their navigation to the Eastern Indias, in the same manner as they enjoy it at present, without being authorized to extend it further; as likewise the inhabitants of this Low Country [i.e., Netherlands] shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians possess in the Eastern Indias.” From these expressions, and from the demarcation [made] by the supreme pontiff Alexander Sixth, the Dutch—who claim, by right of conquest, to enjoy the privileges and prerogatives ofthe Portuguese—try to argue that our ships have no right to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope, nor along the regions of Asia—the Coromandel Coast, Vengala, the Red Sea, etc.—intending that these Philipinas Islands shall be the limits of our navigation to the west.3–8. [In section 3, it is shown that the demarcation of Alexander VI was made only to check possible disputes between the great Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, and its provisions referred only to their discoveries of lands and isles, and not at all to the navigation of the sea, which no power can claim, “since it is not fitted for other dominion than that of God.” Section 4 shows that the Portuguese and Spaniards have frequented each other’s ports, without any difficulties arising between them over the navigation of those seas, which has not been and could not be forbidden to the Spaniards; and that even if the Portuguese had had any such exclusive right it could not pass over to the Dutch when they conquered the former nation in India, especially as privileges granted by the Holy See to its Catholic followers could not be claimed by Protestants. In section 5 it is asserted that the previously-cited article 5 of the treaty of Westphalia does not forbid navigation past the Cape of Good Hope, but only the entrance of Spaniards or Dutch into ports belonging to the other power; that navigation on the high seas is, “by natural right, free to all the world,” and the object of the treaty was to protect both powers in their respective possessions and commerce. As further proof of this, Viana cites (in his section 6) the Hague treaty of 1650, and comments on it in section 7. In the following section he shows how the Dutch areclaiming what was never granted by Alexander VI, who separated only the conquests of Spain and Portugal, and not their navigations in the high seas, a distinction which has been observed in the practice of both countries, “who have freely navigated and traded through all the seas of the East and the West.” He claims that Japan and China “are, without doubt, included in the demarcation of Castilla.”]9. Equally within the demarcation of España are included the kingdoms of Siam, Camboja, Cochinchina, and, in the other direction, Borney, the Molucas, and the other islands of the Malays—as was declared in the year 1524, by the geographers appointed for this purpose by the crowns of Castilla and Portugal, to whose decision the respective sovereigns agreed. As for the prohibition of navigation, if the demarcation of Alexander VI were to have been observed, it was clear that the Dutch must admit the right of the Spaniards to prevent their navigation through the seas of the kingdoms and provinces here enumerated, as also through those of Japan and China, to which the Dutch ships go every year; or else that they have not any right to forbid to the Spaniards the navigation by way of the Cape of Good Hope. For by the admission of those very Dutchmen, in a letter which the governor of Batavia wrote to the governor here [at Manila], in regard to a balandra seized by the Spaniards in the island of Mindanao (which belongs to the crown of España, and is within the limits of the aforesaid demarcation), they say that the Spaniards could not enjoy dominion over the rivers and ports of Mindanao, and that only the authority of the petty king there ought to be acknowledged; and they add that it is lawfulfor any power to navigate there, and make observations on the situation of those lands and towns, and to trade therein with the vassals of the princes who possess them. This carries conviction [of the principle] that as little ought the Spaniards to recognize in Eastern India any other authority than that of the princes of the ports and towns where their ships make port; and that it is lawful to navigate through those seas, to reconnoiter those lands, and to trade with their vassals, as has been done hitherto. For our ships have gone to their ports, where they have been well received, as happened recently with the ship named “Guadalupe,” in the past year of 760; and those who have come to this city, under various flags—Moro, Armenian, Malabar, Chinese, Siamese, and others—have met the same friendly reception.10–11. [Viana asserts that, although “long use and immemorial possession may be a certain title to dominion over the sea,” in such instances as that of the Venetians over the Adriatic, and the Greeks over the Ionian, this cannot be true of the claim made by the Dutch (as having conquered the Portuguese settlements) to the dominion of the great seas that lave India and Africa. These waters are too vast to be possessed by any one power, and have always been freely used by all nations. Moreover, the influence of Alexander VI and his successors had always been in favor of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and of the preservation of the law of nations—“which presumption is taken for granted whenever for just cause temporal dominions are changed by the paramount power of the supreme pontiff.”25He also cites Solorzanoto support his contention. The final section repeats the statement that the Dutch cannot forbid the Spaniards to navigate through the seas of India, and past the Cape of Good Hope; and adds, “Would to heaven that we had the eyes to perceive the advantages of this navigation, which are the following.” Thus he prepares for chapter iii.]
Chapter Second: Of the liberty of the Spaniards to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope1. Some may think that this navigation is prohibited to the Spaniards by the treaties of peace, and that on this account we have not established a commerce like that of the Dutch, English, French, Swedes, Danes, and other nations. But it is certain that there is no such prohibition, and that our natural inactivity, laziness, and lack of application to commerce, has been the cause of our not undertaking the aforesaid navigation, which is equally free to us as to all the other powers. For the prohibition that the Englishman, the Dutchman, and the rest can lay upon us is, that our ships may not enter their ports, just as they have been forbidden to enter our ports; but they cannot hinder us from navigating in all the seas of the world, in accordance with natural right and the law of nations. That law does not allow the dominion of the sea to any power, according to Grotius, Heinsius, and others—contrary to theMare clausum[i.e.,“closed sea”], of the Englishman Selden,24who in regard to the dispute of the year 1653 defended the [English] dominion of the White Sea, and the right of forbidding this navigation to the Dutch; but they maintained their freedom with powerful fleets, and with the same arguments which justify the freedom which the Spaniards possess for navigating by way of the Cape of Good Hope.2. As the Dutch have always regarded these islands with suspicion, fearing some injury to their own commerce, they likewise have striven in every way to make amends for the damages which they fear. One of these is the extension of our commerce, because it diminishes their own; and, in order to hinder it, they have sometimes chosen to avail themselves of article 5 in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and of article 10 in that of Utrecht in 1714—in which is confirmed the said article 5, wherein it is provided that “the Spaniards shall retain their navigation to the Eastern Indias, in the same manner as they enjoy it at present, without being authorized to extend it further; as likewise the inhabitants of this Low Country [i.e., Netherlands] shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians possess in the Eastern Indias.” From these expressions, and from the demarcation [made] by the supreme pontiff Alexander Sixth, the Dutch—who claim, by right of conquest, to enjoy the privileges and prerogatives ofthe Portuguese—try to argue that our ships have no right to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope, nor along the regions of Asia—the Coromandel Coast, Vengala, the Red Sea, etc.—intending that these Philipinas Islands shall be the limits of our navigation to the west.3–8. [In section 3, it is shown that the demarcation of Alexander VI was made only to check possible disputes between the great Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, and its provisions referred only to their discoveries of lands and isles, and not at all to the navigation of the sea, which no power can claim, “since it is not fitted for other dominion than that of God.” Section 4 shows that the Portuguese and Spaniards have frequented each other’s ports, without any difficulties arising between them over the navigation of those seas, which has not been and could not be forbidden to the Spaniards; and that even if the Portuguese had had any such exclusive right it could not pass over to the Dutch when they conquered the former nation in India, especially as privileges granted by the Holy See to its Catholic followers could not be claimed by Protestants. In section 5 it is asserted that the previously-cited article 5 of the treaty of Westphalia does not forbid navigation past the Cape of Good Hope, but only the entrance of Spaniards or Dutch into ports belonging to the other power; that navigation on the high seas is, “by natural right, free to all the world,” and the object of the treaty was to protect both powers in their respective possessions and commerce. As further proof of this, Viana cites (in his section 6) the Hague treaty of 1650, and comments on it in section 7. In the following section he shows how the Dutch areclaiming what was never granted by Alexander VI, who separated only the conquests of Spain and Portugal, and not their navigations in the high seas, a distinction which has been observed in the practice of both countries, “who have freely navigated and traded through all the seas of the East and the West.” He claims that Japan and China “are, without doubt, included in the demarcation of Castilla.”]9. Equally within the demarcation of España are included the kingdoms of Siam, Camboja, Cochinchina, and, in the other direction, Borney, the Molucas, and the other islands of the Malays—as was declared in the year 1524, by the geographers appointed for this purpose by the crowns of Castilla and Portugal, to whose decision the respective sovereigns agreed. As for the prohibition of navigation, if the demarcation of Alexander VI were to have been observed, it was clear that the Dutch must admit the right of the Spaniards to prevent their navigation through the seas of the kingdoms and provinces here enumerated, as also through those of Japan and China, to which the Dutch ships go every year; or else that they have not any right to forbid to the Spaniards the navigation by way of the Cape of Good Hope. For by the admission of those very Dutchmen, in a letter which the governor of Batavia wrote to the governor here [at Manila], in regard to a balandra seized by the Spaniards in the island of Mindanao (which belongs to the crown of España, and is within the limits of the aforesaid demarcation), they say that the Spaniards could not enjoy dominion over the rivers and ports of Mindanao, and that only the authority of the petty king there ought to be acknowledged; and they add that it is lawfulfor any power to navigate there, and make observations on the situation of those lands and towns, and to trade therein with the vassals of the princes who possess them. This carries conviction [of the principle] that as little ought the Spaniards to recognize in Eastern India any other authority than that of the princes of the ports and towns where their ships make port; and that it is lawful to navigate through those seas, to reconnoiter those lands, and to trade with their vassals, as has been done hitherto. For our ships have gone to their ports, where they have been well received, as happened recently with the ship named “Guadalupe,” in the past year of 760; and those who have come to this city, under various flags—Moro, Armenian, Malabar, Chinese, Siamese, and others—have met the same friendly reception.10–11. [Viana asserts that, although “long use and immemorial possession may be a certain title to dominion over the sea,” in such instances as that of the Venetians over the Adriatic, and the Greeks over the Ionian, this cannot be true of the claim made by the Dutch (as having conquered the Portuguese settlements) to the dominion of the great seas that lave India and Africa. These waters are too vast to be possessed by any one power, and have always been freely used by all nations. Moreover, the influence of Alexander VI and his successors had always been in favor of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and of the preservation of the law of nations—“which presumption is taken for granted whenever for just cause temporal dominions are changed by the paramount power of the supreme pontiff.”25He also cites Solorzanoto support his contention. The final section repeats the statement that the Dutch cannot forbid the Spaniards to navigate through the seas of India, and past the Cape of Good Hope; and adds, “Would to heaven that we had the eyes to perceive the advantages of this navigation, which are the following.” Thus he prepares for chapter iii.]
Chapter Second: Of the liberty of the Spaniards to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope1. Some may think that this navigation is prohibited to the Spaniards by the treaties of peace, and that on this account we have not established a commerce like that of the Dutch, English, French, Swedes, Danes, and other nations. But it is certain that there is no such prohibition, and that our natural inactivity, laziness, and lack of application to commerce, has been the cause of our not undertaking the aforesaid navigation, which is equally free to us as to all the other powers. For the prohibition that the Englishman, the Dutchman, and the rest can lay upon us is, that our ships may not enter their ports, just as they have been forbidden to enter our ports; but they cannot hinder us from navigating in all the seas of the world, in accordance with natural right and the law of nations. That law does not allow the dominion of the sea to any power, according to Grotius, Heinsius, and others—contrary to theMare clausum[i.e.,“closed sea”], of the Englishman Selden,24who in regard to the dispute of the year 1653 defended the [English] dominion of the White Sea, and the right of forbidding this navigation to the Dutch; but they maintained their freedom with powerful fleets, and with the same arguments which justify the freedom which the Spaniards possess for navigating by way of the Cape of Good Hope.2. As the Dutch have always regarded these islands with suspicion, fearing some injury to their own commerce, they likewise have striven in every way to make amends for the damages which they fear. One of these is the extension of our commerce, because it diminishes their own; and, in order to hinder it, they have sometimes chosen to avail themselves of article 5 in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and of article 10 in that of Utrecht in 1714—in which is confirmed the said article 5, wherein it is provided that “the Spaniards shall retain their navigation to the Eastern Indias, in the same manner as they enjoy it at present, without being authorized to extend it further; as likewise the inhabitants of this Low Country [i.e., Netherlands] shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians possess in the Eastern Indias.” From these expressions, and from the demarcation [made] by the supreme pontiff Alexander Sixth, the Dutch—who claim, by right of conquest, to enjoy the privileges and prerogatives ofthe Portuguese—try to argue that our ships have no right to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope, nor along the regions of Asia—the Coromandel Coast, Vengala, the Red Sea, etc.—intending that these Philipinas Islands shall be the limits of our navigation to the west.3–8. [In section 3, it is shown that the demarcation of Alexander VI was made only to check possible disputes between the great Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, and its provisions referred only to their discoveries of lands and isles, and not at all to the navigation of the sea, which no power can claim, “since it is not fitted for other dominion than that of God.” Section 4 shows that the Portuguese and Spaniards have frequented each other’s ports, without any difficulties arising between them over the navigation of those seas, which has not been and could not be forbidden to the Spaniards; and that even if the Portuguese had had any such exclusive right it could not pass over to the Dutch when they conquered the former nation in India, especially as privileges granted by the Holy See to its Catholic followers could not be claimed by Protestants. In section 5 it is asserted that the previously-cited article 5 of the treaty of Westphalia does not forbid navigation past the Cape of Good Hope, but only the entrance of Spaniards or Dutch into ports belonging to the other power; that navigation on the high seas is, “by natural right, free to all the world,” and the object of the treaty was to protect both powers in their respective possessions and commerce. As further proof of this, Viana cites (in his section 6) the Hague treaty of 1650, and comments on it in section 7. In the following section he shows how the Dutch areclaiming what was never granted by Alexander VI, who separated only the conquests of Spain and Portugal, and not their navigations in the high seas, a distinction which has been observed in the practice of both countries, “who have freely navigated and traded through all the seas of the East and the West.” He claims that Japan and China “are, without doubt, included in the demarcation of Castilla.”]9. Equally within the demarcation of España are included the kingdoms of Siam, Camboja, Cochinchina, and, in the other direction, Borney, the Molucas, and the other islands of the Malays—as was declared in the year 1524, by the geographers appointed for this purpose by the crowns of Castilla and Portugal, to whose decision the respective sovereigns agreed. As for the prohibition of navigation, if the demarcation of Alexander VI were to have been observed, it was clear that the Dutch must admit the right of the Spaniards to prevent their navigation through the seas of the kingdoms and provinces here enumerated, as also through those of Japan and China, to which the Dutch ships go every year; or else that they have not any right to forbid to the Spaniards the navigation by way of the Cape of Good Hope. For by the admission of those very Dutchmen, in a letter which the governor of Batavia wrote to the governor here [at Manila], in regard to a balandra seized by the Spaniards in the island of Mindanao (which belongs to the crown of España, and is within the limits of the aforesaid demarcation), they say that the Spaniards could not enjoy dominion over the rivers and ports of Mindanao, and that only the authority of the petty king there ought to be acknowledged; and they add that it is lawfulfor any power to navigate there, and make observations on the situation of those lands and towns, and to trade therein with the vassals of the princes who possess them. This carries conviction [of the principle] that as little ought the Spaniards to recognize in Eastern India any other authority than that of the princes of the ports and towns where their ships make port; and that it is lawful to navigate through those seas, to reconnoiter those lands, and to trade with their vassals, as has been done hitherto. For our ships have gone to their ports, where they have been well received, as happened recently with the ship named “Guadalupe,” in the past year of 760; and those who have come to this city, under various flags—Moro, Armenian, Malabar, Chinese, Siamese, and others—have met the same friendly reception.10–11. [Viana asserts that, although “long use and immemorial possession may be a certain title to dominion over the sea,” in such instances as that of the Venetians over the Adriatic, and the Greeks over the Ionian, this cannot be true of the claim made by the Dutch (as having conquered the Portuguese settlements) to the dominion of the great seas that lave India and Africa. These waters are too vast to be possessed by any one power, and have always been freely used by all nations. Moreover, the influence of Alexander VI and his successors had always been in favor of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and of the preservation of the law of nations—“which presumption is taken for granted whenever for just cause temporal dominions are changed by the paramount power of the supreme pontiff.”25He also cites Solorzanoto support his contention. The final section repeats the statement that the Dutch cannot forbid the Spaniards to navigate through the seas of India, and past the Cape of Good Hope; and adds, “Would to heaven that we had the eyes to perceive the advantages of this navigation, which are the following.” Thus he prepares for chapter iii.]
Chapter Second: Of the liberty of the Spaniards to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope1. Some may think that this navigation is prohibited to the Spaniards by the treaties of peace, and that on this account we have not established a commerce like that of the Dutch, English, French, Swedes, Danes, and other nations. But it is certain that there is no such prohibition, and that our natural inactivity, laziness, and lack of application to commerce, has been the cause of our not undertaking the aforesaid navigation, which is equally free to us as to all the other powers. For the prohibition that the Englishman, the Dutchman, and the rest can lay upon us is, that our ships may not enter their ports, just as they have been forbidden to enter our ports; but they cannot hinder us from navigating in all the seas of the world, in accordance with natural right and the law of nations. That law does not allow the dominion of the sea to any power, according to Grotius, Heinsius, and others—contrary to theMare clausum[i.e.,“closed sea”], of the Englishman Selden,24who in regard to the dispute of the year 1653 defended the [English] dominion of the White Sea, and the right of forbidding this navigation to the Dutch; but they maintained their freedom with powerful fleets, and with the same arguments which justify the freedom which the Spaniards possess for navigating by way of the Cape of Good Hope.2. As the Dutch have always regarded these islands with suspicion, fearing some injury to their own commerce, they likewise have striven in every way to make amends for the damages which they fear. One of these is the extension of our commerce, because it diminishes their own; and, in order to hinder it, they have sometimes chosen to avail themselves of article 5 in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and of article 10 in that of Utrecht in 1714—in which is confirmed the said article 5, wherein it is provided that “the Spaniards shall retain their navigation to the Eastern Indias, in the same manner as they enjoy it at present, without being authorized to extend it further; as likewise the inhabitants of this Low Country [i.e., Netherlands] shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians possess in the Eastern Indias.” From these expressions, and from the demarcation [made] by the supreme pontiff Alexander Sixth, the Dutch—who claim, by right of conquest, to enjoy the privileges and prerogatives ofthe Portuguese—try to argue that our ships have no right to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope, nor along the regions of Asia—the Coromandel Coast, Vengala, the Red Sea, etc.—intending that these Philipinas Islands shall be the limits of our navigation to the west.3–8. [In section 3, it is shown that the demarcation of Alexander VI was made only to check possible disputes between the great Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, and its provisions referred only to their discoveries of lands and isles, and not at all to the navigation of the sea, which no power can claim, “since it is not fitted for other dominion than that of God.” Section 4 shows that the Portuguese and Spaniards have frequented each other’s ports, without any difficulties arising between them over the navigation of those seas, which has not been and could not be forbidden to the Spaniards; and that even if the Portuguese had had any such exclusive right it could not pass over to the Dutch when they conquered the former nation in India, especially as privileges granted by the Holy See to its Catholic followers could not be claimed by Protestants. In section 5 it is asserted that the previously-cited article 5 of the treaty of Westphalia does not forbid navigation past the Cape of Good Hope, but only the entrance of Spaniards or Dutch into ports belonging to the other power; that navigation on the high seas is, “by natural right, free to all the world,” and the object of the treaty was to protect both powers in their respective possessions and commerce. As further proof of this, Viana cites (in his section 6) the Hague treaty of 1650, and comments on it in section 7. In the following section he shows how the Dutch areclaiming what was never granted by Alexander VI, who separated only the conquests of Spain and Portugal, and not their navigations in the high seas, a distinction which has been observed in the practice of both countries, “who have freely navigated and traded through all the seas of the East and the West.” He claims that Japan and China “are, without doubt, included in the demarcation of Castilla.”]9. Equally within the demarcation of España are included the kingdoms of Siam, Camboja, Cochinchina, and, in the other direction, Borney, the Molucas, and the other islands of the Malays—as was declared in the year 1524, by the geographers appointed for this purpose by the crowns of Castilla and Portugal, to whose decision the respective sovereigns agreed. As for the prohibition of navigation, if the demarcation of Alexander VI were to have been observed, it was clear that the Dutch must admit the right of the Spaniards to prevent their navigation through the seas of the kingdoms and provinces here enumerated, as also through those of Japan and China, to which the Dutch ships go every year; or else that they have not any right to forbid to the Spaniards the navigation by way of the Cape of Good Hope. For by the admission of those very Dutchmen, in a letter which the governor of Batavia wrote to the governor here [at Manila], in regard to a balandra seized by the Spaniards in the island of Mindanao (which belongs to the crown of España, and is within the limits of the aforesaid demarcation), they say that the Spaniards could not enjoy dominion over the rivers and ports of Mindanao, and that only the authority of the petty king there ought to be acknowledged; and they add that it is lawfulfor any power to navigate there, and make observations on the situation of those lands and towns, and to trade therein with the vassals of the princes who possess them. This carries conviction [of the principle] that as little ought the Spaniards to recognize in Eastern India any other authority than that of the princes of the ports and towns where their ships make port; and that it is lawful to navigate through those seas, to reconnoiter those lands, and to trade with their vassals, as has been done hitherto. For our ships have gone to their ports, where they have been well received, as happened recently with the ship named “Guadalupe,” in the past year of 760; and those who have come to this city, under various flags—Moro, Armenian, Malabar, Chinese, Siamese, and others—have met the same friendly reception.10–11. [Viana asserts that, although “long use and immemorial possession may be a certain title to dominion over the sea,” in such instances as that of the Venetians over the Adriatic, and the Greeks over the Ionian, this cannot be true of the claim made by the Dutch (as having conquered the Portuguese settlements) to the dominion of the great seas that lave India and Africa. These waters are too vast to be possessed by any one power, and have always been freely used by all nations. Moreover, the influence of Alexander VI and his successors had always been in favor of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and of the preservation of the law of nations—“which presumption is taken for granted whenever for just cause temporal dominions are changed by the paramount power of the supreme pontiff.”25He also cites Solorzanoto support his contention. The final section repeats the statement that the Dutch cannot forbid the Spaniards to navigate through the seas of India, and past the Cape of Good Hope; and adds, “Would to heaven that we had the eyes to perceive the advantages of this navigation, which are the following.” Thus he prepares for chapter iii.]
Chapter Second: Of the liberty of the Spaniards to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope1. Some may think that this navigation is prohibited to the Spaniards by the treaties of peace, and that on this account we have not established a commerce like that of the Dutch, English, French, Swedes, Danes, and other nations. But it is certain that there is no such prohibition, and that our natural inactivity, laziness, and lack of application to commerce, has been the cause of our not undertaking the aforesaid navigation, which is equally free to us as to all the other powers. For the prohibition that the Englishman, the Dutchman, and the rest can lay upon us is, that our ships may not enter their ports, just as they have been forbidden to enter our ports; but they cannot hinder us from navigating in all the seas of the world, in accordance with natural right and the law of nations. That law does not allow the dominion of the sea to any power, according to Grotius, Heinsius, and others—contrary to theMare clausum[i.e.,“closed sea”], of the Englishman Selden,24who in regard to the dispute of the year 1653 defended the [English] dominion of the White Sea, and the right of forbidding this navigation to the Dutch; but they maintained their freedom with powerful fleets, and with the same arguments which justify the freedom which the Spaniards possess for navigating by way of the Cape of Good Hope.2. As the Dutch have always regarded these islands with suspicion, fearing some injury to their own commerce, they likewise have striven in every way to make amends for the damages which they fear. One of these is the extension of our commerce, because it diminishes their own; and, in order to hinder it, they have sometimes chosen to avail themselves of article 5 in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and of article 10 in that of Utrecht in 1714—in which is confirmed the said article 5, wherein it is provided that “the Spaniards shall retain their navigation to the Eastern Indias, in the same manner as they enjoy it at present, without being authorized to extend it further; as likewise the inhabitants of this Low Country [i.e., Netherlands] shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians possess in the Eastern Indias.” From these expressions, and from the demarcation [made] by the supreme pontiff Alexander Sixth, the Dutch—who claim, by right of conquest, to enjoy the privileges and prerogatives ofthe Portuguese—try to argue that our ships have no right to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope, nor along the regions of Asia—the Coromandel Coast, Vengala, the Red Sea, etc.—intending that these Philipinas Islands shall be the limits of our navigation to the west.3–8. [In section 3, it is shown that the demarcation of Alexander VI was made only to check possible disputes between the great Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, and its provisions referred only to their discoveries of lands and isles, and not at all to the navigation of the sea, which no power can claim, “since it is not fitted for other dominion than that of God.” Section 4 shows that the Portuguese and Spaniards have frequented each other’s ports, without any difficulties arising between them over the navigation of those seas, which has not been and could not be forbidden to the Spaniards; and that even if the Portuguese had had any such exclusive right it could not pass over to the Dutch when they conquered the former nation in India, especially as privileges granted by the Holy See to its Catholic followers could not be claimed by Protestants. In section 5 it is asserted that the previously-cited article 5 of the treaty of Westphalia does not forbid navigation past the Cape of Good Hope, but only the entrance of Spaniards or Dutch into ports belonging to the other power; that navigation on the high seas is, “by natural right, free to all the world,” and the object of the treaty was to protect both powers in their respective possessions and commerce. As further proof of this, Viana cites (in his section 6) the Hague treaty of 1650, and comments on it in section 7. In the following section he shows how the Dutch areclaiming what was never granted by Alexander VI, who separated only the conquests of Spain and Portugal, and not their navigations in the high seas, a distinction which has been observed in the practice of both countries, “who have freely navigated and traded through all the seas of the East and the West.” He claims that Japan and China “are, without doubt, included in the demarcation of Castilla.”]9. Equally within the demarcation of España are included the kingdoms of Siam, Camboja, Cochinchina, and, in the other direction, Borney, the Molucas, and the other islands of the Malays—as was declared in the year 1524, by the geographers appointed for this purpose by the crowns of Castilla and Portugal, to whose decision the respective sovereigns agreed. As for the prohibition of navigation, if the demarcation of Alexander VI were to have been observed, it was clear that the Dutch must admit the right of the Spaniards to prevent their navigation through the seas of the kingdoms and provinces here enumerated, as also through those of Japan and China, to which the Dutch ships go every year; or else that they have not any right to forbid to the Spaniards the navigation by way of the Cape of Good Hope. For by the admission of those very Dutchmen, in a letter which the governor of Batavia wrote to the governor here [at Manila], in regard to a balandra seized by the Spaniards in the island of Mindanao (which belongs to the crown of España, and is within the limits of the aforesaid demarcation), they say that the Spaniards could not enjoy dominion over the rivers and ports of Mindanao, and that only the authority of the petty king there ought to be acknowledged; and they add that it is lawfulfor any power to navigate there, and make observations on the situation of those lands and towns, and to trade therein with the vassals of the princes who possess them. This carries conviction [of the principle] that as little ought the Spaniards to recognize in Eastern India any other authority than that of the princes of the ports and towns where their ships make port; and that it is lawful to navigate through those seas, to reconnoiter those lands, and to trade with their vassals, as has been done hitherto. For our ships have gone to their ports, where they have been well received, as happened recently with the ship named “Guadalupe,” in the past year of 760; and those who have come to this city, under various flags—Moro, Armenian, Malabar, Chinese, Siamese, and others—have met the same friendly reception.10–11. [Viana asserts that, although “long use and immemorial possession may be a certain title to dominion over the sea,” in such instances as that of the Venetians over the Adriatic, and the Greeks over the Ionian, this cannot be true of the claim made by the Dutch (as having conquered the Portuguese settlements) to the dominion of the great seas that lave India and Africa. These waters are too vast to be possessed by any one power, and have always been freely used by all nations. Moreover, the influence of Alexander VI and his successors had always been in favor of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and of the preservation of the law of nations—“which presumption is taken for granted whenever for just cause temporal dominions are changed by the paramount power of the supreme pontiff.”25He also cites Solorzanoto support his contention. The final section repeats the statement that the Dutch cannot forbid the Spaniards to navigate through the seas of India, and past the Cape of Good Hope; and adds, “Would to heaven that we had the eyes to perceive the advantages of this navigation, which are the following.” Thus he prepares for chapter iii.]
Chapter Second: Of the liberty of the Spaniards to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope1. Some may think that this navigation is prohibited to the Spaniards by the treaties of peace, and that on this account we have not established a commerce like that of the Dutch, English, French, Swedes, Danes, and other nations. But it is certain that there is no such prohibition, and that our natural inactivity, laziness, and lack of application to commerce, has been the cause of our not undertaking the aforesaid navigation, which is equally free to us as to all the other powers. For the prohibition that the Englishman, the Dutchman, and the rest can lay upon us is, that our ships may not enter their ports, just as they have been forbidden to enter our ports; but they cannot hinder us from navigating in all the seas of the world, in accordance with natural right and the law of nations. That law does not allow the dominion of the sea to any power, according to Grotius, Heinsius, and others—contrary to theMare clausum[i.e.,“closed sea”], of the Englishman Selden,24who in regard to the dispute of the year 1653 defended the [English] dominion of the White Sea, and the right of forbidding this navigation to the Dutch; but they maintained their freedom with powerful fleets, and with the same arguments which justify the freedom which the Spaniards possess for navigating by way of the Cape of Good Hope.2. As the Dutch have always regarded these islands with suspicion, fearing some injury to their own commerce, they likewise have striven in every way to make amends for the damages which they fear. One of these is the extension of our commerce, because it diminishes their own; and, in order to hinder it, they have sometimes chosen to avail themselves of article 5 in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and of article 10 in that of Utrecht in 1714—in which is confirmed the said article 5, wherein it is provided that “the Spaniards shall retain their navigation to the Eastern Indias, in the same manner as they enjoy it at present, without being authorized to extend it further; as likewise the inhabitants of this Low Country [i.e., Netherlands] shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians possess in the Eastern Indias.” From these expressions, and from the demarcation [made] by the supreme pontiff Alexander Sixth, the Dutch—who claim, by right of conquest, to enjoy the privileges and prerogatives ofthe Portuguese—try to argue that our ships have no right to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope, nor along the regions of Asia—the Coromandel Coast, Vengala, the Red Sea, etc.—intending that these Philipinas Islands shall be the limits of our navigation to the west.3–8. [In section 3, it is shown that the demarcation of Alexander VI was made only to check possible disputes between the great Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, and its provisions referred only to their discoveries of lands and isles, and not at all to the navigation of the sea, which no power can claim, “since it is not fitted for other dominion than that of God.” Section 4 shows that the Portuguese and Spaniards have frequented each other’s ports, without any difficulties arising between them over the navigation of those seas, which has not been and could not be forbidden to the Spaniards; and that even if the Portuguese had had any such exclusive right it could not pass over to the Dutch when they conquered the former nation in India, especially as privileges granted by the Holy See to its Catholic followers could not be claimed by Protestants. In section 5 it is asserted that the previously-cited article 5 of the treaty of Westphalia does not forbid navigation past the Cape of Good Hope, but only the entrance of Spaniards or Dutch into ports belonging to the other power; that navigation on the high seas is, “by natural right, free to all the world,” and the object of the treaty was to protect both powers in their respective possessions and commerce. As further proof of this, Viana cites (in his section 6) the Hague treaty of 1650, and comments on it in section 7. In the following section he shows how the Dutch areclaiming what was never granted by Alexander VI, who separated only the conquests of Spain and Portugal, and not their navigations in the high seas, a distinction which has been observed in the practice of both countries, “who have freely navigated and traded through all the seas of the East and the West.” He claims that Japan and China “are, without doubt, included in the demarcation of Castilla.”]9. Equally within the demarcation of España are included the kingdoms of Siam, Camboja, Cochinchina, and, in the other direction, Borney, the Molucas, and the other islands of the Malays—as was declared in the year 1524, by the geographers appointed for this purpose by the crowns of Castilla and Portugal, to whose decision the respective sovereigns agreed. As for the prohibition of navigation, if the demarcation of Alexander VI were to have been observed, it was clear that the Dutch must admit the right of the Spaniards to prevent their navigation through the seas of the kingdoms and provinces here enumerated, as also through those of Japan and China, to which the Dutch ships go every year; or else that they have not any right to forbid to the Spaniards the navigation by way of the Cape of Good Hope. For by the admission of those very Dutchmen, in a letter which the governor of Batavia wrote to the governor here [at Manila], in regard to a balandra seized by the Spaniards in the island of Mindanao (which belongs to the crown of España, and is within the limits of the aforesaid demarcation), they say that the Spaniards could not enjoy dominion over the rivers and ports of Mindanao, and that only the authority of the petty king there ought to be acknowledged; and they add that it is lawfulfor any power to navigate there, and make observations on the situation of those lands and towns, and to trade therein with the vassals of the princes who possess them. This carries conviction [of the principle] that as little ought the Spaniards to recognize in Eastern India any other authority than that of the princes of the ports and towns where their ships make port; and that it is lawful to navigate through those seas, to reconnoiter those lands, and to trade with their vassals, as has been done hitherto. For our ships have gone to their ports, where they have been well received, as happened recently with the ship named “Guadalupe,” in the past year of 760; and those who have come to this city, under various flags—Moro, Armenian, Malabar, Chinese, Siamese, and others—have met the same friendly reception.10–11. [Viana asserts that, although “long use and immemorial possession may be a certain title to dominion over the sea,” in such instances as that of the Venetians over the Adriatic, and the Greeks over the Ionian, this cannot be true of the claim made by the Dutch (as having conquered the Portuguese settlements) to the dominion of the great seas that lave India and Africa. These waters are too vast to be possessed by any one power, and have always been freely used by all nations. Moreover, the influence of Alexander VI and his successors had always been in favor of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and of the preservation of the law of nations—“which presumption is taken for granted whenever for just cause temporal dominions are changed by the paramount power of the supreme pontiff.”25He also cites Solorzanoto support his contention. The final section repeats the statement that the Dutch cannot forbid the Spaniards to navigate through the seas of India, and past the Cape of Good Hope; and adds, “Would to heaven that we had the eyes to perceive the advantages of this navigation, which are the following.” Thus he prepares for chapter iii.]
Chapter Second: Of the liberty of the Spaniards to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope1. Some may think that this navigation is prohibited to the Spaniards by the treaties of peace, and that on this account we have not established a commerce like that of the Dutch, English, French, Swedes, Danes, and other nations. But it is certain that there is no such prohibition, and that our natural inactivity, laziness, and lack of application to commerce, has been the cause of our not undertaking the aforesaid navigation, which is equally free to us as to all the other powers. For the prohibition that the Englishman, the Dutchman, and the rest can lay upon us is, that our ships may not enter their ports, just as they have been forbidden to enter our ports; but they cannot hinder us from navigating in all the seas of the world, in accordance with natural right and the law of nations. That law does not allow the dominion of the sea to any power, according to Grotius, Heinsius, and others—contrary to theMare clausum[i.e.,“closed sea”], of the Englishman Selden,24who in regard to the dispute of the year 1653 defended the [English] dominion of the White Sea, and the right of forbidding this navigation to the Dutch; but they maintained their freedom with powerful fleets, and with the same arguments which justify the freedom which the Spaniards possess for navigating by way of the Cape of Good Hope.2. As the Dutch have always regarded these islands with suspicion, fearing some injury to their own commerce, they likewise have striven in every way to make amends for the damages which they fear. One of these is the extension of our commerce, because it diminishes their own; and, in order to hinder it, they have sometimes chosen to avail themselves of article 5 in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and of article 10 in that of Utrecht in 1714—in which is confirmed the said article 5, wherein it is provided that “the Spaniards shall retain their navigation to the Eastern Indias, in the same manner as they enjoy it at present, without being authorized to extend it further; as likewise the inhabitants of this Low Country [i.e., Netherlands] shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians possess in the Eastern Indias.” From these expressions, and from the demarcation [made] by the supreme pontiff Alexander Sixth, the Dutch—who claim, by right of conquest, to enjoy the privileges and prerogatives ofthe Portuguese—try to argue that our ships have no right to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope, nor along the regions of Asia—the Coromandel Coast, Vengala, the Red Sea, etc.—intending that these Philipinas Islands shall be the limits of our navigation to the west.3–8. [In section 3, it is shown that the demarcation of Alexander VI was made only to check possible disputes between the great Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, and its provisions referred only to their discoveries of lands and isles, and not at all to the navigation of the sea, which no power can claim, “since it is not fitted for other dominion than that of God.” Section 4 shows that the Portuguese and Spaniards have frequented each other’s ports, without any difficulties arising between them over the navigation of those seas, which has not been and could not be forbidden to the Spaniards; and that even if the Portuguese had had any such exclusive right it could not pass over to the Dutch when they conquered the former nation in India, especially as privileges granted by the Holy See to its Catholic followers could not be claimed by Protestants. In section 5 it is asserted that the previously-cited article 5 of the treaty of Westphalia does not forbid navigation past the Cape of Good Hope, but only the entrance of Spaniards or Dutch into ports belonging to the other power; that navigation on the high seas is, “by natural right, free to all the world,” and the object of the treaty was to protect both powers in their respective possessions and commerce. As further proof of this, Viana cites (in his section 6) the Hague treaty of 1650, and comments on it in section 7. In the following section he shows how the Dutch areclaiming what was never granted by Alexander VI, who separated only the conquests of Spain and Portugal, and not their navigations in the high seas, a distinction which has been observed in the practice of both countries, “who have freely navigated and traded through all the seas of the East and the West.” He claims that Japan and China “are, without doubt, included in the demarcation of Castilla.”]9. Equally within the demarcation of España are included the kingdoms of Siam, Camboja, Cochinchina, and, in the other direction, Borney, the Molucas, and the other islands of the Malays—as was declared in the year 1524, by the geographers appointed for this purpose by the crowns of Castilla and Portugal, to whose decision the respective sovereigns agreed. As for the prohibition of navigation, if the demarcation of Alexander VI were to have been observed, it was clear that the Dutch must admit the right of the Spaniards to prevent their navigation through the seas of the kingdoms and provinces here enumerated, as also through those of Japan and China, to which the Dutch ships go every year; or else that they have not any right to forbid to the Spaniards the navigation by way of the Cape of Good Hope. For by the admission of those very Dutchmen, in a letter which the governor of Batavia wrote to the governor here [at Manila], in regard to a balandra seized by the Spaniards in the island of Mindanao (which belongs to the crown of España, and is within the limits of the aforesaid demarcation), they say that the Spaniards could not enjoy dominion over the rivers and ports of Mindanao, and that only the authority of the petty king there ought to be acknowledged; and they add that it is lawfulfor any power to navigate there, and make observations on the situation of those lands and towns, and to trade therein with the vassals of the princes who possess them. This carries conviction [of the principle] that as little ought the Spaniards to recognize in Eastern India any other authority than that of the princes of the ports and towns where their ships make port; and that it is lawful to navigate through those seas, to reconnoiter those lands, and to trade with their vassals, as has been done hitherto. For our ships have gone to their ports, where they have been well received, as happened recently with the ship named “Guadalupe,” in the past year of 760; and those who have come to this city, under various flags—Moro, Armenian, Malabar, Chinese, Siamese, and others—have met the same friendly reception.10–11. [Viana asserts that, although “long use and immemorial possession may be a certain title to dominion over the sea,” in such instances as that of the Venetians over the Adriatic, and the Greeks over the Ionian, this cannot be true of the claim made by the Dutch (as having conquered the Portuguese settlements) to the dominion of the great seas that lave India and Africa. These waters are too vast to be possessed by any one power, and have always been freely used by all nations. Moreover, the influence of Alexander VI and his successors had always been in favor of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and of the preservation of the law of nations—“which presumption is taken for granted whenever for just cause temporal dominions are changed by the paramount power of the supreme pontiff.”25He also cites Solorzanoto support his contention. The final section repeats the statement that the Dutch cannot forbid the Spaniards to navigate through the seas of India, and past the Cape of Good Hope; and adds, “Would to heaven that we had the eyes to perceive the advantages of this navigation, which are the following.” Thus he prepares for chapter iii.]
Chapter Second: Of the liberty of the Spaniards to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope
1. Some may think that this navigation is prohibited to the Spaniards by the treaties of peace, and that on this account we have not established a commerce like that of the Dutch, English, French, Swedes, Danes, and other nations. But it is certain that there is no such prohibition, and that our natural inactivity, laziness, and lack of application to commerce, has been the cause of our not undertaking the aforesaid navigation, which is equally free to us as to all the other powers. For the prohibition that the Englishman, the Dutchman, and the rest can lay upon us is, that our ships may not enter their ports, just as they have been forbidden to enter our ports; but they cannot hinder us from navigating in all the seas of the world, in accordance with natural right and the law of nations. That law does not allow the dominion of the sea to any power, according to Grotius, Heinsius, and others—contrary to theMare clausum[i.e.,“closed sea”], of the Englishman Selden,24who in regard to the dispute of the year 1653 defended the [English] dominion of the White Sea, and the right of forbidding this navigation to the Dutch; but they maintained their freedom with powerful fleets, and with the same arguments which justify the freedom which the Spaniards possess for navigating by way of the Cape of Good Hope.2. As the Dutch have always regarded these islands with suspicion, fearing some injury to their own commerce, they likewise have striven in every way to make amends for the damages which they fear. One of these is the extension of our commerce, because it diminishes their own; and, in order to hinder it, they have sometimes chosen to avail themselves of article 5 in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and of article 10 in that of Utrecht in 1714—in which is confirmed the said article 5, wherein it is provided that “the Spaniards shall retain their navigation to the Eastern Indias, in the same manner as they enjoy it at present, without being authorized to extend it further; as likewise the inhabitants of this Low Country [i.e., Netherlands] shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians possess in the Eastern Indias.” From these expressions, and from the demarcation [made] by the supreme pontiff Alexander Sixth, the Dutch—who claim, by right of conquest, to enjoy the privileges and prerogatives ofthe Portuguese—try to argue that our ships have no right to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope, nor along the regions of Asia—the Coromandel Coast, Vengala, the Red Sea, etc.—intending that these Philipinas Islands shall be the limits of our navigation to the west.3–8. [In section 3, it is shown that the demarcation of Alexander VI was made only to check possible disputes between the great Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, and its provisions referred only to their discoveries of lands and isles, and not at all to the navigation of the sea, which no power can claim, “since it is not fitted for other dominion than that of God.” Section 4 shows that the Portuguese and Spaniards have frequented each other’s ports, without any difficulties arising between them over the navigation of those seas, which has not been and could not be forbidden to the Spaniards; and that even if the Portuguese had had any such exclusive right it could not pass over to the Dutch when they conquered the former nation in India, especially as privileges granted by the Holy See to its Catholic followers could not be claimed by Protestants. In section 5 it is asserted that the previously-cited article 5 of the treaty of Westphalia does not forbid navigation past the Cape of Good Hope, but only the entrance of Spaniards or Dutch into ports belonging to the other power; that navigation on the high seas is, “by natural right, free to all the world,” and the object of the treaty was to protect both powers in their respective possessions and commerce. As further proof of this, Viana cites (in his section 6) the Hague treaty of 1650, and comments on it in section 7. In the following section he shows how the Dutch areclaiming what was never granted by Alexander VI, who separated only the conquests of Spain and Portugal, and not their navigations in the high seas, a distinction which has been observed in the practice of both countries, “who have freely navigated and traded through all the seas of the East and the West.” He claims that Japan and China “are, without doubt, included in the demarcation of Castilla.”]9. Equally within the demarcation of España are included the kingdoms of Siam, Camboja, Cochinchina, and, in the other direction, Borney, the Molucas, and the other islands of the Malays—as was declared in the year 1524, by the geographers appointed for this purpose by the crowns of Castilla and Portugal, to whose decision the respective sovereigns agreed. As for the prohibition of navigation, if the demarcation of Alexander VI were to have been observed, it was clear that the Dutch must admit the right of the Spaniards to prevent their navigation through the seas of the kingdoms and provinces here enumerated, as also through those of Japan and China, to which the Dutch ships go every year; or else that they have not any right to forbid to the Spaniards the navigation by way of the Cape of Good Hope. For by the admission of those very Dutchmen, in a letter which the governor of Batavia wrote to the governor here [at Manila], in regard to a balandra seized by the Spaniards in the island of Mindanao (which belongs to the crown of España, and is within the limits of the aforesaid demarcation), they say that the Spaniards could not enjoy dominion over the rivers and ports of Mindanao, and that only the authority of the petty king there ought to be acknowledged; and they add that it is lawfulfor any power to navigate there, and make observations on the situation of those lands and towns, and to trade therein with the vassals of the princes who possess them. This carries conviction [of the principle] that as little ought the Spaniards to recognize in Eastern India any other authority than that of the princes of the ports and towns where their ships make port; and that it is lawful to navigate through those seas, to reconnoiter those lands, and to trade with their vassals, as has been done hitherto. For our ships have gone to their ports, where they have been well received, as happened recently with the ship named “Guadalupe,” in the past year of 760; and those who have come to this city, under various flags—Moro, Armenian, Malabar, Chinese, Siamese, and others—have met the same friendly reception.10–11. [Viana asserts that, although “long use and immemorial possession may be a certain title to dominion over the sea,” in such instances as that of the Venetians over the Adriatic, and the Greeks over the Ionian, this cannot be true of the claim made by the Dutch (as having conquered the Portuguese settlements) to the dominion of the great seas that lave India and Africa. These waters are too vast to be possessed by any one power, and have always been freely used by all nations. Moreover, the influence of Alexander VI and his successors had always been in favor of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and of the preservation of the law of nations—“which presumption is taken for granted whenever for just cause temporal dominions are changed by the paramount power of the supreme pontiff.”25He also cites Solorzanoto support his contention. The final section repeats the statement that the Dutch cannot forbid the Spaniards to navigate through the seas of India, and past the Cape of Good Hope; and adds, “Would to heaven that we had the eyes to perceive the advantages of this navigation, which are the following.” Thus he prepares for chapter iii.]
1. Some may think that this navigation is prohibited to the Spaniards by the treaties of peace, and that on this account we have not established a commerce like that of the Dutch, English, French, Swedes, Danes, and other nations. But it is certain that there is no such prohibition, and that our natural inactivity, laziness, and lack of application to commerce, has been the cause of our not undertaking the aforesaid navigation, which is equally free to us as to all the other powers. For the prohibition that the Englishman, the Dutchman, and the rest can lay upon us is, that our ships may not enter their ports, just as they have been forbidden to enter our ports; but they cannot hinder us from navigating in all the seas of the world, in accordance with natural right and the law of nations. That law does not allow the dominion of the sea to any power, according to Grotius, Heinsius, and others—contrary to theMare clausum[i.e.,“closed sea”], of the Englishman Selden,24who in regard to the dispute of the year 1653 defended the [English] dominion of the White Sea, and the right of forbidding this navigation to the Dutch; but they maintained their freedom with powerful fleets, and with the same arguments which justify the freedom which the Spaniards possess for navigating by way of the Cape of Good Hope.
2. As the Dutch have always regarded these islands with suspicion, fearing some injury to their own commerce, they likewise have striven in every way to make amends for the damages which they fear. One of these is the extension of our commerce, because it diminishes their own; and, in order to hinder it, they have sometimes chosen to avail themselves of article 5 in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and of article 10 in that of Utrecht in 1714—in which is confirmed the said article 5, wherein it is provided that “the Spaniards shall retain their navigation to the Eastern Indias, in the same manner as they enjoy it at present, without being authorized to extend it further; as likewise the inhabitants of this Low Country [i.e., Netherlands] shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians possess in the Eastern Indias.” From these expressions, and from the demarcation [made] by the supreme pontiff Alexander Sixth, the Dutch—who claim, by right of conquest, to enjoy the privileges and prerogatives ofthe Portuguese—try to argue that our ships have no right to navigate by way of the Cape of Good Hope, nor along the regions of Asia—the Coromandel Coast, Vengala, the Red Sea, etc.—intending that these Philipinas Islands shall be the limits of our navigation to the west.
3–8. [In section 3, it is shown that the demarcation of Alexander VI was made only to check possible disputes between the great Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, and its provisions referred only to their discoveries of lands and isles, and not at all to the navigation of the sea, which no power can claim, “since it is not fitted for other dominion than that of God.” Section 4 shows that the Portuguese and Spaniards have frequented each other’s ports, without any difficulties arising between them over the navigation of those seas, which has not been and could not be forbidden to the Spaniards; and that even if the Portuguese had had any such exclusive right it could not pass over to the Dutch when they conquered the former nation in India, especially as privileges granted by the Holy See to its Catholic followers could not be claimed by Protestants. In section 5 it is asserted that the previously-cited article 5 of the treaty of Westphalia does not forbid navigation past the Cape of Good Hope, but only the entrance of Spaniards or Dutch into ports belonging to the other power; that navigation on the high seas is, “by natural right, free to all the world,” and the object of the treaty was to protect both powers in their respective possessions and commerce. As further proof of this, Viana cites (in his section 6) the Hague treaty of 1650, and comments on it in section 7. In the following section he shows how the Dutch areclaiming what was never granted by Alexander VI, who separated only the conquests of Spain and Portugal, and not their navigations in the high seas, a distinction which has been observed in the practice of both countries, “who have freely navigated and traded through all the seas of the East and the West.” He claims that Japan and China “are, without doubt, included in the demarcation of Castilla.”]
9. Equally within the demarcation of España are included the kingdoms of Siam, Camboja, Cochinchina, and, in the other direction, Borney, the Molucas, and the other islands of the Malays—as was declared in the year 1524, by the geographers appointed for this purpose by the crowns of Castilla and Portugal, to whose decision the respective sovereigns agreed. As for the prohibition of navigation, if the demarcation of Alexander VI were to have been observed, it was clear that the Dutch must admit the right of the Spaniards to prevent their navigation through the seas of the kingdoms and provinces here enumerated, as also through those of Japan and China, to which the Dutch ships go every year; or else that they have not any right to forbid to the Spaniards the navigation by way of the Cape of Good Hope. For by the admission of those very Dutchmen, in a letter which the governor of Batavia wrote to the governor here [at Manila], in regard to a balandra seized by the Spaniards in the island of Mindanao (which belongs to the crown of España, and is within the limits of the aforesaid demarcation), they say that the Spaniards could not enjoy dominion over the rivers and ports of Mindanao, and that only the authority of the petty king there ought to be acknowledged; and they add that it is lawfulfor any power to navigate there, and make observations on the situation of those lands and towns, and to trade therein with the vassals of the princes who possess them. This carries conviction [of the principle] that as little ought the Spaniards to recognize in Eastern India any other authority than that of the princes of the ports and towns where their ships make port; and that it is lawful to navigate through those seas, to reconnoiter those lands, and to trade with their vassals, as has been done hitherto. For our ships have gone to their ports, where they have been well received, as happened recently with the ship named “Guadalupe,” in the past year of 760; and those who have come to this city, under various flags—Moro, Armenian, Malabar, Chinese, Siamese, and others—have met the same friendly reception.
10–11. [Viana asserts that, although “long use and immemorial possession may be a certain title to dominion over the sea,” in such instances as that of the Venetians over the Adriatic, and the Greeks over the Ionian, this cannot be true of the claim made by the Dutch (as having conquered the Portuguese settlements) to the dominion of the great seas that lave India and Africa. These waters are too vast to be possessed by any one power, and have always been freely used by all nations. Moreover, the influence of Alexander VI and his successors had always been in favor of the Catholic monarchs of Spain, and of the preservation of the law of nations—“which presumption is taken for granted whenever for just cause temporal dominions are changed by the paramount power of the supreme pontiff.”25He also cites Solorzanoto support his contention. The final section repeats the statement that the Dutch cannot forbid the Spaniards to navigate through the seas of India, and past the Cape of Good Hope; and adds, “Would to heaven that we had the eyes to perceive the advantages of this navigation, which are the following.” Thus he prepares for chapter iii.]