Chapter 33

524Northumberland’s Journal,State Papers, Dom., cccxliii. 72. Pennington, on hearing of the appointment of the Earl of Northumberland, wrote in February 1636 to the Council expressing his satisfaction; verily believed he would carry himself like a general in all respects, unless led away, “as the last was, by such as neither knew the honour of the place nor the way of managing the service for the honour and safety of the kingdom.”525State Papers, Dom., ccxcviii. 63.526The Lords of the Admiralty to the king, 24th February 1636.State Papers, Dom., cccxiii. 24, 25. The documents are in Windebank’s writing; the first is endorsed “Fishing. Waftage. An excellent Piece.” SeeAppendix I.527“Instructions for our very good Lord, the Earle of Northumberland, Admirall of his Majesty’s fflete in his Majesty’s ship theTriumph, prepared for this present Expedic̃ion for guard of his Majesty’s Seas.”State Papers, Dom., clvii. fol. 141.528Gardiner, viii. 157. The English ships were “clogged with timber,” which, however, served them well in the first Dutch war when they were pitted against the slighter-built ships of the States. (Oppenheim,op. cit., 254.)529State Papers, Dom., clvii. fol. 141b; ccxiv. 107. The Earl of Northumberland to the Lords of the Admiralty, cccxxi. 44, 45, 65, 78, 87; cccxxii. 16, 40; cccxxv. 78, 79; cccxxvi. 16, 38; cccxxvii. 42, 73. The Lords of the Admiralty to Northumberland, 14th June, cccxxvi. 32.530Rowland Woodward to Francis Windebank, 16th December 1630.State Papers, Dom., clxxvii. 13. The writer said he “much feared the event if it should be put in execution.”531Ibid., cclxxix. 67.532Petition of the Governor, Assistants, and Fellowship of the Merchant Adventurers of England to the Council.Ibid., cclxxxix. 91.533Ibid., cclxxxv. 84.534State Papers, Dom., cccviii. 48; cccxx. 14.535A Proclamation for Restraint of Fishing upon His Maiesties Seas and Coasts without License.State Papers, Dom., cccxx. 62.Fœdera, xx. 15.536The form annexed to the Earl of Northumberland’s instructions, sent to him on 14th June from Hampton Court, and which he received at Plymouth on the 22nd, is as follows:—“CHARLES R.“We are gratiously pleased by these Presents to grant Lycense to ... to fish with the Men and Company belonging to a Ship or Vessel called the ... being of the Burthen of ... Tonnes, upon any of Our Coasts or Seas of Great Brittaine and Ireland, and the rest of our Islands adjacent, where usually heretofore any fishing hath been. And this Our Lycense to continue for one whole Year from ye Date hereof: Willing and requiring as well all Our subjects as others of what Nation, quality or condition soever that they give no Impeachment or molestation to ye said ... or his company in the said Vessell in the Execution of this Our Lycense, upon such Paines and Punishments, as are to be inflicted upon the Violators of Our Royall Protection, and the wilful Breakers of Our Peace, in Our aforesaid Dominions and Jurisdictions, further requiring and Commanding all Our Admiralls, Vice-Admiralls, Rere-Admiralls and Captaines of Our Ships, Castles, and Forts to protect and assist the said ... in ye quiet enjoying the benefit of this Our Lycense.”Another form, dated in July, was as follows:—“Charles by the Grace of God King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all his Admiralls, Vice-Admiralls, Rere-Admiralls, and Captaines of oure Shippes, Castles and fforts, and to all and every other our Officers, Ministers and subjects to whome it shall apperteyne, Greeting. Whereas Wee are gratiously pleased by these presents to grant License to ... Master of a Busse or Vessell called the ... beinge of the burthen of ... Tonnes, To fishe with the Men and Company belonging to the said Busse or Vessell upon anie of our Coastes and Seas of Great Brittaine, Ireland and the rest of our Islands adiacent where usually fishing hath bene, from the date hereof, to the last of December next. These are to will and require as well Yow our said Officers and Subjects, as others of what Nacion, quality, or condition soever That yow not onely give noe impeachment or molestacion to the said ... or his Company in the said Vessell in the Execucion of this Our License, upon such paynes and punishments, as are to be inflicted upon the Violaters of oure Royall Protecion and the wilfull Breakers of our Peace in oure aforesaid dominions and jurisdictions: But that yow protect and assist the said ... and his Company in the quiet enioying the benefitt of this oure License during the time before limitted: Given ...”Ibid., cccxxvi. 32; cccxxix. 77, 78, 79. It appears from copies without the names and particulars filled in, which are preserved at The Hague, that the first form was used in July, a certain Joost Bouwensz of Delfshaven having accepted one on the 24th (N.S.) of that month.537State Papers, Dom., cccxix. 81; cccxxii. 40; cccxxvi. 32; cccxvii. 93; cccxxviii. 11, 41, 69.538The herring-busses in ordinary course fished all night in fleets, with their drift-nets floating in the water; during the day the crews were employed in curing and packing the herrings caught.539“Next day wee fetched in 4 more of them, and having caused their busses to be manned with English, and threatened the takeing away their nettes, they at last consented to take Licenses, and paying the acknowledgment I sent them all away very well satisfied.” These busses belonged to the Enkhuisen herring fleet, which was convoyed by a warship under Captain Gerrit Claesz. Ruyter, to whom Northumberland, after the licenses had been accepted, gave a written certificate and safe-conduct for bringing in the busses. Muller,Mare Clausum, 269, 377.540These were the Delfshaven busses, the skipper of one being Joust Bouwensz, previously referred to. According to the Dutch accounts, money was scarce on the busses, but the English very willingly took herrings instead, a barrel of herrings being reckoned at from four to four and a-half florins.541These were theVictory,Repulse, andSwallow. From a report of the Officers of the Navy to the Admiralty, on 20th August, we learn that theRepulsehad a great many sick on board—“some three or four having died within these two days; some thirty sick were landed at Margate and eight are ill on board. The surgeon is dead, as is said of the spotted fever, full of spots, and it is much doubted that the pestilence is amongst them.” The plague in this and the following year made great ravages in London and at the naval ports, partly from the want of simple precautions—e.g., in this case the sick men were to be discharged “for fear of infection (of the ship) and to cease a needlesse charge.”State Papers, Dom., cccxxx. 61.542The account of the movements of Northumberland’s fleet is extracted from his “Journall of oure Summer’s Voyage in the yeare 1636.”State Papers, Dom., cccxliii. 72.543Northumberland to Windebank, 16th August 1636 (from Scarborough).State Papers, Dom., cccxxx. 41. About 400 licenses in all, each signed by the king, had been furnished to the Earl.54420th Dec. 1628. “Clachten van de insolentien van’t bootsvolk en de visschers deser landen in Schotlandt.” Muller,op. cit., 232.545The English Company and the king’s relation to it were considered by the States in January 1631, 25th Oct. 1632, 19th Nov. 1633, and 15th Sept. 1634. (Bosgoed,Bib. Pisc., 357. Oprichting eener Engelsche compagnie voor de Haring-visscherij, Muller,op. cit., 235.)546Verbaal van Beveren, 1636-37. Muller,op. cit., 246.547Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 17,677, P, fol. 67et seq.548Van Beveren to the States-General, 15/25 Aug.MSS. Add., 17,677, P, fol. 88. In his letter he says the tax on each ton was “twee sixpenningen,” or an English shilling. Others placed it at two shillings a last.549Aitzema,Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, ii. 409. Muller,op. cit., 263.550Joachimi to the States-General, (31 Aug.)/(10 Sept.), 9/19 Sept. 1636.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 17,677, P, fol. 99, 100.Verbael van Joachimi, 1636. Muller,op. cit., 264.551Elizabeth to Sir Thomas Roe, 15/25 Aug. 1636.State Papers, Dom., cccxxx. 38.552Roe to Elizabeth, 19th Aug., 20th Sept.Ibid., cccxxx. 50; cccxxxii. 1.553Northumberland to the Admiralty and to Secretary Coke, Sept. 16.State Papers, Dom., cccxxxi. 55, 56.554State Papers, Dom., cccxxxii. 39.555Northumberland’s Journal,Ibid., cccxliii. 72; Northumberland to Nicholas, 6th October 1636.Ibid., cccxxxiii. 26. Dutch accounts vary somewhat from that given by the Earl of Northumberland. According to them, seven English men-of-war fell in with a hundred busses convoyed by five States’ warships, and the busses paid the tax and took the licenses. But when thirteen Dutch men-of-war, convoying a great herring fleet, arrived on the scene and put themselves in a position for battle, the English ships did not interfere any further and soon sheered off.556An Accompt of the Convoy money, as it was delivered unto me by the Captaines emploied in that Service, vizt.: Captain Carteret, £657, Captaine Lindsey, £200, Captain Slingsby, £42, Captain Johnson, £20, Mr Skinner, £80.557An Account of the Acknowledgment Money taken of the Holland Fishermen. The partiality for English gold is shown by the fact that £119, 13s. of the total was thus paid.558The Dutch themselves appear to have acknowledged a payment of 20,000 florins (Muller,Mare Clausum, 274). Rapin (Hist. d’Angleterre, vii. 455) and Wagenaar (Vaderlandsche Historie, xi. 260) placed it at 30,000 florins; Larrey (Hist. d’Angleterre, d’Ecosse et d’Irlande, iv. 126) states that the Dutch concluded a treaty with Charles by which they agreed to pay him “dix mille ecus par an,” which is equivalent to the same thing; Hume (Hist. of England, ch. lii. an. 1636) says: “The Dutch were content to pay £30,000 for a license during this year.” The error is found in the earlier English historical writers. Rushworth (Collections, V. ii. 322) also states the sum as £30,000, and adds that the Dutch were willing to pay a yearly tribute for a like liberty in future. Frankland (Annals of King James and King Charles the First, 477 (1681)) says that Northumberland with his “sixty gallant ships” “commanded the Dutch busses to cease fishing until they had obtained permission from the King, which they seeming not willing and ready to do, he fired amongst them, sunk some and seized others, until they were forced to fly into his Majesty’s harbours, and desired the Lord Admiral to mediate to his Majesty for his leave for this summer, and they would pay unto his Majesty’s treasury therefor the sum of £30,000, which they did accordingly, and professed their readiness to become suppliants to his Majesty for a grant, under the condition of a yearly payment therefor for the future.” This writer seems to have confused Northumberland’s operations with those of Blake’s fleet in 1652 (see p. 406) or with the onslaught of the Dunkirkers in 1635. Kennet (A Complete Hist. of England, iii. 85 (1719)) repeats the mistake and puts the sum at £30,000, and so with almost all the historians, as well as the naval writers. Thus, Burchett (A Complete Hist. of the Most Remarkable Transactions at Sea, 379 (1720)) and Lediard (The Naval History of England, 526 (1735)) give the statement of Frankland; Entick (A New Naval History, 438 (1757)) drops one of the ciphers and makes the sum £3000, but otherwise retains the false account. Admiral Colomb, in his recent excellent work onNaval Warfare(p. 33), no doubt founding on these naval authors, also refers to the “non-payment of the £30,000 annually, which had been fixed by Charles as license dues.” The writers of minor books embellished the error. In a mendacious treatise published in 1664 (The Dutch drawn to the Life, 146) it is said that Northumberland “scoured the seas of the Dutch busses, seizing some, sinking others, and enforcing the rest to flee; so reducing all to the precarious condition of entreating the favour of fishing by the King’s commission, which he was the readier to indulge them, because he looked upon them as the most likely instruments for his nephew’s restauration to the Palatinate.” John Smith, writing in 1670 (England’s Improvement Reviv’d, 257), said that “the composition of the Hollanders (for liberty to fish) was an annual rent of £100,000, and £100,000 in hand; and never having been paid or brought into the Exchequer, as I could hear of, there is an arrearages of above £2,500,000; an acceptable sum,” he adds, “and which would come very happily for the present occasions of his Majesty”—Charles II. would have been very glad of much less; he quite failed to induce the Dutch to pay him £12,000 a-year for a like liberty. Evelyn in 1674 (Navigation and Commerce) put the “arrears” at over half a million sterling, and he said that in 1636 the Hollanders paid £1500, 15s. 2d. for licenses; but this was only, as he explained later, “the sophism of a mercenary pen,” since he slumped the convoy and the “acknowledgment” money together (having had access to Northumberland’s Journal), and eight years later he wrote to Pepys his remarkable letter of recantation, in which he stated, “Nor did I find that any rent (whereoff in my 108 page I calculate the arrears) for permission to fish was ever fixed by both parties” (Diary and Correspondence, iii.)The writers on international law have copied the erroneous statements from the historians and from one another. Wharton (Hist. of the Law of Nations, 154) says, “The exclusive rights to the fisheries within these seas (the Four Seas) and near the coasts of the British Islands had been occasionally acknowledged by the Dutch in the form of annual payments and taking out licenses to fish; and was again suspended by treaties between the sovereigns of England and the Princes of the House of Burgundy.” This statement, which outrages chronology as well as fact, is repeated (without acknowledgment) by Phillimore (Commentaries upon International Law, I., Part ii., c. vi. s. clxxxiv.), and by Travers Twiss (The Law of Nations in Time of Peace, 254), Hall (Treatise on International Law, 145), and others. Hall quotes Hume’s statement that the Dutch had to pay £30,000 for leave to remain, and a more recent author supposes that the great fishing of the Dutch on our coasts originated in the reign of Elizabeth, and that, growing strong, they refused to pay the “duties levied without question for generations within the British Seas” (Walker,A History of the Law of Nations, i. 167). As has been shown in the text, the Dutch herring-boats resisted the payment of the “acknowledgment” money as far as they could; the States-General equipped a fleet to prevent by force their molestation by the English men-of-war, and they dismissed their Admiral because he failed in 1636 to protect them.559Aitzema,op. cit., ii. 408. “Op de bewaringhe ende bescherminghe van de groote ende kleyne Visscherij deser Landen tegen de Spaansche ende allen anderen die hun souden willen beschadigen,” August 5/15, 1636.560State Papers, Dom., cccxxxiii. 13.561Muller,op. cit., 273.562Res. Holl., 19th September;Res. St.-Gen., 8th November 1636; Bosgoed,Bib. Pisc., 360.563Gardiner,Hist. England, viii. 160, 163, 202, 205.564Roe to Ferentz, Oct. 15, 1636.State Papers, Dom., cccxxxiv. 15. Goring to his father, Lord Goring, Feb. 4/14, 1637.Ibid., cccxlvi. 33. Goffe to Archbishop Laud, Feb. 2.Ibid., cccxlvi. 23. The Queen of Bohemia to Archbishop Laud, Feb. 4/14.Ibid., cccxlvi. 34. Laud to the Queen, Feb. 28.Ibid., cccxlviii. 62. Roe to the Queen, Mar. 17.Ibid., cccl. 16. The Queen to Laud, (Mar. 25)/(April 4).Ibid., cccli. 1. Goffe’s letter to Laud was as follows: “Your Grace will receive intelligence from other hands that certain edicts which were ready to be published by the States against paying any acknowledgment for leave to fish are now suppressed upon the hopes of his Majesty’s relinquishing that business for the present. But the Prince of Orange, not willing to content himself with probabilities, hath been very pressing with the Queen of Bohemia to have some assurance given him that the king would not interrupt their fishing this year. And if no other way might be afforded, he is very urgent at least that the Elector (the son of Elizabeth) would write to him and assure him so much. How much such an assurance would be prejudicial to the honour of his sacred Majesty your Grace can best judge. But I thought it my duty to add that though their edicts are suppressed, yet their book in answer to Mr Selden’sMare Clausumis ready to come forth: and the author is neither so modest nor discreet that the Elector should trust him [? the Prince of Orange] with any written assurance in that kind. The Prince of Orange hath been so much upon this that it hath given others cause to believe that the Elector will be moved in it.”565Roe to Ferentz.State Papers, Dom., cccxxxiv. 15.566The “confident vrundt” was probably Roe, who was the confidential adviser of Elizabeth, and at this time had interviews with the Dutch ambassador in the Prince’s interests, which he “feared would come to nothing.”Ibid.567“Que durant le même temps les Pescheurs et preneurs d’hareng, subjects de leurs Seigneuries, pescheront librement et franchement, com̄e ils out tousiours faict du temps de la Royne Elysabeth et du grand Roy Jacques tous deux de très-glorieuse mémoire, s’approchants si près des bords de mer, et rivages des royaulmes, terres et ysles de sa Maté, que leur mestier, la course de poisson et hareng, et leur proffit portera, voire jusques à seicher leurs filets sur terre, sans que sa Matédirectement ou indirectement leur fera ou fera faire aucun dommage, destourbier, ou empeschement en cela.”Verbaal van Beveren.Muller,op. cit., 279.568Gardiner,op. cit., 218.State Papers, Holland, Jan., Feb. 1637.569March 19, 1637.State Papers, Dom., cccl. 34.570Gardiner,op. cit. State Papers, Holland, Flanders.571Windebank to Northumberland, July 3.State Papers, Dom., ccclxiii. 21.572State Papers, Dom., clvii. 151b.573Windebank to the Earl of Northumberland, 3rd July 1637.State Papers, Dom., ccclxiii. 21.574Northumberland to Windebank, 4th July,Ibid., ccclxiii. 28.575Windebank to Northumberland, 6th July.Ibid., ccclxiii. 41.576“Diamentenring van tamelijcke groote,”Verbaal van Beveren. Muller,op. cit., 297.577State Papers, Dom., cccliv. 16; ccclv. 22.578Report of Fielding, 24th July.Ibid., ccclxiv. 45.579Pennington to Nicholas, 10th July,State Papers, Dom., ccclxiii. 99; Northumberland to Sir Thomas Roe, 6th August,ibid., ccclxv. 28; Pennington to Northumberland, 20th May,ibid., ccclvii. 15, ii.580Windebank to Fogg, Aug. 10.Ibid., ccclxv. 51. With reference to this letter of Windebank’s, the following note by Secretary Williamson was made on the copy in the volume prepared for the ambassadors going to Cologne in 1673 (State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., 339, p. 519): “This mentioned report appears by other letters and passages of that time to have been really the truth, but of that disadvantage to his Matysright and title, as it was thought fitt by all means to stiffle it, and give out Captain Fielding went to ye Holland Busses onely wthnotice of ye Dunquerqrspreparations to intercept them in their return and to offer his Matiesprotection.”581Windebank to Northumberland, 1st Aug.,State Papers, Dom., Chas. I., ccclxv. 5; Roe to Countess of Northumberland, 20th July,ibid., ccclxiv. 22; Northumberland to Windebank, 1st Sept.,ibid., ccclxviii. 1; Same to Admiralty, 6th Sept.,ibid., ccclxviii. 43.582Aug. 10.Ibid., ccclxv. 53. The king’s real feelings were shown in the instructions given to the Earl when he was ordered to the west on 1st August. “If any of the fishers of Holland which have refused his Majesty’s licenses shall be assaulted by the Dunkirkers, his Majesty will in no wise that you protect them.”Ibid., ccclxv. 5.583Aug. 6.State Papers, Dom., ccclxv. 28.584An example of the feeling is to be found in an incident of this summer. One, Richard Rose, a justice of the peace, on hearing that the fleet was going forth to maintain the king’s title of being Lord of the Narrow Seas, exclaimed: “What a foolery is this; that the country in general shall be thus much taxed with great sums to maintain the king’s titles and honours! For my part, I am £10 the worse for it already.” When information of this remark was laid before the Council, the Lords “thought it not fit to question these words.”Ibid., ccclxx. 1.585The king to the Twelve Judges, 2nd Feb. 1637.Ibid., ccclxvi. 11.586TheSovereign of the Seaswas the largest ship hitherto built for the navy; it was 127 feet long in the keel, 46½ feet in breadth (inside measurement), and 19 feet 4 inches in depth; the tonnage was by the “new rule” 1552 tons, by the “old rule” 1823 tons. She was also by far the most expensive. Her cost was £40,833, 8s. 1½d., besides her guns, which were estimated to cost, with engraving, £25,059, 8s. 8d.State Papers, Dom., ccclxi. 71; ccclxix. 44; ccclxxiv. 30; ccclxxxvii. 87. See also Oppenheim,Hist. Administration Royal Navy, 260. In 1637 a “description” of the ship was published by Thomas Heywood, dedicated to the king, and with a frontispiece representation of it: “A True description of his Majestie’s Royall Ship Built this yeare 1637 at Wool-witch in Kent. To the great glory of our English Nation and not paraleld in the whole Christian World.Published by Authoritie, London, 1637.” The description, apart from the verse, occupies a few pages at the end, the work dealing chiefly with the ships of the ancients. A second edition was published in 1638: “A True Discription of his Majestie’s royall and most stately ship called the Soveraign of the Seas, built at Wol-witch in Kent 1637 with the names of all the prime officers in her,” &c. Prynne (Brief Animadversions, &c., p. 123) says that Charles claimed and maintained the dominion of the seas by increasing the navy, &c., and “by giving the name of theEdgar(with this motto engraven on it,Ego ab Edgaro quatuor maria vendico) and of theSoveraign of the Seato the Admiral of his fleet.”587State Papers, Dom., ccclxxx. 61; ccclxxxix. 86; cccxc. 39.588State Papers, Dom., cccxxv. 21; cccxxxviii. 15; cccxli. 6; ccclxi. 41; cccliii. fol. 34.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 17,677, O, fol. 364.589State Papers, Dom., ccclxxxii. 44; ccclxxxiii. 29.590Smith to Pennington, 8th June 1639.Ibid., ccccxxiii. 56.591Windebank to Pennington, 10th, 15th, 16th July,State Papers, Dom., ccccxxv. 45, 72, 81; Northumberland to Pennington,ibid., ccccxxv. 76; Windebank to Hopton, 16th August,Clarendon State Papers, i. 1283.592Pennington to Windebank, 13th July.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxv. 61, 68.593Gardiner,Hist., ix. 69;State Papers, Dom., ccccxxviii. 52.594Northumberland to Pennington, 12th September,State Papers, Dom., ccccxxviii. 92; Windebank to Hopton, 29th September,Clarendon State Papers, ii. 71; Hopton to Windebank, October 12/22,Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1311.595Gardiner,op. cit., 61.596Windebank to Colonel Gage and Count Leslie, (28 Sept.)/(8 Oct.).Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1296.597Gardiner,op. cit., 63.598Smith to Pennington, 30th Sept.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxix. 70.599Northumberland to Pennington, 16th September.Ibid., ccccxxviii. 92.600Pennington to the Master of theLuke, of London, 23rd Sept.Ibid., ccccxxix. 15.601Smith to Pennington, 19th Sept.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxviii. 111.602“De Spaansche Vloot te vernielen sonder eenige aanschouw of reguard te nemen op de Havenen, Reeden, of Baayen van de Coningryken, waar de zelve zoude zyn te bekomen.”Resol. Stat.-Gen., 11/21, 20/30 Sept. 1639. Aitzema,Saken van Staet en Oorlogh. Bynkershoek,Quæstiones Juris Publici, lib. i.603Northumberland to Pennington, 8th Oct.,State Papers, Dom., ccccxxx. 47; Same to Windebank. 9th Oct.,ibid., ccccxxx. 55; Pennington to Northumberland, 11th Oct.,ibid., 77; Suffolk to Windebank, 11th Oct.,ibid., 66, 68; Pennington’s report, 11th Oct.,ibid., 74; Hopton to Windebank, 20/30 Nov.,Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1323; Tromp to Pennington, 11/21 Oct.,State Papers, Dom.,ibid., 80 (translation in Windebank’s writing);ibid., ccccxxxi. 4.604Leslie to Windebank, 11th Oct.; Gage to Windebank, 19/29 Oct.Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1309, 1313.605Northumberland to Pennington, 15th Oct.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxxi. 18, 30;Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1324.606Windebank to Gerbier, 18th Oct.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxxi. 35. Gage to Windebank, 9/19 Nov. Paper delivered by Hopton to King of Spain, 24th Nov.Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1321, 1324.607State Papers, Dom., dxxxviii. 106. The paper is endorsed “Soverainty of the Seas: the Dutch attempt on the Spaniards in the Downs.”608Resol. St.-Gen., 16/26, 20/30 Oct., (26 Oct.)/(5 Nov.) 1639. Instructie van Sommelsdijck, Muller,Mare Clausum, 309; Aitzema,Saken van Staet, ii. 618.609Secrete Resol. St.-Gen., 11/21 Oct., “Dat hunne meeninge gantsch niet was, het recht van Visscherie in de Noortzee van ijemant te stipuleren, versoecken ofte reveleren.” Muller,op. cit., 312. In the following year Vice-Admiral De With refused to lower his flag to an English ship-of-war off Hellevoetsluis.610Maine,International Law, 13, 75. Phillimore,Commentaries upon International Law, I. xxi. Wheaton,History of the Law of Nations, 54.611Meadows,Observations, p. 3. Raleigh,A Discourse on the Invention of Ships.612Cunningham,The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Early and Middle Ages, p. 418.613Le Droit International, i. 20.614De Potestate Legis Pœnalis, lib. ii. c. 14. Quoted by Nys,Les Origines du Droit International, p. 382, and by Grotius,Mare Liberum, c. vii.615D. Fernandus Vasquius,Controversiæ Illustres, Venice, 1564, lib. ii. c. lxxxix. s. 30 (p. 356, ed. Frankfurt, 1668).616Mare Libervm sive de Jvre qvod Batavis competit ad Indicana Commercia Dissertatio.Lugdvni Batauorvm. Ex officinâ Ludovici Elzevirij Anno 1609. The name of Grotius did not appear on the title-page until the second edition in 1618 (Hvgonis Groti Mare Libervm sive... vltima editio. Lvgdvni Batavorum, anno 1618), the year in which he was arrested; and that he was not generally known to be the author until this time is shown by Welwood referring toMare Liberumin 1613 as written by “an unknown author,” and by an English State Paper, prepared for the negotiations with the Dutch ambassadors in 1618, which contains excerpts out of a book calledMare Liberum(Brit. Mus. MSS. Lansd., 142, fol. 383). Grotius was then one of the most prominent men in Holland. Another edition was published, also at Leyden, in 1633, together with Paul Merula’sDissertatio de Maribusand Boxhorn’sApologia pro Navigationibus Hollandorum adversus Pontem Hevtervm, under the title, Hugo Grotius,De Mare Libero. It was also included in Hagemeier’sDe Imperio Maris, variorum Dissertationes, published in 1663. A translation in the vernacular appeared at Haarlem in 1636,—no doubt in consequence of the publication of Selden’sMare Clausum,—H. Groti,Vrye Zeevaert, ofte Bewys van het Recht dat de Inghesetenen deser gheunieerde Landen toekomt over de Oost ende West-Indische Koophandel. Hugo de Groot was born at Delft in 1583; he was appointed Advocate-General before he was twenty-four years of age, and settled at Rotterdam in 1613, where he became Pensionary of that town; he was sent to England as one of the Dutch envoys in that year. In 1618 he was arrested in connection with the Barnevelt troubles, and in the following year condemned to perpetual imprisonment; but he escaped to Paris, where he lived for eleven years, and then entering the service of the Queen of Sweden, he was employed as her ambassador at the Court of France. He died at Rostock in 1645. Some of his works were translated into almost all European languages, and even into Persian, Greek, and Arabic.617Tiele,Opkomst van het Nederlandsch Gezag in Oost-Indie; Fruin,Een onuitgegeven werk van Hugo de Groot, inDe Gids, Derde ser. zesde Jaargang, 1868, vierde del; M’Pherson,Annals of Commerce, ii. 209, 226.618“Ante annos aliquot, cum viderem ingentis esse momenti ad patriæ securitatem Indiæ quæ Orientalis dicitur commercium, id vero commercium satis appareret obsistentibus per vim atque insidias Lusitanis sine armis retineri non posse, operam dedi ut ad tuenda fortiter quæ tam feliciter cœpissent nostrorum animos inflammarem, proposita ob oculos causæ ipsius iustitia et æquitate, unde nasci το ἑυελπι recte a ueteribus traditum existimabam. Igitur et universa belli prædæque iura, et historiam eorum quæ Lusitani in nostros sæue atque crudeliter perpetrassent, multaque alia ad hoc argumentum pertinentia eram persecutus amplo satis commentario, quem edere hactenus supersedi.”Hugonis Grotii Defensio Capitis quinti Maris liberi oppugnati a Gulielmo Welwodo Iuris Civilis professore capite XXVII. eius libri scripti Anglico sermone cui titulum fecit Compendium legum Maritimaram.This manuscript of Grotius was discovered in 1864, along with the workDe Jure Prædæ, to which he refers, in a collection of MSS. brought to auction, which belonged to the family of Cornets de Groot of Bergen-op-Zoom, who had descended in a direct line from the great publicist (Fruin,op. cit.) It was printed by Muller in 1872 (Mare Clausum, p. 331). The greater work, edited by Hamaker, was published in 1868,Hugo Grotius de Jure Prædæ Commentarius.

525State Papers, Dom., ccxcviii. 63.

526The Lords of the Admiralty to the king, 24th February 1636.State Papers, Dom., cccxiii. 24, 25. The documents are in Windebank’s writing; the first is endorsed “Fishing. Waftage. An excellent Piece.” SeeAppendix I.

527“Instructions for our very good Lord, the Earle of Northumberland, Admirall of his Majesty’s fflete in his Majesty’s ship theTriumph, prepared for this present Expedic̃ion for guard of his Majesty’s Seas.”State Papers, Dom., clvii. fol. 141.

528Gardiner, viii. 157. The English ships were “clogged with timber,” which, however, served them well in the first Dutch war when they were pitted against the slighter-built ships of the States. (Oppenheim,op. cit., 254.)

529State Papers, Dom., clvii. fol. 141b; ccxiv. 107. The Earl of Northumberland to the Lords of the Admiralty, cccxxi. 44, 45, 65, 78, 87; cccxxii. 16, 40; cccxxv. 78, 79; cccxxvi. 16, 38; cccxxvii. 42, 73. The Lords of the Admiralty to Northumberland, 14th June, cccxxvi. 32.

530Rowland Woodward to Francis Windebank, 16th December 1630.State Papers, Dom., clxxvii. 13. The writer said he “much feared the event if it should be put in execution.”

531Ibid., cclxxix. 67.

532Petition of the Governor, Assistants, and Fellowship of the Merchant Adventurers of England to the Council.Ibid., cclxxxix. 91.

533Ibid., cclxxxv. 84.

534State Papers, Dom., cccviii. 48; cccxx. 14.

535A Proclamation for Restraint of Fishing upon His Maiesties Seas and Coasts without License.State Papers, Dom., cccxx. 62.Fœdera, xx. 15.

536The form annexed to the Earl of Northumberland’s instructions, sent to him on 14th June from Hampton Court, and which he received at Plymouth on the 22nd, is as follows:—“CHARLES R.“We are gratiously pleased by these Presents to grant Lycense to ... to fish with the Men and Company belonging to a Ship or Vessel called the ... being of the Burthen of ... Tonnes, upon any of Our Coasts or Seas of Great Brittaine and Ireland, and the rest of our Islands adjacent, where usually heretofore any fishing hath been. And this Our Lycense to continue for one whole Year from ye Date hereof: Willing and requiring as well all Our subjects as others of what Nation, quality or condition soever that they give no Impeachment or molestation to ye said ... or his company in the said Vessell in the Execution of this Our Lycense, upon such Paines and Punishments, as are to be inflicted upon the Violators of Our Royall Protection, and the wilful Breakers of Our Peace, in Our aforesaid Dominions and Jurisdictions, further requiring and Commanding all Our Admiralls, Vice-Admiralls, Rere-Admiralls and Captaines of Our Ships, Castles, and Forts to protect and assist the said ... in ye quiet enjoying the benefit of this Our Lycense.”Another form, dated in July, was as follows:—“Charles by the Grace of God King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all his Admiralls, Vice-Admiralls, Rere-Admiralls, and Captaines of oure Shippes, Castles and fforts, and to all and every other our Officers, Ministers and subjects to whome it shall apperteyne, Greeting. Whereas Wee are gratiously pleased by these presents to grant License to ... Master of a Busse or Vessell called the ... beinge of the burthen of ... Tonnes, To fishe with the Men and Company belonging to the said Busse or Vessell upon anie of our Coastes and Seas of Great Brittaine, Ireland and the rest of our Islands adiacent where usually fishing hath bene, from the date hereof, to the last of December next. These are to will and require as well Yow our said Officers and Subjects, as others of what Nacion, quality, or condition soever That yow not onely give noe impeachment or molestacion to the said ... or his Company in the said Vessell in the Execucion of this Our License, upon such paynes and punishments, as are to be inflicted upon the Violaters of oure Royall Protecion and the wilfull Breakers of our Peace in oure aforesaid dominions and jurisdictions: But that yow protect and assist the said ... and his Company in the quiet enioying the benefitt of this oure License during the time before limitted: Given ...”Ibid., cccxxvi. 32; cccxxix. 77, 78, 79. It appears from copies without the names and particulars filled in, which are preserved at The Hague, that the first form was used in July, a certain Joost Bouwensz of Delfshaven having accepted one on the 24th (N.S.) of that month.

536The form annexed to the Earl of Northumberland’s instructions, sent to him on 14th June from Hampton Court, and which he received at Plymouth on the 22nd, is as follows:—

“We are gratiously pleased by these Presents to grant Lycense to ... to fish with the Men and Company belonging to a Ship or Vessel called the ... being of the Burthen of ... Tonnes, upon any of Our Coasts or Seas of Great Brittaine and Ireland, and the rest of our Islands adjacent, where usually heretofore any fishing hath been. And this Our Lycense to continue for one whole Year from ye Date hereof: Willing and requiring as well all Our subjects as others of what Nation, quality or condition soever that they give no Impeachment or molestation to ye said ... or his company in the said Vessell in the Execution of this Our Lycense, upon such Paines and Punishments, as are to be inflicted upon the Violators of Our Royall Protection, and the wilful Breakers of Our Peace, in Our aforesaid Dominions and Jurisdictions, further requiring and Commanding all Our Admiralls, Vice-Admiralls, Rere-Admiralls and Captaines of Our Ships, Castles, and Forts to protect and assist the said ... in ye quiet enjoying the benefit of this Our Lycense.”

Another form, dated in July, was as follows:—

“Charles by the Grace of God King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all his Admiralls, Vice-Admiralls, Rere-Admiralls, and Captaines of oure Shippes, Castles and fforts, and to all and every other our Officers, Ministers and subjects to whome it shall apperteyne, Greeting. Whereas Wee are gratiously pleased by these presents to grant License to ... Master of a Busse or Vessell called the ... beinge of the burthen of ... Tonnes, To fishe with the Men and Company belonging to the said Busse or Vessell upon anie of our Coastes and Seas of Great Brittaine, Ireland and the rest of our Islands adiacent where usually fishing hath bene, from the date hereof, to the last of December next. These are to will and require as well Yow our said Officers and Subjects, as others of what Nacion, quality, or condition soever That yow not onely give noe impeachment or molestacion to the said ... or his Company in the said Vessell in the Execucion of this Our License, upon such paynes and punishments, as are to be inflicted upon the Violaters of oure Royall Protecion and the wilfull Breakers of our Peace in oure aforesaid dominions and jurisdictions: But that yow protect and assist the said ... and his Company in the quiet enioying the benefitt of this oure License during the time before limitted: Given ...”Ibid., cccxxvi. 32; cccxxix. 77, 78, 79. It appears from copies without the names and particulars filled in, which are preserved at The Hague, that the first form was used in July, a certain Joost Bouwensz of Delfshaven having accepted one on the 24th (N.S.) of that month.

537State Papers, Dom., cccxix. 81; cccxxii. 40; cccxxvi. 32; cccxvii. 93; cccxxviii. 11, 41, 69.

538The herring-busses in ordinary course fished all night in fleets, with their drift-nets floating in the water; during the day the crews were employed in curing and packing the herrings caught.

539“Next day wee fetched in 4 more of them, and having caused their busses to be manned with English, and threatened the takeing away their nettes, they at last consented to take Licenses, and paying the acknowledgment I sent them all away very well satisfied.” These busses belonged to the Enkhuisen herring fleet, which was convoyed by a warship under Captain Gerrit Claesz. Ruyter, to whom Northumberland, after the licenses had been accepted, gave a written certificate and safe-conduct for bringing in the busses. Muller,Mare Clausum, 269, 377.

540These were the Delfshaven busses, the skipper of one being Joust Bouwensz, previously referred to. According to the Dutch accounts, money was scarce on the busses, but the English very willingly took herrings instead, a barrel of herrings being reckoned at from four to four and a-half florins.

541These were theVictory,Repulse, andSwallow. From a report of the Officers of the Navy to the Admiralty, on 20th August, we learn that theRepulsehad a great many sick on board—“some three or four having died within these two days; some thirty sick were landed at Margate and eight are ill on board. The surgeon is dead, as is said of the spotted fever, full of spots, and it is much doubted that the pestilence is amongst them.” The plague in this and the following year made great ravages in London and at the naval ports, partly from the want of simple precautions—e.g., in this case the sick men were to be discharged “for fear of infection (of the ship) and to cease a needlesse charge.”State Papers, Dom., cccxxx. 61.

542The account of the movements of Northumberland’s fleet is extracted from his “Journall of oure Summer’s Voyage in the yeare 1636.”State Papers, Dom., cccxliii. 72.

543Northumberland to Windebank, 16th August 1636 (from Scarborough).State Papers, Dom., cccxxx. 41. About 400 licenses in all, each signed by the king, had been furnished to the Earl.

54420th Dec. 1628. “Clachten van de insolentien van’t bootsvolk en de visschers deser landen in Schotlandt.” Muller,op. cit., 232.

545The English Company and the king’s relation to it were considered by the States in January 1631, 25th Oct. 1632, 19th Nov. 1633, and 15th Sept. 1634. (Bosgoed,Bib. Pisc., 357. Oprichting eener Engelsche compagnie voor de Haring-visscherij, Muller,op. cit., 235.)

546Verbaal van Beveren, 1636-37. Muller,op. cit., 246.

547Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 17,677, P, fol. 67et seq.

548Van Beveren to the States-General, 15/25 Aug.MSS. Add., 17,677, P, fol. 88. In his letter he says the tax on each ton was “twee sixpenningen,” or an English shilling. Others placed it at two shillings a last.

549Aitzema,Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, ii. 409. Muller,op. cit., 263.

550Joachimi to the States-General, (31 Aug.)/(10 Sept.), 9/19 Sept. 1636.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 17,677, P, fol. 99, 100.Verbael van Joachimi, 1636. Muller,op. cit., 264.

551Elizabeth to Sir Thomas Roe, 15/25 Aug. 1636.State Papers, Dom., cccxxx. 38.

552Roe to Elizabeth, 19th Aug., 20th Sept.Ibid., cccxxx. 50; cccxxxii. 1.

553Northumberland to the Admiralty and to Secretary Coke, Sept. 16.State Papers, Dom., cccxxxi. 55, 56.

554State Papers, Dom., cccxxxii. 39.

555Northumberland’s Journal,Ibid., cccxliii. 72; Northumberland to Nicholas, 6th October 1636.Ibid., cccxxxiii. 26. Dutch accounts vary somewhat from that given by the Earl of Northumberland. According to them, seven English men-of-war fell in with a hundred busses convoyed by five States’ warships, and the busses paid the tax and took the licenses. But when thirteen Dutch men-of-war, convoying a great herring fleet, arrived on the scene and put themselves in a position for battle, the English ships did not interfere any further and soon sheered off.

556An Accompt of the Convoy money, as it was delivered unto me by the Captaines emploied in that Service, vizt.: Captain Carteret, £657, Captaine Lindsey, £200, Captain Slingsby, £42, Captain Johnson, £20, Mr Skinner, £80.

557An Account of the Acknowledgment Money taken of the Holland Fishermen. The partiality for English gold is shown by the fact that £119, 13s. of the total was thus paid.

558The Dutch themselves appear to have acknowledged a payment of 20,000 florins (Muller,Mare Clausum, 274). Rapin (Hist. d’Angleterre, vii. 455) and Wagenaar (Vaderlandsche Historie, xi. 260) placed it at 30,000 florins; Larrey (Hist. d’Angleterre, d’Ecosse et d’Irlande, iv. 126) states that the Dutch concluded a treaty with Charles by which they agreed to pay him “dix mille ecus par an,” which is equivalent to the same thing; Hume (Hist. of England, ch. lii. an. 1636) says: “The Dutch were content to pay £30,000 for a license during this year.” The error is found in the earlier English historical writers. Rushworth (Collections, V. ii. 322) also states the sum as £30,000, and adds that the Dutch were willing to pay a yearly tribute for a like liberty in future. Frankland (Annals of King James and King Charles the First, 477 (1681)) says that Northumberland with his “sixty gallant ships” “commanded the Dutch busses to cease fishing until they had obtained permission from the King, which they seeming not willing and ready to do, he fired amongst them, sunk some and seized others, until they were forced to fly into his Majesty’s harbours, and desired the Lord Admiral to mediate to his Majesty for his leave for this summer, and they would pay unto his Majesty’s treasury therefor the sum of £30,000, which they did accordingly, and professed their readiness to become suppliants to his Majesty for a grant, under the condition of a yearly payment therefor for the future.” This writer seems to have confused Northumberland’s operations with those of Blake’s fleet in 1652 (see p. 406) or with the onslaught of the Dunkirkers in 1635. Kennet (A Complete Hist. of England, iii. 85 (1719)) repeats the mistake and puts the sum at £30,000, and so with almost all the historians, as well as the naval writers. Thus, Burchett (A Complete Hist. of the Most Remarkable Transactions at Sea, 379 (1720)) and Lediard (The Naval History of England, 526 (1735)) give the statement of Frankland; Entick (A New Naval History, 438 (1757)) drops one of the ciphers and makes the sum £3000, but otherwise retains the false account. Admiral Colomb, in his recent excellent work onNaval Warfare(p. 33), no doubt founding on these naval authors, also refers to the “non-payment of the £30,000 annually, which had been fixed by Charles as license dues.” The writers of minor books embellished the error. In a mendacious treatise published in 1664 (The Dutch drawn to the Life, 146) it is said that Northumberland “scoured the seas of the Dutch busses, seizing some, sinking others, and enforcing the rest to flee; so reducing all to the precarious condition of entreating the favour of fishing by the King’s commission, which he was the readier to indulge them, because he looked upon them as the most likely instruments for his nephew’s restauration to the Palatinate.” John Smith, writing in 1670 (England’s Improvement Reviv’d, 257), said that “the composition of the Hollanders (for liberty to fish) was an annual rent of £100,000, and £100,000 in hand; and never having been paid or brought into the Exchequer, as I could hear of, there is an arrearages of above £2,500,000; an acceptable sum,” he adds, “and which would come very happily for the present occasions of his Majesty”—Charles II. would have been very glad of much less; he quite failed to induce the Dutch to pay him £12,000 a-year for a like liberty. Evelyn in 1674 (Navigation and Commerce) put the “arrears” at over half a million sterling, and he said that in 1636 the Hollanders paid £1500, 15s. 2d. for licenses; but this was only, as he explained later, “the sophism of a mercenary pen,” since he slumped the convoy and the “acknowledgment” money together (having had access to Northumberland’s Journal), and eight years later he wrote to Pepys his remarkable letter of recantation, in which he stated, “Nor did I find that any rent (whereoff in my 108 page I calculate the arrears) for permission to fish was ever fixed by both parties” (Diary and Correspondence, iii.)The writers on international law have copied the erroneous statements from the historians and from one another. Wharton (Hist. of the Law of Nations, 154) says, “The exclusive rights to the fisheries within these seas (the Four Seas) and near the coasts of the British Islands had been occasionally acknowledged by the Dutch in the form of annual payments and taking out licenses to fish; and was again suspended by treaties between the sovereigns of England and the Princes of the House of Burgundy.” This statement, which outrages chronology as well as fact, is repeated (without acknowledgment) by Phillimore (Commentaries upon International Law, I., Part ii., c. vi. s. clxxxiv.), and by Travers Twiss (The Law of Nations in Time of Peace, 254), Hall (Treatise on International Law, 145), and others. Hall quotes Hume’s statement that the Dutch had to pay £30,000 for leave to remain, and a more recent author supposes that the great fishing of the Dutch on our coasts originated in the reign of Elizabeth, and that, growing strong, they refused to pay the “duties levied without question for generations within the British Seas” (Walker,A History of the Law of Nations, i. 167). As has been shown in the text, the Dutch herring-boats resisted the payment of the “acknowledgment” money as far as they could; the States-General equipped a fleet to prevent by force their molestation by the English men-of-war, and they dismissed their Admiral because he failed in 1636 to protect them.

The writers on international law have copied the erroneous statements from the historians and from one another. Wharton (Hist. of the Law of Nations, 154) says, “The exclusive rights to the fisheries within these seas (the Four Seas) and near the coasts of the British Islands had been occasionally acknowledged by the Dutch in the form of annual payments and taking out licenses to fish; and was again suspended by treaties between the sovereigns of England and the Princes of the House of Burgundy.” This statement, which outrages chronology as well as fact, is repeated (without acknowledgment) by Phillimore (Commentaries upon International Law, I., Part ii., c. vi. s. clxxxiv.), and by Travers Twiss (The Law of Nations in Time of Peace, 254), Hall (Treatise on International Law, 145), and others. Hall quotes Hume’s statement that the Dutch had to pay £30,000 for leave to remain, and a more recent author supposes that the great fishing of the Dutch on our coasts originated in the reign of Elizabeth, and that, growing strong, they refused to pay the “duties levied without question for generations within the British Seas” (Walker,A History of the Law of Nations, i. 167). As has been shown in the text, the Dutch herring-boats resisted the payment of the “acknowledgment” money as far as they could; the States-General equipped a fleet to prevent by force their molestation by the English men-of-war, and they dismissed their Admiral because he failed in 1636 to protect them.

559Aitzema,op. cit., ii. 408. “Op de bewaringhe ende bescherminghe van de groote ende kleyne Visscherij deser Landen tegen de Spaansche ende allen anderen die hun souden willen beschadigen,” August 5/15, 1636.

560State Papers, Dom., cccxxxiii. 13.

561Muller,op. cit., 273.

562Res. Holl., 19th September;Res. St.-Gen., 8th November 1636; Bosgoed,Bib. Pisc., 360.

563Gardiner,Hist. England, viii. 160, 163, 202, 205.

564Roe to Ferentz, Oct. 15, 1636.State Papers, Dom., cccxxxiv. 15. Goring to his father, Lord Goring, Feb. 4/14, 1637.Ibid., cccxlvi. 33. Goffe to Archbishop Laud, Feb. 2.Ibid., cccxlvi. 23. The Queen of Bohemia to Archbishop Laud, Feb. 4/14.Ibid., cccxlvi. 34. Laud to the Queen, Feb. 28.Ibid., cccxlviii. 62. Roe to the Queen, Mar. 17.Ibid., cccl. 16. The Queen to Laud, (Mar. 25)/(April 4).Ibid., cccli. 1. Goffe’s letter to Laud was as follows: “Your Grace will receive intelligence from other hands that certain edicts which were ready to be published by the States against paying any acknowledgment for leave to fish are now suppressed upon the hopes of his Majesty’s relinquishing that business for the present. But the Prince of Orange, not willing to content himself with probabilities, hath been very pressing with the Queen of Bohemia to have some assurance given him that the king would not interrupt their fishing this year. And if no other way might be afforded, he is very urgent at least that the Elector (the son of Elizabeth) would write to him and assure him so much. How much such an assurance would be prejudicial to the honour of his sacred Majesty your Grace can best judge. But I thought it my duty to add that though their edicts are suppressed, yet their book in answer to Mr Selden’sMare Clausumis ready to come forth: and the author is neither so modest nor discreet that the Elector should trust him [? the Prince of Orange] with any written assurance in that kind. The Prince of Orange hath been so much upon this that it hath given others cause to believe that the Elector will be moved in it.”

565Roe to Ferentz.State Papers, Dom., cccxxxiv. 15.

566The “confident vrundt” was probably Roe, who was the confidential adviser of Elizabeth, and at this time had interviews with the Dutch ambassador in the Prince’s interests, which he “feared would come to nothing.”Ibid.

567“Que durant le même temps les Pescheurs et preneurs d’hareng, subjects de leurs Seigneuries, pescheront librement et franchement, com̄e ils out tousiours faict du temps de la Royne Elysabeth et du grand Roy Jacques tous deux de très-glorieuse mémoire, s’approchants si près des bords de mer, et rivages des royaulmes, terres et ysles de sa Maté, que leur mestier, la course de poisson et hareng, et leur proffit portera, voire jusques à seicher leurs filets sur terre, sans que sa Matédirectement ou indirectement leur fera ou fera faire aucun dommage, destourbier, ou empeschement en cela.”Verbaal van Beveren.Muller,op. cit., 279.

568Gardiner,op. cit., 218.State Papers, Holland, Jan., Feb. 1637.

569March 19, 1637.State Papers, Dom., cccl. 34.

570Gardiner,op. cit. State Papers, Holland, Flanders.

571Windebank to Northumberland, July 3.State Papers, Dom., ccclxiii. 21.

572State Papers, Dom., clvii. 151b.

573Windebank to the Earl of Northumberland, 3rd July 1637.State Papers, Dom., ccclxiii. 21.

574Northumberland to Windebank, 4th July,Ibid., ccclxiii. 28.

575Windebank to Northumberland, 6th July.Ibid., ccclxiii. 41.

576“Diamentenring van tamelijcke groote,”Verbaal van Beveren. Muller,op. cit., 297.

577State Papers, Dom., cccliv. 16; ccclv. 22.

578Report of Fielding, 24th July.Ibid., ccclxiv. 45.

579Pennington to Nicholas, 10th July,State Papers, Dom., ccclxiii. 99; Northumberland to Sir Thomas Roe, 6th August,ibid., ccclxv. 28; Pennington to Northumberland, 20th May,ibid., ccclvii. 15, ii.

580Windebank to Fogg, Aug. 10.Ibid., ccclxv. 51. With reference to this letter of Windebank’s, the following note by Secretary Williamson was made on the copy in the volume prepared for the ambassadors going to Cologne in 1673 (State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., 339, p. 519): “This mentioned report appears by other letters and passages of that time to have been really the truth, but of that disadvantage to his Matysright and title, as it was thought fitt by all means to stiffle it, and give out Captain Fielding went to ye Holland Busses onely wthnotice of ye Dunquerqrspreparations to intercept them in their return and to offer his Matiesprotection.”

581Windebank to Northumberland, 1st Aug.,State Papers, Dom., Chas. I., ccclxv. 5; Roe to Countess of Northumberland, 20th July,ibid., ccclxiv. 22; Northumberland to Windebank, 1st Sept.,ibid., ccclxviii. 1; Same to Admiralty, 6th Sept.,ibid., ccclxviii. 43.

582Aug. 10.Ibid., ccclxv. 53. The king’s real feelings were shown in the instructions given to the Earl when he was ordered to the west on 1st August. “If any of the fishers of Holland which have refused his Majesty’s licenses shall be assaulted by the Dunkirkers, his Majesty will in no wise that you protect them.”Ibid., ccclxv. 5.

583Aug. 6.State Papers, Dom., ccclxv. 28.

584An example of the feeling is to be found in an incident of this summer. One, Richard Rose, a justice of the peace, on hearing that the fleet was going forth to maintain the king’s title of being Lord of the Narrow Seas, exclaimed: “What a foolery is this; that the country in general shall be thus much taxed with great sums to maintain the king’s titles and honours! For my part, I am £10 the worse for it already.” When information of this remark was laid before the Council, the Lords “thought it not fit to question these words.”Ibid., ccclxx. 1.

585The king to the Twelve Judges, 2nd Feb. 1637.Ibid., ccclxvi. 11.

586TheSovereign of the Seaswas the largest ship hitherto built for the navy; it was 127 feet long in the keel, 46½ feet in breadth (inside measurement), and 19 feet 4 inches in depth; the tonnage was by the “new rule” 1552 tons, by the “old rule” 1823 tons. She was also by far the most expensive. Her cost was £40,833, 8s. 1½d., besides her guns, which were estimated to cost, with engraving, £25,059, 8s. 8d.State Papers, Dom., ccclxi. 71; ccclxix. 44; ccclxxiv. 30; ccclxxxvii. 87. See also Oppenheim,Hist. Administration Royal Navy, 260. In 1637 a “description” of the ship was published by Thomas Heywood, dedicated to the king, and with a frontispiece representation of it: “A True description of his Majestie’s Royall Ship Built this yeare 1637 at Wool-witch in Kent. To the great glory of our English Nation and not paraleld in the whole Christian World.Published by Authoritie, London, 1637.” The description, apart from the verse, occupies a few pages at the end, the work dealing chiefly with the ships of the ancients. A second edition was published in 1638: “A True Discription of his Majestie’s royall and most stately ship called the Soveraign of the Seas, built at Wol-witch in Kent 1637 with the names of all the prime officers in her,” &c. Prynne (Brief Animadversions, &c., p. 123) says that Charles claimed and maintained the dominion of the seas by increasing the navy, &c., and “by giving the name of theEdgar(with this motto engraven on it,Ego ab Edgaro quatuor maria vendico) and of theSoveraign of the Seato the Admiral of his fleet.”

587State Papers, Dom., ccclxxx. 61; ccclxxxix. 86; cccxc. 39.

588State Papers, Dom., cccxxv. 21; cccxxxviii. 15; cccxli. 6; ccclxi. 41; cccliii. fol. 34.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 17,677, O, fol. 364.

589State Papers, Dom., ccclxxxii. 44; ccclxxxiii. 29.

590Smith to Pennington, 8th June 1639.Ibid., ccccxxiii. 56.

591Windebank to Pennington, 10th, 15th, 16th July,State Papers, Dom., ccccxxv. 45, 72, 81; Northumberland to Pennington,ibid., ccccxxv. 76; Windebank to Hopton, 16th August,Clarendon State Papers, i. 1283.

592Pennington to Windebank, 13th July.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxv. 61, 68.

593Gardiner,Hist., ix. 69;State Papers, Dom., ccccxxviii. 52.

594Northumberland to Pennington, 12th September,State Papers, Dom., ccccxxviii. 92; Windebank to Hopton, 29th September,Clarendon State Papers, ii. 71; Hopton to Windebank, October 12/22,Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1311.

595Gardiner,op. cit., 61.

596Windebank to Colonel Gage and Count Leslie, (28 Sept.)/(8 Oct.).Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1296.

597Gardiner,op. cit., 63.

598Smith to Pennington, 30th Sept.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxix. 70.

599Northumberland to Pennington, 16th September.Ibid., ccccxxviii. 92.

600Pennington to the Master of theLuke, of London, 23rd Sept.Ibid., ccccxxix. 15.

601Smith to Pennington, 19th Sept.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxviii. 111.

602“De Spaansche Vloot te vernielen sonder eenige aanschouw of reguard te nemen op de Havenen, Reeden, of Baayen van de Coningryken, waar de zelve zoude zyn te bekomen.”Resol. Stat.-Gen., 11/21, 20/30 Sept. 1639. Aitzema,Saken van Staet en Oorlogh. Bynkershoek,Quæstiones Juris Publici, lib. i.

603Northumberland to Pennington, 8th Oct.,State Papers, Dom., ccccxxx. 47; Same to Windebank. 9th Oct.,ibid., ccccxxx. 55; Pennington to Northumberland, 11th Oct.,ibid., 77; Suffolk to Windebank, 11th Oct.,ibid., 66, 68; Pennington’s report, 11th Oct.,ibid., 74; Hopton to Windebank, 20/30 Nov.,Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1323; Tromp to Pennington, 11/21 Oct.,State Papers, Dom.,ibid., 80 (translation in Windebank’s writing);ibid., ccccxxxi. 4.

604Leslie to Windebank, 11th Oct.; Gage to Windebank, 19/29 Oct.Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1309, 1313.

605Northumberland to Pennington, 15th Oct.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxxi. 18, 30;Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1324.

606Windebank to Gerbier, 18th Oct.State Papers, Dom., ccccxxxi. 35. Gage to Windebank, 9/19 Nov. Paper delivered by Hopton to King of Spain, 24th Nov.Cal. Clar. State Papers, i. 1321, 1324.

607State Papers, Dom., dxxxviii. 106. The paper is endorsed “Soverainty of the Seas: the Dutch attempt on the Spaniards in the Downs.”

608Resol. St.-Gen., 16/26, 20/30 Oct., (26 Oct.)/(5 Nov.) 1639. Instructie van Sommelsdijck, Muller,Mare Clausum, 309; Aitzema,Saken van Staet, ii. 618.

609Secrete Resol. St.-Gen., 11/21 Oct., “Dat hunne meeninge gantsch niet was, het recht van Visscherie in de Noortzee van ijemant te stipuleren, versoecken ofte reveleren.” Muller,op. cit., 312. In the following year Vice-Admiral De With refused to lower his flag to an English ship-of-war off Hellevoetsluis.

610Maine,International Law, 13, 75. Phillimore,Commentaries upon International Law, I. xxi. Wheaton,History of the Law of Nations, 54.

611Meadows,Observations, p. 3. Raleigh,A Discourse on the Invention of Ships.

612Cunningham,The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Early and Middle Ages, p. 418.

613Le Droit International, i. 20.

614De Potestate Legis Pœnalis, lib. ii. c. 14. Quoted by Nys,Les Origines du Droit International, p. 382, and by Grotius,Mare Liberum, c. vii.

615D. Fernandus Vasquius,Controversiæ Illustres, Venice, 1564, lib. ii. c. lxxxix. s. 30 (p. 356, ed. Frankfurt, 1668).

616Mare Libervm sive de Jvre qvod Batavis competit ad Indicana Commercia Dissertatio.Lugdvni Batauorvm. Ex officinâ Ludovici Elzevirij Anno 1609. The name of Grotius did not appear on the title-page until the second edition in 1618 (Hvgonis Groti Mare Libervm sive... vltima editio. Lvgdvni Batavorum, anno 1618), the year in which he was arrested; and that he was not generally known to be the author until this time is shown by Welwood referring toMare Liberumin 1613 as written by “an unknown author,” and by an English State Paper, prepared for the negotiations with the Dutch ambassadors in 1618, which contains excerpts out of a book calledMare Liberum(Brit. Mus. MSS. Lansd., 142, fol. 383). Grotius was then one of the most prominent men in Holland. Another edition was published, also at Leyden, in 1633, together with Paul Merula’sDissertatio de Maribusand Boxhorn’sApologia pro Navigationibus Hollandorum adversus Pontem Hevtervm, under the title, Hugo Grotius,De Mare Libero. It was also included in Hagemeier’sDe Imperio Maris, variorum Dissertationes, published in 1663. A translation in the vernacular appeared at Haarlem in 1636,—no doubt in consequence of the publication of Selden’sMare Clausum,—H. Groti,Vrye Zeevaert, ofte Bewys van het Recht dat de Inghesetenen deser gheunieerde Landen toekomt over de Oost ende West-Indische Koophandel. Hugo de Groot was born at Delft in 1583; he was appointed Advocate-General before he was twenty-four years of age, and settled at Rotterdam in 1613, where he became Pensionary of that town; he was sent to England as one of the Dutch envoys in that year. In 1618 he was arrested in connection with the Barnevelt troubles, and in the following year condemned to perpetual imprisonment; but he escaped to Paris, where he lived for eleven years, and then entering the service of the Queen of Sweden, he was employed as her ambassador at the Court of France. He died at Rostock in 1645. Some of his works were translated into almost all European languages, and even into Persian, Greek, and Arabic.

617Tiele,Opkomst van het Nederlandsch Gezag in Oost-Indie; Fruin,Een onuitgegeven werk van Hugo de Groot, inDe Gids, Derde ser. zesde Jaargang, 1868, vierde del; M’Pherson,Annals of Commerce, ii. 209, 226.

618“Ante annos aliquot, cum viderem ingentis esse momenti ad patriæ securitatem Indiæ quæ Orientalis dicitur commercium, id vero commercium satis appareret obsistentibus per vim atque insidias Lusitanis sine armis retineri non posse, operam dedi ut ad tuenda fortiter quæ tam feliciter cœpissent nostrorum animos inflammarem, proposita ob oculos causæ ipsius iustitia et æquitate, unde nasci το ἑυελπι recte a ueteribus traditum existimabam. Igitur et universa belli prædæque iura, et historiam eorum quæ Lusitani in nostros sæue atque crudeliter perpetrassent, multaque alia ad hoc argumentum pertinentia eram persecutus amplo satis commentario, quem edere hactenus supersedi.”Hugonis Grotii Defensio Capitis quinti Maris liberi oppugnati a Gulielmo Welwodo Iuris Civilis professore capite XXVII. eius libri scripti Anglico sermone cui titulum fecit Compendium legum Maritimaram.This manuscript of Grotius was discovered in 1864, along with the workDe Jure Prædæ, to which he refers, in a collection of MSS. brought to auction, which belonged to the family of Cornets de Groot of Bergen-op-Zoom, who had descended in a direct line from the great publicist (Fruin,op. cit.) It was printed by Muller in 1872 (Mare Clausum, p. 331). The greater work, edited by Hamaker, was published in 1868,Hugo Grotius de Jure Prædæ Commentarius.

Back to Index Next