Chapter 36

833De Witt’sBrieven, iv. 109, 119. Clarendon’sMemoirs, iii. 434. There are numerous papers referring to these negotiations and the subsequent treaty, including “the articles which the States’ Ambassadors Extraordinary are to procure from his Majesty of Great Britain,” amongState Papers, Foreign Treaty Papers (Holland), 1651-1665, Bdl. 46.834Res. Holl., 13th Sept. 1659, 261.Ibid., 1660, p. 749; 1661, p. 181.835Hollantsche Mercurius, 1661, pp. 9, 10. De Witt’sBrieven, iv. 48, 61, 68, &c.836De Witt to Van Beuningen, 27 December 1660/6 January 1661; the same to Van Beverwaert and Van Hoorn, 4/14 Jan. 1661; Van Beverwaert to De Witt, 3/13, 4/14 Jan. 1661.Brieven, i. 344; iv. 65, 66, 68. Pontalis,John De Witt, i. 267.837“Dutch AmbrsMemoriall desiring the Act of Parliament about fishing may not pass,” 17th Dec. 1660. Copy inS. P., Dom.Collection, Chas. II., vol. 339, p. 581. It is to the effect that the extraordinary ambassadors were informed that a Bill had been introduced into the Lower Chamber regarding the herring fishery, in which foreigners were to be prohibited from fishing within eight or ten “leagues” (“huiet ou dix lieuës”) from the coast, and praying the king to prevent the said Bill from becoming an Act of Parliament. It contains the usual arguments as to immemorial possession, treaty rights, &c.838Brieven, i. 344; iv. 66, 69, 81, 87, 89, 105, 109.839Boreel to De Witt, (25 Nov.)/(5 Dec.) 1653.Ibid., i. 54.840Letters from Van Beuningen to De Witt, 1/11 Feb. 1661 to (20 Feb.)/(2 March) 1662; from De Witt to Van Beuningen, 3/13 Oct. 1661 to 12/22 March 1662.Brieven, i. 432-514.Secreete Resolutiën van de Staaten van Holland en West-Vriesland, ii. 246. Pontalis,John de Witt, i. 276. Pontalis scarcely grasps the question of the fishery when he says: “The free right of fishing still more directly concerned the States-General; they could not prevail in England to allow them the enjoyment of it,so long as it had not been accorded to them by France, and they therefore made it a condition of their treaty with Louis XIV.”841Dumont,Corps Diplomatique, VI. ii. 412. Aitzema,Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, x. 305. The article was as follows: “IV. L’obligation reciproque de s’entr’aider et deffendre, s’entend aussi pour estre Sa Majesté et lesdits Seigneurs Estats Generaux, leurs Pays et Sujets, conservez et maintenus en tous leurs Droits, Possessions, Immunitez et Libertez, tant de Navigation, que de Commerce et Pêche, et autres quelconques par Mer et par Terre, qui se trouveront leur appartenir par le Droit commun, ou estre acquis par des Traitez faits ou à faire, en la maniere susdite, envers et contre tous Roys, Princes, Republiques, ou autres Estats Souverains,” &c.842“Herr Downingh de voorsz. antwoorde begonde te justificeren, door de gepretendeerde Souverainiteyt van de Engelschen op de Zee, ... ende hebbe ick rondt uyt verklaert, dat eer wy die imaginaire Souverainiteyt souden erkennen, ofte by maniere van concessie van de Engelschen ontfangen, die vryheydt tot het bevaeren ende bevisschen van de Zee, die ons van de nature, ende nae ’t Volckeren-reght competeerde, wy alle den laetsten druppel bloedt daer by souden laeten.” De Witt to Van Beverwaert and Van Hoorn, 14/24 June 1661 (Brieven, iv. 144); the same to Van Beuningen, 4/14 Dec. 1661 (ibid., i. 471).843Dumont,op. cit., VI. ii. 424. “X. Item, quod naves et navigia dictarum Fœderatarum Provinciarum, tam bellica et ad hostium vim propulsandam instructa, quam alia, quæ alicui e navibus bellicis dicti Domini Regis Magnæ Britanniæ in maribus Britannicis obviam dederint, vexillum suum e mali vertice detrahent, et supremum velum demittent, eo modo quo ullis retro temporibus, unquam observatam fuit.”844State Papers, Dom., lv. 14.845State Papers, Dom., xliv. 64. Pepys’Diary, ii. 135, 151. According to Rugge (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 10, 116), quoted by Lord Braybrooke, Holmes insisted upon the Swede’s lowering his flag, and had even fired a shot to enforce the observance; but the ambassador sent a message to the English frigate to assure the captain, on the word of honour of an ambassador, that the king by a verbal order had given him leave and a dispensation, and upon this false representation he was allowed to proceed. The Swedes, it may be added, were always disinclined to strike to English ships.846Pepys’Diary, ii. 145, 146, 148, &c.847Pontalis,op. cit., i. 313. It would appear that on a previous occasion Lawson had returned the salute with the flag, for in the controversy with France on the striking of the flag a few years later, the Dutch stated, as an instance of the custom with England, that Lawson had shown this courtesy to De Ruyter off Tangiers. De Witt’sBrieven, ii. 474.848Commons’ Journals, viii. 548, 553;Lords’ Journals, xi. 599, 614;Parlt. Hist., iv. 291, 308; Clarendon’sMemoirs, ii. 235-237, 288; Hume,Hist. of England, lxiv.; Pepys’Diary, iv. 31, 42, &c.; Pontalis,John de Witt, i. 309.849The Dutch Drawn to the Life, 1664. “Never was anything so unanimously applauded by men of all persuasions and interest as a Dutch Warre, which is the universal Wish of the people.”85016 & 17 Car. II.851The king to the Duke of York, 22nd March 1665.State Papers, Dom., cxv. 76.852The author ofThe Dutch Drawn to the Lifeexpatiated on the inestimable benefit the Dutch derived from the British seas by encroaching on our fisheries, and asserted that the only way to keep them under was “by commanding the narrow sea, their coast and ours,”—the narrow sea, according to this writer’s view, or at least the “right and dominion of England,” extending as far as the Mediterranean (p. 75).853See Mahan,The Influence of Sea Power upon History; Colomb,Naval Warfare; Pontalis,op. cit.; Clarendon’sMemoirs, ii. 111.854Groot Placaet-Boeck, inhoudende de Placaten ende Ordonnantien van de H. M. Heeren Staten Generael der Vereenighde Nederlanden, iii. 291-293.Resol. Holl., 1665, 24, 59, 78, 210, 383.State Papers, Dom., cxiv. 104.Ibid.,Warrant Book, 18, p. 213; 23, pp. 283, 475.Ibid., clxxviii. 172.855S. P., Dom.Collection, Chas. II., vol. 339, p. 591. It is a copy in English. The petition was from the “Burgomasters, Eschevins, Counsellors, and the rest of the body of Citizens.”856“Warrant to ye Lord Chancellor for affixing ye great seale to an instrument containing a grant of fishinge in these seas for a certain number of boates belonging to ye City of Bruges, yearely,” July 17, 1666.State Papers, Warrant Book, 23, p. 27. “Patent in favour of the Citie of Bruges in fflanders for a libertie of fishing in the British Seas with 50 saill of ships,” 29th August 1666.Advoc. MSS., 25. 3. 4. The draft or copy of the Royal Letter which followed upon the Warrant is given inAppendix N.857See p. 617.858Resol. Holl., 11/21 Jan. 1665, p. 54.Hollantsche Mercurius, 15th Oct. 1665, p. 143.State Papers, Dom., 4th Nov. 1665, cxxxvi. 35.859Groot Placaet-Boeck, iii. 295, 296.860State Papers, Dom., clxvi. 8, 46, 77, 100; clxvii. 148; clxxv. 146; clxxxi. 113.861Ibid., clxxi. 30; clxxii. 7, 41. At the Yarmouth fishing this year (1666) “the sea was fuller of herrings than was ever known”; no sooner were the nets in the water than they were full of fish, and many herrings had to be thrown overboard, so that it was locally rhymed, “twelve herrings a penny fills many a hungry belly.” The exceptional abundance was attributed by the fishermen to the war having practically put a stop to the Dutch fishing off our coast, so that the shoals came to the inshore grounds in a body and not broken up. The herring fishing was also unusually successful during the third Dutch war. In 1666, however, the herring fishing in Ireland was likewise uncommonly productive.Ibid., clxxiv. 52, 100, 129, 156; clxxv. 49.862Resol. Holl., 21 June/1 July 1667, p. 210.State Papers, Dom., ccxvi. 143; ccxvii. 77.863De Witt to Van Beuningen, 12/22 July 1666 to 18/28 July 1667; Van Beuningen to De Witt, (21 June)/(1 July) 1666 to 12/22 July 1667. “Raisons par lesquelles il paroît, que le contre-salut du Pavillon, aux rencontres des Flotes de Sa Majesté Très-Chrétienne et des États Généraux, est d’une justice toute évident.” De Witt’sBrieven, ii. 473, &c. Pontalis,op. cit., i. 353.864Articles touching Navigation and Commerce, concluded at Breda, 21/31 July 1667.865“Dat de scheepen van oorlois (sic) van den Coninck van Groot Brittannien door die van desen staet met het strijcken van de vlagge gesalveert werdende, van haere sijde vervolgens met het strijcken van haere vlagge contra salueren sullen.” Extract fromSecret Resolution, States-General, 11th May 1667, Instructions to Ambassadors.Treaty Papers (Breda), 1667, Bdl. 73.866Art. xix.See p. 455. Van Beuningen to De Witt, 5/15 April 1667. De Witt to Van Beuningen, 18/28 April, 20/30 June, (27 June)/(1 July) 1667.Brieven, ii. 483, 487, 528, 533.867Treaty of Breda, Art. vii. It may have been in connection with the interpretation of this clause that the High Court of Admiralty asked the Trinity House their opinion as to the end of the English Channel westwards, and got the following answer: “We shall not presume,” said the Masters, on 2nd January 1668, “to determine matters that have for some ages past been controverted, and for anything that we at present know have not had a full resolution or any precedent for deciding questions relating thereunto;” but the opinion of “the past and present age,” with which they concurred, was that when any commander brought Scilly N.N.W. he had entered “the Channel of England.”Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221.868Treaty of Peace and Alliance between Charles I. and Louis XIV., concluded at Breda, 21/31 July 1667. Article xvii.869Treaty of Peace and Alliance between Charles II. and Frederick III., concluded at Breda, 21/31 July 1667. Art. ii.870In the negotiation of subsequent treaties, controversy was usually occasioned about the wording of these articles relating to the date of cessation of hostilities on the sea, the United Provinces or France pointing to the treaty of Breda as a precedent, while the English took their stand on Cromwell’s treaty of 1654. In the treaty of Ryswick in 1697, between the United Provinces and France, the term “British Channel” was employed in conjunction with the Baltic and North Sea (Art. ii.); and in the treaty between William III. and Louis, signed at Ryswick on the same day, the words were “in the British and North Seas, as far as the Cape St Vincent” (Art. x.) In the negotiation with France in 1712 for a suspension of hostilities, the French insisted on the words, “the seas which surround the British Isles,” citing the treaty of Breda, while the British were equally obstinate to have the termin maribus Britannicisinserted, as in the treaty of 1654, arguing that the “error” of Breda had been rectified in the later treaty of Ryswick; the result being that in one article “the Channel, the British Sea, and the North Sea” were specified, and in another the phrase was “in the Channel and North Sea.” Dumont,Corps Diplomatique, VIII. i. 306. Burchett,A Complete History of the Most Remarkable Transactions at Sea, &c., p. 38.871See p. 474.872This was the farthing known later as the “Lucas farthing,” from the gibes of Lord Lucas in his attack on the king’s policy made in the debate on the Subsidy Bill in the House of Lords in 1670. Speaking of the scarcity of money in the kingdom, he said: “What supply is preparing for it, my Lords? I hear of none, unless it be of copper farthings; and this is the metal that is to indicate, according to the inscription on it, ‘The Dominion of the Four Seas.’”Parl. Hist., iv. 473.873“Omtrent het point van de Vlagge, saegen wy alhier seer gaerne iets seeckers gedetermineert, ten minsten dat wy moghten weten waer mede men buyten nieuwe feytelyckheydt ende Oorloge konde verblyven; dat een Fregatje ofte een Kitsje een gantsche Oorloghs-Vloote soude doen strycken, is notoirlyck intolerabel.” De Witt to Meerman, 12/22 June 1668. The same to the same, (29 Feb.)/(9 March), 3/13, 7/17 April, (24 April)/(4 May), (22 May)/(1 June) 1668. De Witt to Meerman and Boreel, 17/27 March, (29 May)/(8 June) 1668. Meerman to De Witt, (28 March)/(7 April), 6/16 June 1668. De Witt’sBrieven, iv. Sir William Temple to Lord Arlington, 2/12 Feb., 6/16 March 1668; the same to the Lord-Keeper Bridgeman, (25 Oct.)/(4 Nov.) 1668.Works, iii. 134, 199, 348.State Papers, Dom., 1668, ccxxxv. 49, 62;ibid., 1665, cxxiii. 67. Aitzema,Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, v. 390.874The king to the Duke of York, 31st Oct. 1669.State Papers, Entry Book, 31, fol. 37.875Pepys’Diary, 20th Dec. 1668, viii. 184.876Pontalis,op. cit., ii. 24.877The king to the Duke of York, 26th June 1669.State Papers, Entry Book, 31, fol. 29. Instructions by the Duke of York to Sir Thomas Allin, 6th July 1669.Ibid., cclxii. 120. A marginal memorandum on the latter document says, “This rule was adjusted with Colbert, the French Ambassador here,but nothing passed in writing but this.”878State Papers, Dom., 1669, cclxi. 82-87.879State Papers, Dom., 1668, ccli. 191; 1670, cclxxiv. 157; cclxxv. 43; cclxxvi. 206; cclxxxi. 15; 1671, ccxc. 5, &c. Temple’sMemoirs, iii. 433. Justice,Dominion and Laws of the Sea, 298.880Bynkershoek,De Dominio Maris, cap. ii. iv. As elsewhere explained (p. 557), it was this custom which helped to prepare the way for the acceptance of the principle that now determines the extent of the territorial sea on an open coast—viz., the range of guns.881Hume,Hist, of England, c. lxv. Temple’sMemoirs and Letters. Pontalis,John de Witt. Macaulay,Hist., i. c. ii.882Parl. Hist., iv. 456. Hume,op. cit.883De Witt’sBrieven, iv. 837. Pontalis,op. cit., ii. 122.884Sir Leoline Jenkins to Sir Thomas Allin, Admiral of the Blue Flag, 8th Oct. 1670.Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, ii. 699.885Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, ff. 46b, 48b.886Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 47b. The affidavits of three English sailors who witnessed the meeting of theMerlinand the two Dutch convoyers off Flamborough. The sailors swore “that they exchanged guns but did not strike their flags, but went away with their flags abroad.” This evidence was obtained to magnify the offence; the position assigned, “off the Flamborough,” makes its value doubtful.887“A Draft made by Sir Leoline Jenkins about the King’s Sovereignty in the British Seas.”Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 46b. Undated, but probably referring to this case.888Sir William Temple to Sir John Temple, 14th Sept. 1671.Works, iii. 501. Pontalis,John de Witt, 126, 127. Hume,Hist. of England, cap. lxv.State Papers, Dom., 1671, ccxcii. 45, 77, 78, 81, 215. Evelyn’sDiary(ed. 1850), ii. 69.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221.889Pontalis,op. cit., ii. 130, 134. Hume,op. cit., cap. xlv. Sir William Temple to his brother, 23rd May 1672.Works, iii. 505. Clarendon’sMemoirs, ii. 289.England’s Appeal, p. 22.State Papers, Entry Book, 24, fol. 54.Ibid.,Dom., 1671, ccxciv. 127; 1672, cccii. 55, 112, 233; ccciii. 206.Entry Book, 34, f. 147. It was in connection with the offers of the Dutch on this occasion or a little later in the year that Sir Leoline Jenkins made the following pronouncement as to the king’s rights to the dominion of the seas. He was asked by Secretary Coventry “what his Majesty, his heirs and successors, Kings of England, may reasonably pretend to be signified by these words,en la pleine et entiere joüissance du droit de pavillon”? Jenkins replied (1) that the King of England for the time being was Lord of these seas, where he had the right of his flag acknowledged, and that these seas were, as much as that watery element is capable of being so in its nature, no less a domain of the Crown than the Honour of Greenwich or the Manor of Eltham; (2) that thedroits souverainesof the king in his seas against strangers had all the legal requisites of a prescription beyond the memory of man, and did not consist in one individual point, as for instance in having the flag struck to, or in having the liberty of fishing acknowledged by yearly sums of money; but in all the several rights, honours, and perquisites that a sovereignty is capable of producing, and have been enjoyed by former kings of England, with this difference from allseigneuriesthat move from amesneLord, or Lord Paramount, that our kings hold this as they do their crown, from God alone, and by their sword.Life, ii. 697.890The account was brought to Court by Lieutenant Churchill, afterwards the great Duke of Marlborough, who was serving under Lord Ossory.891Pontalis,op. cit., ii. 239. Hume,loc. cit. State Papers, Dom.,Entry Book, 24, f. 57;ibid., 34, f. 164; cccii. 130; ccciii. 26, 72, 211-218; ccciv. 9, 11, 20, 21, 25, 36; cccvii. 169;Foreign Entry Book, 21, ff. 1, 9.892Hume,loc. cit.Pontalis,loc. cit.Temple’sWorks, i. 175; iii. 505.Parl. Hist., iv. 512.Hollantsche Mercurius, 1672, p. 50. Dumont,Corps Diplomatique, VII. i. 163.State Papers, Dom., cccii. 210; ccciv. 21, 22; cccvi. 27;Entry Book, 31, f. 90.Ibid., 34, f. 157.893Mahan,op. cit.Colomb,op. cit.8949/19 March, 5/15 Sept. 1672.Groot Placaet-Boeck, iii. 292, 298. The embargo was renewed in the next year.895State Papers, Dom., cccxv. 108, &c.; cccxvi. 43.896Dumont,Corps Diplomatique, VII. i. 206. Hume,op. cit., c. lxv. InState Papers, Foreign, Treaty Papers(Breda), 1667, Bdl. 73 (as at present arranged), are a number of papers belonging to these negotiations and the later ones at Cologne in 1673, consisting mostly of draft articles, with copious notes by the plenipotentiaries. In one, marked “1st project as framed,” Art. xiv. refers to the flag as follows, the words in brackets being inserted here from a second copy: “That the ships and vessells of the United Provinces, as well men-of-war as others, be they single ships or in Fleets how great soever, meeting in any part within ye Brittish seas, with any one of ye ships of war (yachts) or other vessells w’soever of ye said K. of Gr. Brittain, or in his service and wearing his flagg, colours (or Jack) shall strike their flaggs and lower their Topsailes untill they be passed by, as a Ancient and undoubted Right belonging to the said K., and which hath been payd and performed to his Rllprogenitors in all times.” The fishery article (xxiv.) was as follows, the words within brackets being taken from another copy, to fill up a blank: “And the said States acknowledging his said Majtsancient and undoubted Right in the Brittish Seas, as they do hereby own and acknowledge ye same, Doe further promise and agree, that they and their successors will from henceforth pay to his said Maj. his Heirs and successors, for euer, at the Receipt of his Exchequer, a yearly sum̄ of ... (10mte—as likewise ye yearly summe of 2mtsterling by ye yeare at ye Receipt of his MatysTreasury of his Kingdom of Scotland) ... sterling by the year, in consideration of his Majtslicense and permission to them and their subjtsto fish in the said seas and upon his Matyscoasts.” Another article (xxv.) provided for the payment of £1,000,000 for the charges of the war, £400,000 in the following October, and the remainder later.897Hume,loc. cit.Temple’sMemoirs, i. 166.State Papers, Dom., cccxi. 75, 82, 206; cccxiii. 233.Commons’ Journals, ix. 246. Dumont,op. cit., VII. i. 206.Hollantsche Mercurius, 1672, p. 265.898Brief Animadversions on, Amendments of, and Additional Explanatory Records to the Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England, concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts, compiled by the late famous Lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, Knight, &c., 1669.899England’sImprovement Reviv’d: Digested into Six Books, 1670.900Roger Coke,A Discourse of Trade, 1670.901William de Britaine,The Dutch Usurpation, or a Brief View of the Behaviour of the States-General of the United Provinces towards the King of England, 1672.902State Papers, Dom., cccviii. 143.903A Justification of the Present War against the United Netherlands, wherein the Declaration of his Majesty is vindicated, and the War proved to be Just, Honourable, and Necessary; the Dominion of the Sea explained, and his Majesty’s Rights thereunto asserted; the Obligations of the Dutch to England, and their continual Ingratitude: Illustrated with Sculptures. In Answer to a Dutch Treatise entitled, Considerations upon the Present State of the United Netherlands.By an English Man, 1672.9048th July 1872.State Papers, Dom., cccxii. 166.905Benson to Williamson, 28th June, 9th July 1672. Stubbe to Williamson, 8th July.State Papers, Dom., cccxii. 45, 166, 184. The warrant was to Mr Thurloe and Mr Bish of Lincoln’s Inn. Stubbe made considerable use of the book, citing it as “MSS. Commentary of the Treaty and Articles betwixt the English and the Dutch in 1653.”906A Further Justification of the Present War against the United Netherlands, illustrated with several Sculptures.By Henry Stubbe, a lover of the Honour and Welfare of Old England, &c., 1673. Unfortunately for Stubbe, he tried his hand on another line, and was arrested and imprisoned in the same year for denouncing, in his “Paris Gazette,” the Duke of York’s marriage with Princess Mary of Modena.907Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, i. 3. For the use of the plenipotentiaries a volume of transcripts of documents, mostly State Papers, and chiefly in the handwriting of Williamson’s clerks, was prepared, dealing with the claims to the sovereignty of the sea in its various phases. It comprised 613 folio pages, and forms volume 339 of the Domestic series of Charles II. There is a long memorandum in regard to the striking of the flag, consisting for the most part of brief paragraphs reciting precedents (and many of them are omitted), and arranged under the following heads: (1) Strikeing in Generall; (2) Whole Fleets to Single Ships and a Greater Number to a Lesser; (3) Till they be passed by to keepe downe their Flag in sight of ye English; (4) Within the Brittish Seas, What the Brittish Seas are, &c., where done, &c. What Places esteemed according to this Practice to be within ye Brittish Seas; (5) This done as a Duty and Right and not only as a Civillity. Some of the papers have notes on them, apparently penned by the ambassadors at Cologne.908In one of the papers in the volume provided for the use of the ambassadors, containing a copy of the fishery article put forward by Cromwell in 1653 and afterwards withdrawn, is the following, with a sidenote referring to the “king’s instructions to the special ambassadors”: “Lastly, that yesubiects of yeStates generall shall for yefuture abstayne from fisheing vpon yeCountreys and shores of any of his MatyesDominions wthoutleaue and Passeports first obtayned. One thing more I must obserue to you relating to those six propositions particularly that of yefishery. In his Matyesformer Instructions to you vpon that Point you were bid to consent to yeleauing out that Article in case yeDutch should be obstinate vpon it. But his Matyby progress of tyme finding that his Subiects seem fonder thereof, bids me now to direct you to insist vpon that, as vpon yerest and to frame it as neare as you can according to yeWords set down in yeReply.” Then after Cromwell’s article is the following: “Ye Art. of the Fishery as contained in yeProject, 1673.” It is the same as that given in the previous year (note, p. 491),—the part referring to the contribution of £2000 for Scotland being interpolated,—except that it concludes with this sentence, “In wchfisheing yesaid States shall oblidge themselues that their Subiects shall not come wthin one league of yeshoares of England and Scotland,” which is the first mention of a three-mile limit that has been discovered. Sir Arnold Braems suggested to Arlington, in August 1673, that the king should insist in the treaty for an annual payment of £10,000 or £12,000 for their free fishing on his coasts, and that £3000 of this should be devoted to the bringing over of Dutch families and fishing-busses to England, a project which was then being tried by more or less surreptitious methods.State Papers, Dom., vol. 336, No. 295.909See p. 461.910The ambassadors to the Earl of Arlington, 8/18 Aug., (26 Aug.)/(5 Sept.), 13/23 Sept., (23 Sept.)/(3 Oct.), 3/13 Oct. 1673.Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, i. 68, 86, 87, 109, 126, 133.911Penn was in error in supposing that “Finisterre” in the subsequent treaty wasfinis terræ, and meant the Land’s End in England (Granville Penn,Memorials of the Professional Life and Times of Sir William Penn, ii. 255). It was described as “Finisterre, in Galicia,” by the Dutch ambassadors in 1668. See p. 469.912The ambassadors to Arlington, (29 Aug.)/(8 Sept.), 2/12, 13/23 Sept., (23 Sept.)/(3 Oct.), 3/13 Oct. 1673.Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, i. 91, 95, 109, 117, 120, 125, 133.913The same to the same, (24 Oct.)/(3 Nov.), 11/21, 14/24 Nov. 1673, (23 Dec. 1673)/(2 Jan. 1674), 2/12 Jan., 3/13 Feb. 1674.Ibid., i. 151, 170, 171, 223, 235, 237, 279.914The same to the same, 10/20 Oct. 1673 to 3/13 Feb. 1674.Ibid., i. 139, &c.State Papers, Foreign, Treaty Papers(Breda, sic), Bdle. 73. There were prolonged discussions as to the extent of the British seas both in regard to the article on the flag and that on the cessation of hostilities on the sea, as shown by the very numerous notes on the draft articles. The ambassadors were of opinion with regard to the latter article that St George’s Channel and the sea between England, Ireland, and Scotland were comprehended in the term “the Channel,” a point which was left for the opinion of the king.915Commons’ Journals, ix. 282.Lords’ Journals, xii. 588.916P. 513.917Hume,loc. cit. Commons’ Journals, ix. 299. Temple’sMemoirs, i. 167-169. Temple to the Prince of Orange, Feb. 1674. The same to the Duke of Florence, 11th Feb. 1674.Works, iv. 13, 16.918“Prædicti Ordines Generales Unitarum Provinciarum debite, ex parte sua agnoscentes jus supramemorati Serenissimi Domini Magnæ Britanniæ Regis, ut vexillo suo in maribus infra nominandis honos habeatur, declarabunt et declarant, concordabunt et concordant, quod quæcunque naves et navigia ad præfatas Unitas Provincias spectantia, sive naves bellicæ, sive aliæ, eæque vel singulæ vel in classibus junctæ, in aliis maribus a PromontorioFinis Terrædicto usque ad medium punctum terrævan Statendictæ in Norwegia, quibuslibet navibus aut navigiis ad Serenissimum Dominum Magnæ Britanniæ Regem spectantibus, obviam dederint, sive illæ naves singulæ sint, vel in numero majori, si majestatis Britannicæ sive aplustrum, sive vexillumJackappelatum gerant, prædictæ Unitarum Provinciarum naves aut navigia vexillum suum e mali vertice detrahent et supremum velum demittent, eodem modo parique honoris testimonio, quo ullo unquam tempore aut in alio loco antehac usitatum fuit, versus ullas Majestatis suæ Britannicæ aut antecessorum suorum naves ab ullis Ordinum Generalium suorumque antecessorum navibus.” Art. iv. Dumont,op. cit., VII. i. 253. The landvan Staten(which is a Dutch expression) is the peninsula of Stadtland in N. Berghus, in 62° 5´ N. latitude. It is probable that the English Ministers took the advice of the Trinity House (p. 478) to consult the authors who had written on the northern boundary of the British seas, and that the substitution ofvan Statenfor the North Cape, first made at the congress of Cologne (see p. 506), was based upon Selden’s plate showing the British seas (Mare Clausum, lib. ii., cap. i., p. 122), and which is reproduced in the frontispiece of this book. Selden’s plate was much less liberal to the British seas than was his text. The Dutch appellation may have been extracted from a Dutch map.919Memoirs, i. 170. Temple added: “Nothing, I confess, had ever given me a greater pleasure, in the greatest public affairs I had run through, than this success; as having been a point I ever had at heart, and in my endeavours to gain, upon my first negotiations in Holland, but found Monsieur De Witt ever inflexible, though he agreed with me it would be a rock upon which our firmest alliances would be in danger to strike, and to split, whenever other circumstances fell in to make either of the parties content to alter the measures we had entered into upon the triple alliance.”920Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 59. Some writers on international law erroneously describe the boundaries mentioned in the article as the boundaries of the British seas.921Temple to the Duke of Ormonde, Oct. 1673. The same to the Duke of Florence, 11th Feb. 1674.Works, ii. 91; iv. 19.922Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, ii. 697.923State Papers, Dom., vol. ccclxxvi. 46.

834Res. Holl., 13th Sept. 1659, 261.Ibid., 1660, p. 749; 1661, p. 181.

835Hollantsche Mercurius, 1661, pp. 9, 10. De Witt’sBrieven, iv. 48, 61, 68, &c.

836De Witt to Van Beuningen, 27 December 1660/6 January 1661; the same to Van Beverwaert and Van Hoorn, 4/14 Jan. 1661; Van Beverwaert to De Witt, 3/13, 4/14 Jan. 1661.Brieven, i. 344; iv. 65, 66, 68. Pontalis,John De Witt, i. 267.

837“Dutch AmbrsMemoriall desiring the Act of Parliament about fishing may not pass,” 17th Dec. 1660. Copy inS. P., Dom.Collection, Chas. II., vol. 339, p. 581. It is to the effect that the extraordinary ambassadors were informed that a Bill had been introduced into the Lower Chamber regarding the herring fishery, in which foreigners were to be prohibited from fishing within eight or ten “leagues” (“huiet ou dix lieuës”) from the coast, and praying the king to prevent the said Bill from becoming an Act of Parliament. It contains the usual arguments as to immemorial possession, treaty rights, &c.

838Brieven, i. 344; iv. 66, 69, 81, 87, 89, 105, 109.

839Boreel to De Witt, (25 Nov.)/(5 Dec.) 1653.Ibid., i. 54.

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

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

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

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

844State Papers, Dom., lv. 14.

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

846Pepys’Diary, ii. 145, 146, 148, &c.

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

848Commons’ Journals, viii. 548, 553;Lords’ Journals, xi. 599, 614;Parlt. Hist., iv. 291, 308; Clarendon’sMemoirs, ii. 235-237, 288; Hume,Hist. of England, lxiv.; Pepys’Diary, iv. 31, 42, &c.; Pontalis,John de Witt, i. 309.

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

85016 & 17 Car. II.

851The king to the Duke of York, 22nd March 1665.State Papers, Dom., cxv. 76.

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

853See Mahan,The Influence of Sea Power upon History; Colomb,Naval Warfare; Pontalis,op. cit.; Clarendon’sMemoirs, ii. 111.

854Groot Placaet-Boeck, inhoudende de Placaten ende Ordonnantien van de H. M. Heeren Staten Generael der Vereenighde Nederlanden, iii. 291-293.Resol. Holl., 1665, 24, 59, 78, 210, 383.State Papers, Dom., cxiv. 104.Ibid.,Warrant Book, 18, p. 213; 23, pp. 283, 475.Ibid., clxxviii. 172.

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

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

857See p. 617.

858Resol. Holl., 11/21 Jan. 1665, p. 54.Hollantsche Mercurius, 15th Oct. 1665, p. 143.State Papers, Dom., 4th Nov. 1665, cxxxvi. 35.

859Groot Placaet-Boeck, iii. 295, 296.

860State Papers, Dom., clxvi. 8, 46, 77, 100; clxvii. 148; clxxv. 146; clxxxi. 113.

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

862Resol. Holl., 21 June/1 July 1667, p. 210.State Papers, Dom., ccxvi. 143; ccxvii. 77.

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

864Articles touching Navigation and Commerce, concluded at Breda, 21/31 July 1667.

865“Dat de scheepen van oorlois (sic) van den Coninck van Groot Brittannien door die van desen staet met het strijcken van de vlagge gesalveert werdende, van haere sijde vervolgens met het strijcken van haere vlagge contra salueren sullen.” Extract fromSecret Resolution, States-General, 11th May 1667, Instructions to Ambassadors.Treaty Papers (Breda), 1667, Bdl. 73.

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

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

868Treaty of Peace and Alliance between Charles I. and Louis XIV., concluded at Breda, 21/31 July 1667. Article xvii.

869Treaty of Peace and Alliance between Charles II. and Frederick III., concluded at Breda, 21/31 July 1667. Art. ii.

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

871See p. 474.

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

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

874The king to the Duke of York, 31st Oct. 1669.State Papers, Entry Book, 31, fol. 37.

875Pepys’Diary, 20th Dec. 1668, viii. 184.

876Pontalis,op. cit., ii. 24.

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

878State Papers, Dom., 1669, cclxi. 82-87.

879State Papers, Dom., 1668, ccli. 191; 1670, cclxxiv. 157; cclxxv. 43; cclxxvi. 206; cclxxxi. 15; 1671, ccxc. 5, &c. Temple’sMemoirs, iii. 433. Justice,Dominion and Laws of the Sea, 298.

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

881Hume,Hist, of England, c. lxv. Temple’sMemoirs and Letters. Pontalis,John de Witt. Macaulay,Hist., i. c. ii.

882Parl. Hist., iv. 456. Hume,op. cit.

883De Witt’sBrieven, iv. 837. Pontalis,op. cit., ii. 122.

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

885Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, ff. 46b, 48b.

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

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

888Sir William Temple to Sir John Temple, 14th Sept. 1671.Works, iii. 501. Pontalis,John de Witt, 126, 127. Hume,Hist. of England, cap. lxv.State Papers, Dom., 1671, ccxcii. 45, 77, 78, 81, 215. Evelyn’sDiary(ed. 1850), ii. 69.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221.

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

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

891Pontalis,op. cit., ii. 239. Hume,loc. cit. State Papers, Dom.,Entry Book, 24, f. 57;ibid., 34, f. 164; cccii. 130; ccciii. 26, 72, 211-218; ccciv. 9, 11, 20, 21, 25, 36; cccvii. 169;Foreign Entry Book, 21, ff. 1, 9.

892Hume,loc. cit.Pontalis,loc. cit.Temple’sWorks, i. 175; iii. 505.Parl. Hist., iv. 512.Hollantsche Mercurius, 1672, p. 50. Dumont,Corps Diplomatique, VII. i. 163.State Papers, Dom., cccii. 210; ccciv. 21, 22; cccvi. 27;Entry Book, 31, f. 90.Ibid., 34, f. 157.

893Mahan,op. cit.Colomb,op. cit.

8949/19 March, 5/15 Sept. 1672.Groot Placaet-Boeck, iii. 292, 298. The embargo was renewed in the next year.

895State Papers, Dom., cccxv. 108, &c.; cccxvi. 43.

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

897Hume,loc. cit.Temple’sMemoirs, i. 166.State Papers, Dom., cccxi. 75, 82, 206; cccxiii. 233.Commons’ Journals, ix. 246. Dumont,op. cit., VII. i. 206.Hollantsche Mercurius, 1672, p. 265.

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

899England’sImprovement Reviv’d: Digested into Six Books, 1670.

900Roger Coke,A Discourse of Trade, 1670.

901William de Britaine,The Dutch Usurpation, or a Brief View of the Behaviour of the States-General of the United Provinces towards the King of England, 1672.

902State Papers, Dom., cccviii. 143.

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

9048th July 1872.State Papers, Dom., cccxii. 166.

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

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

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

908In one of the papers in the volume provided for the use of the ambassadors, containing a copy of the fishery article put forward by Cromwell in 1653 and afterwards withdrawn, is the following, with a sidenote referring to the “king’s instructions to the special ambassadors”: “Lastly, that yesubiects of yeStates generall shall for yefuture abstayne from fisheing vpon yeCountreys and shores of any of his MatyesDominions wthoutleaue and Passeports first obtayned. One thing more I must obserue to you relating to those six propositions particularly that of yefishery. In his Matyesformer Instructions to you vpon that Point you were bid to consent to yeleauing out that Article in case yeDutch should be obstinate vpon it. But his Matyby progress of tyme finding that his Subiects seem fonder thereof, bids me now to direct you to insist vpon that, as vpon yerest and to frame it as neare as you can according to yeWords set down in yeReply.” Then after Cromwell’s article is the following: “Ye Art. of the Fishery as contained in yeProject, 1673.” It is the same as that given in the previous year (note, p. 491),—the part referring to the contribution of £2000 for Scotland being interpolated,—except that it concludes with this sentence, “In wchfisheing yesaid States shall oblidge themselues that their Subiects shall not come wthin one league of yeshoares of England and Scotland,” which is the first mention of a three-mile limit that has been discovered. Sir Arnold Braems suggested to Arlington, in August 1673, that the king should insist in the treaty for an annual payment of £10,000 or £12,000 for their free fishing on his coasts, and that £3000 of this should be devoted to the bringing over of Dutch families and fishing-busses to England, a project which was then being tried by more or less surreptitious methods.State Papers, Dom., vol. 336, No. 295.

909See p. 461.

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

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

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

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

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

915Commons’ Journals, ix. 282.Lords’ Journals, xii. 588.

916P. 513.

917Hume,loc. cit. Commons’ Journals, ix. 299. Temple’sMemoirs, i. 167-169. Temple to the Prince of Orange, Feb. 1674. The same to the Duke of Florence, 11th Feb. 1674.Works, iv. 13, 16.

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

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

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

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

922Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, ii. 697.

923State Papers, Dom., vol. ccclxxvi. 46.

Back to Index Next