THE HISTORY OF THE CLAIMS TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEA
CHAPTER I.
EARLY HISTORY.
When the claim of the English crown to the sovereignty of the British seas became a question of international importance in the early part of the seventeenth century, the records of history and the treasures of ancient learning were searched for evidence to establish its antiquity3. Some of the greatest lawyers and scholars of the time took part in the task, and they were not always content with the endeavour to prove that the claim was in conformity4 with the laws of England as an old heritage of the crown, but they tried to trace it back to a remote past. Selden, who was incomparably the ablest and most illustrious champion of the English pretension5, as well as Boroughs6 and Prynne and other writers of lesser7 note, laboured with more or less erudition and ingenuity8 to show that the British dominion9 in the adjoining seas was anterior10 to the Roman occupation. From the ancient Britons it was supposed to have passed to the Roman conquerors11 as part and parcel of the British empire, and to have been exercised by them during their possession of the island.14 It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence and arguments for these contentions12. They are for the most part drawn13 from scattered14 passages or even phrases in the writings of classical authors, to which a strained and improbable significance was assigned. An example may be given from Selden, who, in referring to the well-known passage in Solinus15 in which Irish warriors15 are described as decking the hilts of their swords with the tusks16 26 of sea-beasts (walrus17), first tries to show that the passage applied18 also to the Britons, and then argues that there must have been a great fishing and a large number of fishermen to provide sufficient material, the conclusion being that the British seas were “occupied” by navigation and fishing. In reality the walrus tusks came by barter19 from the north, and there is little or no evidence to show that the ancient Britons fished for anything except salmon20. At the utmost it may be said that the Romans were masters of the British seas, or parts of them, in a military sense. During their occupation of Britain they were also in possession of Gaul, and thus held both coasts of the narrow sea, and no doubt exercised authority over it, as the Norman and Angevin kings under similar circumstances did later.
Throughout the Anglo-Saxon period of English history evidence of the existence of a sovereignty over the adjoining sea, or even of a pretension to it, is almost as unsatisfactory. Here again the authors who championed mare21 clausum professed22 to find in very ordinary events arguments in favour of their case. The seafaring habits of the Teutonic invaders23 and their daring and valour—they were described by the Roman poet as sea-wolves, fierce and cunning, with the sea as their school of war and the storm their friend—were regarded as proof that they possessed24 maritime25 sovereignty after their conquest of Britain. The Danegeld, a tax which was originally levied26 as a means of buying off the Danes, or of providing a fleet to resist their attacks, was thought by Selden to show the same thing.16 So also with the fleets collected by Alfred, Edgar, Ethelred, and other English kings to oppose the invasions of the Northmen,—they were believed to have secured and maintained dominion over the sea. Even the beautiful lesson in humility27 which Cnut desired to convey to his courtiers when, seated in regal pomp on the seashore, he vainly commanded the inflowing tide to stay its course at his behest, was seized on for the same end. “Thou, O sea,” said the great king, “art under my dominion, like the land on which I sit; nor is there any one who dares resist my commands. I therefore enjoin28 thee not to come up on my land, nor to presume to wet the feet or garments of thy lord.” In these words Selden professed to find 27 clear proof that Cnut claimed the British seas as part of his dominions29.17
There appears to be only one instance before the Norman Conquest in regard to which prima facie evidence was produced that an English king expressly claimed the sovereignty of the sea, and as it is constantly quoted by later writers it may be worth while examining it. The chronicles agree that the naval30 power of England was specially31 manifested by King Edgar (A.D. 959-975), who is said to have possessed a fleet of several thousand vessels32, with which he cruised every year along the English coasts. In the words of the Saxon Chronicle, “no fleet was so daring, nor army so strong, that mid34 the English nation took from him aught, the while that the noble king ruled on his throne.”18 According to William of Malmesbury, who wrote in the twelfth century, Edgar usually styled himself the sovereign lord of all Albion and of the maritime or insular35 kings dwelling36 round about,19 the assumption being that he also exercised sovereignty over the intervening and surrounding seas. In a charter by which Edgar, in 964, granted large revenues to the Cathedral Church at Worcester, the claim to the ocean around Britain is more definite, and it is this version that is usually quoted by the writers maintaining the antiquity of the English rights.20 The title thus said to have been used by Edgar is expressive37 enough, but an important difference in the wording of this part of the charter is to be found in the transcript38 printed by Coke in the Epistle to the Fourth Book of Reports, by Spelman,21 Wilkins,22 and by the more recent authorities on Anglo-Saxon charters, Kemble,23 Thorpe,24 and 28 Birch,25 from which it appears that Edgar claimed to be, not lord of the sea, but of the islands in the sea.26 This is the version given by Sir John Boroughs in his Sovereignty of the British Seas, and it is also mentioned by Selden. But, after all, the authenticity40 of the preamble41 of this charter is not well established. Kemble marks it as doubtful, a view supported by intrinsic evidence as to an imaginary conquest of Ireland. Thorpe is of opinion that the preamble was fabricated about 1155, when Henry II., in concert with Pope Adrian IV., was meditating42 the conquest of that island. It may therefore be concluded that King Edgar’s assumption of maritime sovereignty had its source in a monkish43 fable44, although he may have possessed the actual command of the sea in his time. Later on, the supposed r?le of Edgar among the Anglo-Saxon kings was a common argument for the English claims. He was looked upon as a sort of patron saint of the doctrine45 that the kings of England were lords of the sea. Charles I. put his effigy46 on the beak48 of his great ship, the Sovereign of the Sea, and inscribed49 his name in a motto on her guns. Oliver Cromwell, too, quoted his exploits to the Dutch ambassador in the course of the negotiations50 after the first war with Holland.
It is not to the Anglo-Saxon period of our history that we must look for the origin of the claims of England to the sovereignty of the sea, even in a purely51 military sense. At that time, for at least three centuries before the Norman Conquest, the Northmen and not the English were the real lords and masters of the sea. They offered an example of what is now so much spoken of as the influence of sea-power on history that is unsurpassed in later annals. Their leaders were styled sea-kings for the best of reasons. Their fleets darkened every coast from within the Arctic circle to the furthermost bounds of the Mediterranean52. Through their command of the sea they took permanent possession of the larger part of England; they penetrated53 almost every great river in Europe—the Elbe, the Schelde, the Rhine, the Seine; they formed settlements from Friesland to Bordeaux; they discovered and planted colonies in Iceland (A.D. 861), Greenland 29 (A.D. 985), and North America (A.D. 861); and they founded kingdoms or dynasties not only in England, but in France, Sicily, Ireland, and Russia.27 In the presence of such irrepressible energy in maritime and warlike enterprises the English were not able to hold their own on the sea, far less to acquire dominion over it.
It is not until a considerable time after the Norman Conquest that valid54 evidence is to be found of the English claim to the sovereignty of the sea. Although obscurity surrounds the precise time and mode in which the pretension took its rise, there is little doubt that it originated in the period following the Conquest. The shores on both sides of the Channel were then brought under the same dominion. In the reign1 of Henry I. almost the whole of the Atlantic coast of France from Flanders to the Pyrenees was in the possession of the English crown, and for about four and a half centuries, until the loss of Calais in 1558, England held more or less territory in France. The Channel thus became in effect an English sea—the narrow sea—intervening between the continental55 and insular territories of the king, and it acquired high importance as the passage from one part of the realm to the other. It was in this connection and for the guarding of the coasts that the organisation56 of the Cinque Ports was developed by the Norman and Angevin kings.28 Even after the loss of the French provinces, the continued possession of the Channel Islands and the usual possession of Calais kept alive the English claim to the narrow sea. The Conquest was, moreover, followed by a great increase in the stream of traffic between the two countries,29 while fishermen from Normandy and Picardy, as well as from Flanders, came in large and increasing numbers to take part in the great herring fishery along the east coast of Scotland and England.
During the frequent wars with France from the commencement of the twelfth century onwards, the Channel acquired special significance from a military point of view, and it was 30 from this time that the importance of “keeping the narrow seas” began to be recognised in English policy. The command of the Channel was not only of value in safeguarding the coast. The Channel formed the great avenue of commerce between the north and south of Europe. The merchant vessels from Venice, Genoa, and the Mediterranean, from Spain and France, passed northwards through it on their way to Flanders and the Baltic, and those from the Hanseatic towns and northern parts had in like manner to traverse it in their southern voyages. The Channel was thus crowded with shipping57 in summer, and the nation which commanded it had the power of interrupting the commerce of other nations, and consequently retained a potent58 political weapon in its hands. It is this aspect of “keeping the narrow sea” which forms the burden of the remarkable59 old poem, The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye.
Moreover, in the period following the Norman Conquest another condition came into existence in connection with the security of the commerce passing through the Channel, which throws light on the origin of the English claim to sovereignty over it. As already mentioned, owing to the lawlessness that prevailed on the sea after the break-up of the Roman empire, when pirates and freebooters infested60 every coast, it became customary for merchants to associate themselves together for mutual61 protection. Their vessels sailed forth62 in fleets under the charge of an elected chief, called the “admiral,” and armed vessels were frequently fitted out by them for the express purpose of purging63 the sea of pirates. In the course of time this duty of maintaining the police of the seas was taken over by sovereign princes, who exercised their jurisdiction64 through an admiralty, and put in force the old “laws of the sea” which had gradually grown up among the merchant associations.30 In the thirteenth century this supreme65 admiralty jurisdiction came to be regarded among the principal states of Europe as a prerogative66 of sovereign power, and it is about this time and in this connection that we first find certain evidence of the claim of England to the sovereignty of the adjacent sea. The Plantagenet kings, or at all events some of them, asserted the right of “maintaining the ancient supremacy67 of the Crown over the Sea of England” by exercising jurisdiction 31 according to the old maritime laws, for the maintenance of “peace and justice amongst the people of every nation passing through the said sea.”31 It was the production of the old rolls concerning these claims by Sir John Boroughs, the Keeper of the Records in the reign of Charles I., which furnished that king with the material on which to base his pretension to the sovereignty of the sea.
The English writers of the seventeenth century who strove to prove that the kings of England anciently exercised an exclusive sovereign jurisdiction over the so-called Sea of England, as if it were a “territory or province of the realm,” quoted largely from the old Admiralty records. Selden sought to show that they had perpetually enjoyed the dominion of the surrounding sea from the coming of the Normans from the fact that they had maintained a guard upon it.32 The evidence adduced, however, merely proves that measures were taken for guarding the seas, defending the coasts, and suppressing piracy68,—duties which were discharged, even in the same seas, by the Admiralty of other countries, as that of France. Such phrases as “to guard the seas,” “to guard the sea and sea-coasts,” are common enough in the early records of the Admiralty,33 but they do not imply exclusive dominion. It was a duty common to neighbouring nations. In England, from the time of Henry I., at the beginning of the twelfth century, orders were given for the seas to be guarded as occasion required; and officers were appointed by Henry III. and other kings as Wardens69, Keepers, and Guardians71 of the sea and sea-coasts, and also as Governors and Captains of the Navy, whose title was subsequently changed to Admiral in the latter part of the thirteenth century, following the practice of the merchant associations, as above mentioned. Much was made by the English writers of the appointment of admirals by the kings of England for safeguarding the sea. The first appears to have been appointed in 1297 with the title of Admiral of the Sea of the King of England,34 but before this 32 time the King of Castile and Leon had appointed an admiral with similar duties, and an Admiral of all France was appointed about the year 1280.35 So too with the equipment of fleets. Edward I. divided the ships charged with the guarding of the seas into three squadrons, each with an admiral,—a measure which, it was argued, showed his resolution to maintain his dominion of the sea. But the practice in France was similar. From an early period French fleets were equipped under “governors or custodians72 of the sea” (pr?fectus maris), “lieutenants-general of the sea and the shores thereof,” and “admirals,” and their maritime jurisdiction was regulated from at least the early part of the fourteenth century.36 Selden laboured to show that the office of admiral and the admiralty jurisdiction had a different significance in France from what they had in England,37 but on quite inadequate74 grounds.
Another class of evidence adduced by the English authors refers to the impressment of ships for the defence of the realm or the transport of troops on occasions of emergency. These duties were at first performed by the vessels of the Cinque Ports, in accordance with their charters; but as early at least as the reign of Richard I., ordinances75 were issued (at Grimsby) regulating the mode of arresting vessels and men for the service of the king,38 and it became an established and common practice. Numerous instances occur which show that on such occasions foreign vessels were not exempt77 from arrest, though compensation was at least sometimes made to their owners.39 The argument of the English writers that these arbitrary proceedings78 were evidence of the dominion exercised by the kings of England on their sea is rebutted79 by the practice in France. Froissart40 tells us that the French adopted similar measures in 1386 when they were preparing for an invasion of England, and the practice was doubtless common enough, and justified80 by the emergency which occasioned it.
With regard to the most important attribute of maritime 33 sovereignty—the right to exclude others from an equal use of a particular sea by prohibiting navigation, at least of vessels of war, and from fishing in it, or by imposing81 dues and conditions for the liberty—there is scarcely a scrap82 of evidence to show that any authority of the kind was exercised by England in the adjacent seas. The circumstance is noteworthy, inasmuch as other countries which then enjoyed undoubted maritime sovereignty, did not permit unrestricted navigation or fishing in the seas specially under their control, as Venice in the Adriatic, and Denmark in the northern seas and in the Baltic. The evidence concerning the liberty of fishing in the sea along our coasts is dealt with in another chapter, but it may be said here that this liberty was provided for in a series of treaties with other Powers. As for liberty of navigation, it was asserted, or rather implied, by Selden, in guarded language, that the kings of England anciently possessed the power of refusing it;41 but the evidence relates for the most part to passports and safe-conducts “by land and sea,” and to the impressment of vessels, referred to above. There appears to be not a single fact to prove that the liberty of innocent navigation in the English seas was ever interfered85 with by the king. The Parliament of Ireland, it is true, passed an Act in 1465 prohibiting all foreign vessels “from going to fish at Ireland among the king’s enemies” without first obtaining a license86, on pain of forfeiture88 of the vessel33. But it is clear from the preamble that the Act was passed because foreign vessels frequenting the Irish coast for fishing were supplying the king’s enemies with money, arms, and provisions.
Nor is there any valid evidence that tribute was ever imposed on foreigners for liberty of navigation in the sea of England. A case frequently quoted to the contrary was the imposition of a duty by Richard II., in 1379, on merchant vessels and fishing smacks89, to provide means for the defence of the eastern coast and the security of navigation and fishing. At that time the English navy had almost ceased to exist, through the mistaken policy of Edward III. in the latter part of his reign. In 1377 a French and Spanish fleet had not only scoured90 the seas, but plundered91 and burned Rye, Folkestone, Hastings, Plymouth, and other towns on the southern coast, 34 which they ravaged92. In the following year they continued their depredations93 on the English coast, and held such complete command of the sea that “no victualler, fishing boat, or any other, could pass or return without being taken.”42 In 1379, as the enemy still held the sea and the coast, Parliament, after consultation94 with the merchants, decreed that certain duties should be levied to provide means to secure the safeguarding of the sea, and among these was one on vessels laden95 with goods belonging to merchants of Prussia, Norway, or Scania. Selden says this ordinance76 applied to foreign as well as English vessels, which had therefore to pay for passage through the sea “just as one may exact payment for passage over one’s field.”43 But there is no evidence that the tax was levied on other than English vessels; and in any case it is clear from the preamble that it was a voluntary arrangement, and probably made at the request of the merchants themselves, who had been petitioning the king and Parliament for protection.44 It is noteworthy also that the keepers of the northern sea were not to convoy96 the vessels to or from Flanders and Calais unless they were paid for doing so.
An incident which occurred early in the next century shows the temper in which the Parliament regarded the sovereignty of the narrow sea, as well as the caution of the king. By that time the English navy had recovered its strength and France lay prostrate97 at the feet of Henry V., and the Parliament petitioned 35 the king to levy98 an impost99 on all foreign ships passing through the Channel, in emulation100, no doubt, of the practice of the Danish kings at the Sound. It was a few years after the battle of Agincourt, and the Treaty of Troyes, by which Henry was recognised as the future king of France, had just been concluded. “The Commons pray,” ran the petition, “that seeing our Sovereign Lord the King and his noble progenitors101 have ever been Lords of the Sea, and now by the grace of God it has come to pass that our said Lord the King is Lord of the shores on both sides of the sea, such tribute should be imposed on all strangers passing through the said sea, as may appear reasonable to the King for safeguarding the said sea.”45 The answer of the king was that he would consider it (soit avise par2 le Roy), the usual formula of refusal. In the following year Henry was again involved in war with France, and he died in 1422 and nothing more was heard of the proposal. But it is extremely doubtful if he or any other English king would have ventured to adopt the policy recommended by the Commons. The shipping that passed through the Channel was far more voluminous and important than that passing through the Sound, and the waterway could not be so easily commanded, as by guns from the shore. Any measure of the kind would doubtless have led to a combination of other maritime Powers against England, which would have been fatal to the attempt. It may be noted102 that the Parliament based their proposal on the king’s possession of both shores; and this, in accordance with the opinions of the Italian lawyers of the preceding century, whose authority was great, carried with it the right of sovereignty over the intervening sea.
The statement in the petition that the kings of England had ever been lords of the sea is true at least to the extent that on several occasions previously103 the title was applied to them, and this was usually at times when they possessed actual supremacy and mastery over the seas in a special manner, 36 though it may also have implied the idea of sovereign jurisdiction. Nearly a century earlier than the above petition we find the same title used by Edward III., who is peculiarly identified with the naval glory of England, and he too refers to his progenitors as having been lords of the sea. In a mandate105 to his admirals in 1336, the king, after stating that twenty-six galleys106 of the enemy were reported to be on the coasts of Brittany and Normandy, said: “We, calling to mind that our progenitors, the Kings of England, were Lords of the English sea on every side, and also defenders107 against the invasions of enemies before these times; and it would greatly grieve us if our royal honour in such defence should be lost or in any way diminished in our time, which God forbid, and being desirous with the help of God to obviate108 such dangers and to provide for the safety and defence of our realm and people, and to restrain the malice109 of our enemies: We strictly110 require and charge you” to proceed against the galleys, &c.46 Later in the same year, in a commission to certain nobles, prelates, and the Warden70 of the Cinque Ports respecting measures to be taken against the Scottish fleet, which was attacking merchant and other ships, and had ravaged Guernsey and Jersey111, the king desired it to be remembered that his progenitors the kings of England, in similar disturbances113 between them and other lords of foreign lands, were in all bygone times “lords of the sea and of the passage across the sea,” and he would be much afflicted114 if his royal honour should be in his time impaired115.47 These declarations, made in the first half of the fourteenth century, indicate clearly enough at least the pretension to special interest and jurisdiction in the narrow sea and the Straits of Dover on the part of the earlier kings. No English king deserved the title of Lord of the Sea better than Edward III. Only a few years after the above missives were written he gained the memorable116 victory over the French in the battle of Sluys, and in 1350 the 37 equally great victory over the Spaniards off Winchelsea (“Les Espagnols sur Mer”), commanding the fleet in person on each occasion.48
Fig47. 1.—Edward’s Noble.
It appears to have been in connection with the former victory that Edward coined his famous gold noble, in which the obverse bears the effigy of the king, crowned, standing117 in a ship with a sword in one hand and a shield in the other, while the reverse bears the legend from St Luke, Jesus autem transiens per medium eorum ibat, “but Jesus, passing through the midst of them, went his way,” which Nicolas thinks was meant to indicate the action of the king in passing through the French fleet at the battle of Sluys. The impress on the obverse has been usually regarded as symbolic118 of Edward’s power and sovereignty on the sea. The unknown author of The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye, written some ninety years later, makes frequent reference to Edward’s noble,—
“Ffor iiii thynges our noble sheueth to me,
Kyng, shype, and swerde, and pouer of the see,”49—
and it is always mentioned by the English writers on the sovereignty of the sea as evidence that Edward exercised 38 that sovereignty. A recent author50 doubts whether there was any connection between Edward’s noble and the battle of Sluys or the claim to the sovereignty of the sea; but at all events in the next century, in the reign of Henry VI., when the naval power of England had again sunk to a low point, the noble was made an object of jest and derision among foreigners, especially the Flemish and French. They told the English to take away the ship from their noble and put a sheep on it instead—an allusion119, no doubt, to the growth of sheep-farming in England.51
If Edward intended to symbolise his naval power and sea sovereignty by the device on the gold noble in the early part of his reign, it was certainly inappropriate towards the end of it. The navy had been starved for the sake of the army, and when the Spaniards defeated the English fleet and were masters of the sea, complaints became rife120 as to the insecurity of the country. The king had then to listen to language from his Parliament to which he was unaccustomed, and which must have galled121 him. There are many instances in our history where the Commons have shown their spirit and temper when they thought the navy was inadequate for its duties, and on the occasion in question, in 1372, after granting a naval subsidy122, they called the king’s attention to the fact that while twenty years previously, and always before, the navy was so noble and so numerous in all the ports, coast towns, and rivers that the whole country deemed and called him King of the Sea,52 and he and all his country were the more dreaded123 by sea and by land by reason of the said navy, it was then so decreased and weakened from various causes that there was scarcely sufficient to defend the country, if need were, against 39 royal power, by which there was great peril124 to all the realm.53 From this complaint of the Parliament it would appear that the title of king or Lord of the Sea was applied in a popular sense, to signify the great sea-warrior who had overcome his enemies and made himself master of the sea.
There was another symbol or supposed symbol of the sovereignty of the sea, which later became exceedingly prominent—viz., the striking of the flag or the lowering of the top-sails to a king’s ship, about which there is little to be found in the records of those times. It is nevertheless with this that the earliest of the records relating to the subject is concerned, and it is a very interesting one. The famous ordinance of King John which compelled the lowering of the sails has given rise to much controversy125. It was first brought prominently to notice by Selden in 1635,54 but it is also contained in the little work of Boroughs on the Sovereignty of the British Seas, which was written in 1633, although not published till 1651, and that author transcribed126 it from a manuscript in the possession of Sir Henry Marten, the Judge of the Court of Admiralty. Selden gave as his authority for it, “MS. Commentarius de Rebus127 Admiralitatis,” without further specification128, and its authenticity was questioned by contemporary critics. Prynne, who, like Boroughs, was Keeper of the Records, printed it in 1669 from the Black Book of the Admiralty,55 and from the fact that the Black Book was lost until quite lately, and the existence of Selden’s manuscript in the Bodleian Library was overlooked, and that used by Boroughs unknown, some recent authors have regarded the ordinance with suspicion.56 The most elaborate account of the various manuscripts containing the ordinance of John is given by Sir Travers Twiss in the Introduction to the Black Book of the Admiralty; and through his efforts the original Black Book, lost for more than half a century, was found at the bottom of a chest in 1873.57 Twiss gives the 40 following free translation of the ordinance, made by the Registrar129 of the Admiralty Court in the reign of James II.:—
Item, it was ordained130 at Hastynges for lawe and custome of the sea in the tyme of Kyng John, in the second yeare of his raigne, by the advice of his temporall lordes, that if the lieutenant73 of the king or the admirall of the king or his lieutenant in any voyage appointed by Common Counsell of the Kyngdom did at sea meet with any shyps or vessells laden or empty which would not stryke and lower their sailes at the command of the kyng’s lieutenant, or the kyng’s admirall, or his lieutenant, but makeing resistaunce against those of the ffleet, that if they can be taken that they be reputed as enemies, and their shyps, vessells, and goodes, taken and forfeited131 as goodes of enemies, albeit132 that the maysters or possessors thereof should afterwards come and alleadge the same ships, vessells, and goodes to be the goodes of friends of our lorde the kyng, and that the company therein be chastized by imprisonment133 of their bodies for their rebellion at discretion134.58
This ordinance is the last of a series of articles in the third part of the Black Book, which contains Admiralty regulations, the Laws of Oleron, and other three ordinances of King John, as well as ordinances which purport135 to have been made in the reigns136 of Henry I., Richard I., and Edward I. The facts ascertained137 by Sir Travers Twiss show that of the six or seven extant manuscripts which contain the ordinance, the oldest was written before 1422 and probably about 1420,59 and appears to have been drawn up for the use of Sir Thomas Beaufort, the Lord High Admiral. The manuscript used by 41 Selden was probably written between 1430 and 1440; that of the Black Book itself a little later, but still in the reign of Henry VI.60 The others are not older than the seventeenth century. None of the manuscripts is therefore contemporaneous with the reign of John, but it is clear that the ordinance existed and was ascribed to John in the reign of Henry V., before 1422. Moreover, from intrinsic evidence it is proved that part of the Black Book originated in 1375, in the reign of Edward III., and that the compilation138 of other parts of it is still earlier. Pardessus,61 the great authority on ancient marine139 laws, is of opinion that the part of the Black Book which includes the ordinance of John contains the results of the consultations140 with the judges in 1338 on the subject of the maritime laws, which were recorded in the roll, still preserved, of 12 Edward III., De Superioritate Maris—which also, as we shall see, claimed supremacy for the king in the sea of England. Twiss, however, thinks it was more probably compiled between 1360 and 1369. He is of opinion that the ordinance is authentic39, and was in reality, as it purports141, made by John at Hastings on 30th March 1201, and that it was transcribed into the compilation of the Black Book with the earlier ordinances of Henry I. and Richard I.
The arguments against the authenticity of the ordinance are mainly that it is written in the French language instead of in Latin, as was customary at the time; that there is no other evidence that John was ever at Hastings; and that the terms “king’s admiral” or “king’s lieutenant” are not to be found in contemporary documents. Twiss has shown that John and his Queen were at Canterbury on Easter Day 1201, and it is not an improbable conjecture142 that the king passed from Canterbury to Hastings, and thence to London—a supposition that Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy143, the author of the Itinerary144 of King John, regards as quite possible. Twiss also explains in an elaborate argument that the circumstance of the ordinance being written in French offers no difficulty, if the compilation of the third part of the Black Book is assigned, as above stated, to the reign of Edward III.; but there might be some difficulty in deciding whether the ordinances attributed to Henry I., Richard I., 42 Edward I., and John were originally written in French as they now appear in the Black Book, or were at first drawn up in Latin and translated into French by the compilers.62
The best authority is therefore in favour of the authenticity of the ordinance; but whether it be held as genuine or apocryphal145 there is no doubt that in the reign of Henry V. it was incorporated among the official regulations of the Admiralty, and it is almost as certain, as Twiss and Pardessus believe, that it was contained in the Admiralty regulations in the reign of Edward III. The question whether it should be antedated146 one hundred and fifty years, or thereabout, and placed in the reign of John, or ascribed to the time of Edward III., when so much consideration was given to naval affairs, is perhaps of minor147 importance.
The language of the ordinance is worthy83 of close attention with regard to the claim to sovereignty in the narrow sea. Selden says that the ordinance shows it was held to be treason for any ship whatever not to acknowledge the dominion of the king of England in his own seas by lowering sails, and that the king prescribed penalties for infraction148 of the rule, just as if a crime were committed in some part of his territory on land.63 In 1201 John still possessed both shores of the Channel, a circumstance which, according to the ideas of the time, conferred on him special rights in regard to it; and though the ordinance contains no qualification of the general term “at sea,” it is probable that it applied in particular, and at first perhaps exclusively, to the waters between the two shores. There is nothing to show whether the ordinance applied to or was enforced against the war vessels of other princes navigating149 the narrow sea, which was the principal feature of the rule in later times. From the terms used it is probable that it applied only to merchant vessels,—a supposition that agrees with its place in the Black Book at the end of the articles entitled the Laws of Oleron, or the laws of the mercantile marine; and it was to be enforced only in voyages appointed by the Council. As already mentioned, it is reasonable to suppose that the lowering of the sail at the demand of a king’s ship was to enable a suspected vessel to be overhauled150, and the king’s 43 officers to be satisfied whether it was engaged in piracy or in lawful151 trade.
Until the sixteenth century there is scarcely any evidence to show that the “right of the flag,” as it came to be called, was enforced even in the Channel. The record of one such incident, however, exists, which occurred in 1402, in the reign of Henry IV.,—and thus, it is interesting to note, before the oldest extant manuscript containing John’s ordinance was written,—and, curiously152, the place where the lowering of the sails was demanded was not the Channel but the North Sea. In the year mentioned, the town of Bruges complained to the king and Council that a poor fisherman of Ostend, named John Willes, along with another from Briel, while fishing for herrings in the North Sea, had been captured by an English vessel and taken into Hull153, notwithstanding that they were unarmed—a remark which is significant—and had lowered their sails at the moment the English had called to them.64 It is singular that the earliest record of the “ceremony” refers to the humble154 herring-boats of Flanders. Later on we shall see that the lowering of top-sails and the striking of the flag became a burning question in international politics.
Of greater interest and importance than this question of the lowering of the sail or the ordinance of John is the claim put forward by the Plantagenet kings to sovereign lordship and jurisdiction in the “sea of England,” for the maintenance of peaceful navigation and commerce,—a claim which may still be read in some of the rolls of Edward I. and Edward III. The great importance of these documents for the English pretension to dominion of the sea in the seventeenth century was shown by the fact that Boroughs, Selden, Coke, and Prynne all quote freely from them, Selden especially turning to them again and again for fresh quotation155 and argument. They are the more interesting since the claim to the sovereignty of the narrow sea in the reign of Edward I. could not, as Boroughs points out, be based on possession of both shores; the king was not then Dominus utriusque rip?, as when Normandy belonged to the English crown. The rolls in question are still preserved in the 44 Record Office, and the earlier parchments appear to have been collected together in the reign of Edward III., in connection with the consultations that the judges held in 1338 on the subject of the maritime laws.65
The documents were first brought into prominence156 by Lord Coke66 and Selden,67 both of whom published parts of them. The handwriting belongs to the beginning of the fourteenth century, and its contents show that it must have been drawn up after 1304 and before 1307, in which year Edward I. died.
The events that preceded may be summarised as follows. During the war between Edward I. and Philip the Fair of France it was concluded between them in the year 1297 that notwithstanding the war there should be freedom of commerce on both sides, or a truce157 for merchants, known as sufferance of war, and in the following year certain persons were appointed by both kings to take cognisance of things done contrary to this truce, and to pass their judgments159 according to the law of merchants and the tenor160 of the sufferance referred to.68 On 20th May 1303 a treaty of peace and alliance was signed at Paris,69 the first article of which embodied161 a declaration of amity162 and mutual defence of all their respective rights, and the third that each would abstain163 from assisting or succouring the enemies of the other. A little later in the same year four agents or commissioners164 were appointed by Edward and four by Philip to hear complaints and decide upon them, and the English members were instructed to inquire into the “encroachments, injuries, and offences committed 45 on either side during the truce or sufferance between us and the said King of France, on the coasts of the sea of England and other neighbouring coasts, and also towards Normandy and other coasts of the sea more remote.”70 To these commissioners the following joint165 complaint or libel bears to have been submitted on behalf of England and certain mariners166 of other nations, charging one Reyner Grimbald or Grimaldi, a Genoese who is known to have been at the time in command of ships in the service of France operating against the Flemings, with seizing their merchants and merchandise contrary to the treaty at Paris:71—
Concerning the Supremacy of the Sea of England and the Right of the Office of Admiralty in the same.72
To you the Lords Auditors167 deputed by the Kings of England and of France to redress168 the wrongs done to the people of their kingdoms and of other lands subject to their dominions by sea and by land in time of peace and of truce The proctors of the prelates and nobles and of the admiral of the sea of England73 and of the commonalties of cities and towns and of the merchants mariners messengers and pilgrims and of all others of the said realm of England and of other lands subject to the dominion of the said King of England and elsewhere, as of the coast of Genoa, Catalonia, Spain, Almaigne, Zeeland, Holland, Friesland, Denmark, and Norway, and of several other places of the Empire do declare, That whereas the Kings of England by right of the said kingdom, from a time whereof there is no memorial to the contrary, had been in peaceable possession of the 46 sovereign lordship of the sea of England and of the isles169 within the same, by ordinance and establishment of laws, statutes170, and prohibitions172 of arms, and of ships otherwise furnished than merchant vessels, and to take surety and afford safeguard in all cases where need shall be, and by ordinance of all other actions necessary for the maintaining of peace, right, and equity173 among all manner of people as well of any other dominion as of their own passing thereby174, and by sovereign guard and all manner of cognizance and justice high and low, concerning the said laws, statutes, ordinances, and prohibitions, and by all other actions that may appertain to the exercise of sovereign lordship in the places aforesaid. And A. de B.74 deputed Admiral of the said sea by the King of England, and all other Admirals [appointed] by that same King of England and his ancestors heretofore Kings of England, had been in peaceable possession of the said sovereign guard with the cognizance and justice and all other the aforesaid appurtenances, except in case of appeal and complaint made of them to their sovereigns the Kings of England of default of right or of wrong judgment158, and especially by putting hindrance175 (making prohibitions) and doing justice, taking surety of the peace of all manner of people using arms in the said sea, or carrying ships otherwise provided or furnished than appertained to a merchant ship, and in all other points wherein a man may have reasonable cause of suspicion towards them of robbery or other misdemeanours. And whereas the masters of the ships of the said kingdom of England in the absence of the said admirals had been in peaceable possession to take cognizance and to judge of all actions in the said sea between all manner of people according to the laws, statutes, and prohibitions, franchises176 and customs. And whereas in the first article of the alliance formerly177 made between the said Kings, in the treaties upon the last peace of Paris are comprised the words which follow in a schedule annexed178 to these presents.
First, it is concluded and accorded between us and the messengers and proctors aforesaid in the name of the said Kings that the said Kings shall from this time forward be good, true, and loyal friends, and be aiding to one another against all men saving the Church of Rome in such manner that if any one or more, whosoever they be, will disturb, hinder, or molest179 the said Kings in the franchises, liberties, privileges, rights, dues, or customs of 47 them and their kingdoms, they shall be good and loyal friends and allies against every man living, and ready to die to defend, keep, and maintain the franchises, liberties, privileges, rights, dues and customs aforesaid; Except (on the part of) the said King of England, Monsieur John, Duke of Brabant, in Brabant, and his heirs descended180 from him and the daughter of the King of England, and except (on behalf of) our said lord the King of France, the excellent Prince, Monsieur Albert, King of Almaigne [and] his heirs Kings of Almaigne, and Monsieur John, Count of Hainault in Hainault. And that the one shall not be of counsel nor aiding where the other may lose life, member, temporal estate, or honour.75
Monsieur Reymer Grymbaltz, Master of the navy of the said King of France, who calls himself admiral of the said sea, deputed by his lord aforesaid for his war against the Flemings did after the said alliance made and confirmed, and against the form and force of the same alliance and the intent of them that made it, by commission of the King of France wrongfully usurp181 the office of admiralty in the said sea of England and did exercise it for a year and more taking the people and merchants of the kingdom of England and elsewhere passing through the said sea with their goods, and committed the people so taken to the prison of his said lord the King of France, and by his judgment and award caused their goods and merchandises to be delivered to the receivers of the said King of France deputed for this purpose in the ports of his said kingdom, as to him forfeit87 and acquired. And the taking and detaining of the said people with their said goods and merchandises, and his said judgment and award concerning the forfeiture and acquest of them, he has justified before you, Lords Auditors, in writing, according to the authority of the said commission of the admiralty aforesaid by him thus usurped182, and during a prohibition171 commonly made by the King of England by his power, according to the tenor of the third article (sic) of the alliance aforesaid, which contains the words below [above] written, requiring that he may thereupon be quit and absolved183, to the great damage and prejudice of the said King of England and of the prelates and nobles and others above named, Wherefore the said proctors in the names of their said lords do pray [you Lords] Auditors aforesaid that you would cause due and speedy deliverance of the said people with their goods and merchandises thus taken and detained, to be made to the Admiral of the said King of England, to whom the cognizance thereof of right belongs, as above is said, so that, without disturbance112 from you or any 48 other, he may take cognizance hereof and do that which belongs to his office aforesaid, and that the said Monsieur Reyner be condemned184 and constrained185 to make due satisfaction to all the persons wronged as aforesaid as, etc. [so far as he is able to do, and in his default his said lord the King of France, by whom he was deputed to the said office, and that after due satisfaction made for the said damages, the said Monsieur Reyner may be so duly punished for the violation186 of the said alliance that his punishment may be an example to others in times to come.76] Item, the said proctors require that whereas according to the ancient laws, franchises and customs of the realm of England, to the keeping whereof your said lord the King and his ancestors Kings of England were wont187 to be bound by their oaths. Their admirals of the sea of England with the masters and mariners of ships of ports of the coast of England, being in the armies of the said admirals, needed not to answer before any justices of the Kings aforesaid concerning actions in the sea abovesaid during their wars against their enemies. And the said admiral of your said lord the King and many of the masters and mariners of the ports aforesaid now being in his army against the [their] enemies of Scotland and their helpers and allies, by express commandment of your said lord the King, are accused before you by people of Normandy and Brittany and elsewhere concerning some actions in the said sea in time of truce and since the peace confirmed between the said Kings of England and France, and before the war begun between them as is said. It may please you to surcease the process already commenced against them and to forbear to commence a new one during the war abovesaid, that they may have no cause to complain to your said lord and to the prelates and nobles of his said realm, bound by their oath to keep and maintain the said laws, franchises, and customs.
Selden alludes188 to this document as proving that the right of dominion over the sea, and that ancient and confirmed by long prescription189, was in express terms here acknowledged by almost all the neighbouring nations to belong to England.77 This is, however, not quite justified, because there is no record at all to show any decision, or even whether the matter was 49 ever brought to proof, and no mention is made of the proceedings by any English or French historian. There seems to be no doubt of the authenticity of the record. It is in the handwriting of the time, is preserved among the public records, and agrees with other circumstances elsewhere recorded. On the other hand, even the most complete copy78 is only a draft, as Selden states, without date or seals; the admiral’s initials only are given, and the citation190 of the first article of the treaty at Paris is not on a separate schedule as the text states, but is part of the text. Selden gives it as his opinion that it was a matter “of such moment” that it was thought better to make an end of it by agreement than to bring it to a trial.
Light is thrown on the above record by another of the proceedings before the Auditors deputed by the kings of England and France for the redress of the grievances191 between the subjects of the two countries, 27-33 Edward I.79 It consists of a series of libels or complaints, which, as Mr Salisbury of the Record Office has been good enough to inform me, are in the handwriting of the time of Edward I., and are doubtless those, or part of those, on which the De Superioritate roll is based.80 The complaints are sixteen in number, and they refer to the seizure192 of a number of ships and the removal of goods from them, between May 1298 and September 1303, at various places,—the foreland of Thanet, the mouth of the Thames, off Blakeney, off Kirkele, Scarborough, Dover, and Orfordness,—the goods, and sometimes the vessel, being taken to Calais. Most of the vessels were freighted from London to Brabant, or from the latter place to London, one from Winchelsea to Dieppe, another from Antwerp to London, a third from Berwick to London, a fourth from Scotland to Brabant, a fifth from Lynn to Scotland, a sixth from Antwerp to England, and another from Yarmouth to London; in two cases the crews were killed, and the ships as well as the goods disposed of. In most cases the complaints are laid against Johan Pederogh or John de Pederogue (see p. 45), Michel de Navare, and others, who appear to have been under Grimbald, but in some instances they are against the latter. The first is by 50 Richard Bush against “Reyner Grymaus,” complaining of goods having been taken from a ship going from Winchelsea to Dieppe, in August 1301, by Michel de Navare and others of Calais, who took the goods thither193 and disposed of them. The “chevalier” denied this, and asserted he was “not in that country” at the time specified194 nor for nearly a year afterwards, and in the “rejoinder” note was taken of the answer “that he was not admiral till some time after the events specified.” The eighth complaint refers to the seizure of goods from a ship going from Berwick to London in August 1303, off Blakeney, “by men from Calais.” In reply John (Pederogh) says the demand concerns “mi sire Reniers de Grimaus” only, for he was then admiral, and said John was on shore at the date specified, and was only in the company of Reniers in Zealand and Holland. The twelfth complaint declares that the ship Michele de Arwe, from London to Brabant, with a cargo195 valued at ￡556, was seized “on the high seas” by Sire Reyner Grimbaud, admiral, in September 1303, taken to Normandy, and the crew sent to Calais and imprisoned196. In reply the “chivaler” confesses he took such a ship, and seized it rightfully, as it was consorting197 with the enemies of France; and in response to the demand of one of the crew still in prison at Calais, he says he is there as a malefactor198 against the King of France, and that the commission of the deputies does not extend to such cases. The fourteenth complaint is by John de Chelchethe against Reyner de Grymaus, and John Pedrogh replies “as he did to William Servat,” the latter name not occurring elsewhere in the record, a circumstance which points to these libels being only part of those brought before the commissioners.
It is to be noted that, with the exception of the Michele de Arwe above mentioned, which was taken “on the high seas,”—an elastic199 term,—all the ships were attacked near the English coast, and well within what may be called the sea of England, or the waters included in the King’s Chambers200 in 1604, where the jurisdiction of the English Admiralty undoubtedly201 extended. In all cases, moreover, the goods seized belonged to Englishmen, though some of the ships were foreign.
Too much importance appears to have been attached to the roll De Superioritate. It furnishes no proof, or even reasonable 51 probability, that any other Power acquiesced202 in an English claim to a specific sovereignty of the sea beyond what appears to have been customary among maritime states at the time. The point of the libel is that Grimbald seized shipping after the alliance was made and took people and goods to France, and was thus said to have usurped the sovereign lordship or jurisdiction of the English king or admiral in “the sea of England.”
An important light is thrown on the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the English admiral by the memorandum203 of 12 Edward III., in the same roll, the documents in which were collected together at the time it was written, in connection with the consultation of the judges to which it refers.81 It recites that, among a number of other things, the King’s Justiciaries were to be consulted as to the appropriate method of revising and continuing the form of proceedings instituted and ordained by Edward I. and his Council for maintaining and preserving the ancient supremacy of the crown in the sea of England and the right of the admiral’s office over it, with the view of correcting, interpreting, declaring, and upholding the laws and statutes made formerly by his ancestors, the kings of England, for the maintenance of peace and justice among the people of all nations whatsoever204 passing through the sea of England, and to take cognisance of all attempts to the contrary in the same, and to punish delinquents205 and afford redress to the injured; which laws and statutes, the memorandum states, were by Richard I., on his return from the Holy Land, corrected, interpreted, and declared, and were published in the Island of Oleron and named in the French language La Loy Oleroun.82 52
This memorandum furnishes an important clue as to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised in the so-called sea of England. It is evident from the concluding part that the laws and statutes referred to are the mercantile marine laws, which were best known in this country as the Laws of Oleron, and are included in the Black Book of the Admiralty together with other articles peculiar104 to the English Admiralty.83 They appear to have been published by Richard I. at the end of the twelfth century, at a time when the old customs of the sea began to be committed to writing, as rules proper to be observed by the admirals of his fleet for the punishment of delinquencies and the redress of wrongs committed on the sea. They were 53 continued among the Admiralty regulations in subsequent reigns, and it was part of the duties of the admiral to see that they were duly observed in the seas within his jurisdiction. The powers of the admiral were extensive, as may be seen from the memorandum of the fourteenth century defining his office and duties, which has been published by Nicolas,84 by those given by Twiss in the Black Book,85 and later by Godolphin.86
At the time with which we are dealing206 the utmost lawlessness reigned207 on the sea, the depredations of undisguised freebooters being scarcely a greater evil than the constant acts of reprisal208 between the traders of different nations. It was a common practice for the seamen209 of different countries or cities to carry on hostilities210 with one another, and to enter into treaties of peace or truce without the sovereign on either side being concerned in their quarrels, except as mediators or umpires. In 1317, although there was peace between England and Flanders, the mutual reprisals211 of the seamen and merchants reached such a height that commercial intercourse212 was entirely213 suspended, and Edward II. and the Earl of Flanders had to actively214 interpose in order to bring about “peace” between their subjects.87 A marked feature in the policy of Edward III. was the promotion215 and encouragement of foreign commerce, and quite a number of statutes were passed in his reign with that object, and to facilitate the entrance of foreign merchants into the realm. One of these, made six years after the consultation of the judges on the maritime laws, was specially passed to declare the sea open to all merchants.88
With these circumstances in view, it can be readily understood how desirable it was to have the maritime laws for the security of commerce and shipping carefully considered and 54 put in force; and a consideration of the whole case shows that the roll De Superioritate Maris deals with the maritime laws, the interpretation216 of the documents having been strained by the later advocates for the English claim to the sovereignty of the seas. It is interesting no doubt to learn that the King of England and his admiral exercised jurisdiction of the kind in the neighbouring sea at the early time referred to, but there is nothing in the case of Grimbald or in the other documents associated with it to indicate any claim to a sovereignty such as was enjoyed by Venice and Denmark. There was no attempt made to interfere84 with the innocent use of the so-called sea of England, or to exact dues for navigation or fishery. The jurisdiction extended only to the keeping of the peace and the security of the sea—duties exercised by other princes and states in like manner, and indeed now exercised by all countries within the waters under their control. This view is supported by the interpretation of Callis, who stated that the king ruled on the sea “by the laws imperial, as by the roll of Oleron and others,” in all matters relating to shipping and merchants and mariners.89 It would no doubt be of great interest if there were distinct evidence as to how far from the coast “the sea of England” extended. The records cited show that the vessels were seized close to the English coast, within the waters covered by the proclamations concerning the King’s Chambers in the seventeenth century, and even within the narrow limits of the territorial217 waters as now usually defined. It is to be noted with reference to the vessel taken “on the high seas” that in the Court of Admiralty in the seventeenth century this phrase covered seizures218 made a few miles from the coast.
There is, however, one case which occurred in the fourteenth century which has been referred to as showing that the sea of England and the jurisdiction of the king extended far from the English coast, over indeed to the coast of Brittany. In the mutual aggressions of Flemish and English sailors, the robberies by the men of Rye of Flemish ships off “Craudon” and Orwell became so flagrant that commissioners on both sides were appointed in 1311, further proceedings were instituted in 1314, 55 and finally, in 1320, envoys219 from Flanders arrived in London during the sitting of Parliament, and a treaty was concluded. In this it is stated that divers220 merchants of Flanders, while “proceeding on the sea of England near Craudon,”90 were robbed of their wines and merchandise by evil-doers of England, and that the goods had been brought to England. The Flemish envoys prayed the king, “of his lordship and royal power to cause right to be done and punishment awarded, since he is lord of the sea, and the said robbery was committed in the sea under his power.”91 The account goes on to state that the king and his council in Parliament, with the assent221 of the peers, agreed to appoint justices to inquire into the matter, and that those who were concerned in the robbery should be promptly222 punished.92 Accordingly, in December 1320, the Keeper of the Cinque Ports and others were instructed to make inquiry223 regarding the pillaging224 of a Flemish ship, laden with wines and merchandise, said to have been committed by Englishmen on the sea of England, off Craudon, so that the malefactors might be brought to justice.93 Selden, who gives the document in which the previous proceedings are also recited,94 does not attempt to locate Craudon, which in other records in the rolls of Parliament in 1315 was also called “Carondon,” “Crasdon,” and “Grasdon”; but Nicolas 56 states that there was no place of that name on the sea coast of England, nor in any part of the territories of Edward II., and he identified it with a small seaport225, since called “Crowdon,” in Brittany, lying on the extreme part of the Point du Raz, about eight leagues west of Quimper, where he shows that the fleets returning to England with wines frequently took shelter.95 If this explanation be correct, it would extend the “sea of England” more than 120 miles south of the Lizard226, which, however, is still well within the limits which were claimed for it by Selden (see p. 19). Although, according to the English record, the Flemish envoys themselves described the sea off Craudon as part of the sea of England and under the jurisdiction of the king, it is evident that this admission would facilitate redress from England, and standing alone it is not of much weight. The whole value of the admission, moreover, depends on the position of the “Craudon” of the record; and it is remarkable, if it was really the Crowdon referred to by Nicolas, that that fact was unknown to Selden, to whom it would have furnished a very strong argument for his case.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
conformity
|
|
| n.一致，遵从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
pretension
|
|
| n.要求；自命，自称；自负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
boroughs
|
|
| （尤指大伦敦的）行政区( borough的名词复数 )； 议会中有代表的市镇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
lesser
|
|
| adj.次要的，较小的；adv.较小地，较少地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
dominion
|
|
| n.统治，管辖，支配权；领土，版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
anterior
|
|
| adj.较早的；在前的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
conquerors
|
|
| 征服者，占领者( conqueror的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
contentions
|
|
| n.竞争( contention的名词复数 )；争夺；争论；论点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
warriors
|
|
| 武士，勇士，战士( warrior的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
tusks
|
|
| n.（象等动物的）长牙( tusk的名词复数 )；獠牙；尖形物；尖头 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
walrus
|
|
| n.海象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
barter
|
|
| n.物物交换，以货易货，实物交易 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
salmon
|
|
| n.鲑，大马哈鱼，橙红色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
mare
|
|
| n.母马，母驴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
invaders
|
|
| 入侵者，侵略者，侵入物( invader的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
maritime
|
|
| adj.海的，海事的，航海的，近海的，沿海的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
levied
|
|
| 征（兵）( levy的过去式和过去分词 )； 索取； 发动（战争）； 征税 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
humility
|
|
| n.谦逊，谦恭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
enjoin
|
|
| v.命令；吩咐；禁止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
dominions
|
|
| 统治权( dominion的名词复数 )； 领土； 疆土； 版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
vessels
|
|
| n.血管( vessel的名词复数 )；船；容器；（具有特殊品质或接受特殊品质的）人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
vessel
|
|
| n.船舶；容器，器皿；管，导管，血管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
mid
|
|
| adj.中央的，中间的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
insular
|
|
| adj.岛屿的，心胸狭窄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
dwelling
|
|
| n.住宅，住所，寓所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
expressive
|
|
| adj.表现的，表达…的，富于表情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
transcript
|
|
| n.抄本，誊本，副本，肄业证书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
authentic
|
|
| a.真的，真正的；可靠的，可信的，有根据的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
authenticity
|
|
| n.真实性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
preamble
|
|
| n.前言；序文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
meditating
|
|
| a.沉思的，冥想的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
monkish
|
|
| adj.僧侣的，修道士的，禁欲的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
fable
|
|
| n.寓言；童话；神话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
effigy
|
|
| n.肖像 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
fig
|
|
| n.无花果(树) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
beak
|
|
| n.鸟嘴，茶壶嘴，钩形鼻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
inscribed
|
|
| v.写，刻( inscribe的过去式和过去分词 )；内接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
negotiations
|
|
| 协商( negotiation的名词复数 )； 谈判； 完成（难事）； 通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
Mediterranean
|
|
| adj.地中海的；地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
penetrated
|
|
| adj. 击穿的，鞭辟入里的 动词penetrate的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
continental
|
|
| adj.大陆的，大陆性的，欧洲大陆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
organisation
|
|
| n.组织，安排，团体，有机休 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
shipping
|
|
| n.船运（发货，运输，乘船） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
potent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有权势的；有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
infested
|
|
| adj.为患的，大批滋生的（常与with搭配）v.害虫、野兽大批出没于( infest的过去式和过去分词 )；遍布于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
purging
|
|
| 清洗； 清除； 净化； 洗炉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
prerogative
|
|
| n.特权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
piracy
|
|
| n.海盗行为，剽窃，著作权侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
wardens
|
|
| n.看守人( warden的名词复数 )；管理员；监察员；监察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
warden
|
|
| n.监察员，监狱长，看守人，监护人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
guardians
|
|
| 监护人( guardian的名词复数 )； 保护者，维护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
custodians
|
|
| n.看守人，保管人( custodian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
lieutenant
|
|
| n.陆军中尉，海军上尉；代理官员，副职官员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
ordinances
|
|
| n.条例，法令( ordinance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
ordinance
|
|
| n.法令；条令；条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
exempt
|
|
| adj.免除的；v.使免除；n.免税者，被免除义务者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
rebutted
|
|
| v.反驳，驳回( rebut的过去式和过去分词 )；击退 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
scrap
|
|
| n.碎片；废料；v.废弃，报废 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
interfered
|
|
| v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 )；调停；妨碍；干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
forfeit
|
|
| vt.丧失；n.罚金，罚款，没收物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
forfeiture
|
|
| n.（名誉等）丧失 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
smacks
|
|
| 掌掴（声）( smack的名词复数 )； 海洛因； （打的）一拳； 打巴掌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
scoured
|
|
| 走遍（某地）搜寻（人或物）( scour的过去式和过去分词 )； （用力）刷； 擦净； 擦亮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
plundered
|
|
| 掠夺，抢劫( plunder的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
ravaged
|
|
| 毁坏( ravage的过去式和过去分词 )； 蹂躏； 劫掠； 抢劫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
depredations
|
|
| n.劫掠，毁坏( depredation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
consultation
|
|
| n.咨询；商量；商议；会议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
laden
|
|
| adj.装满了的；充满了的；负了重担的；苦恼的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
convoy
|
|
| vt.护送，护卫，护航；n.护送；护送队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
prostrate
|
|
| v.拜倒，平卧，衰竭；adj.拜倒的，平卧的，衰竭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
levy
|
|
| n.征收税或其他款项，征收额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
impost
|
|
| n.进口税，关税 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
emulation
|
|
| n.竞争；仿效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
progenitors
|
|
| n.祖先( progenitor的名词复数 )；先驱；前辈；原本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
mandate
|
|
| n.托管地；命令，指示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
galleys
|
|
| n.平底大船，战舰( galley的名词复数 )；（船上或航空器上的）厨房 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
obviate
|
|
| v.除去，排除，避免，预防 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
jersey
|
|
| n.运动衫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
disturbances
|
|
| n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 )；打扰；困扰；障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
afflicted
|
|
| 使受痛苦，折磨( afflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
impaired
|
|
| adj.受损的；出毛病的；有（身体或智力）缺陷的v.损害，削弱( impair的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
memorable
|
|
| adj.值得回忆的，难忘的，特别的，显著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
symbolic
|
|
| adj.象征性的，符号的，象征主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
allusion
|
|
| n.暗示，间接提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
rife
|
|
| adj.(指坏事情)充斥的，流行的，普遍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
galled
|
|
| v.使…擦痛( gall的过去式和过去分词 )；擦伤；烦扰；侮辱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
subsidy
|
|
| n.补助金，津贴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
dreaded
|
|
| adj.令人畏惧的；害怕的v.害怕，恐惧，担心( dread的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
transcribed
|
|
| （用不同的录音手段）转录( transcribe的过去式和过去分词 )； 改编（乐曲）（以适应他种乐器或声部）； 抄写； 用音标标出（声音） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
rebus
|
|
| n.谜,画谜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
specification
|
|
| n.详述；[常pl.]规格，说明书，规范 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
registrar
|
|
| n.记录员，登记员；(大学的)注册主任 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
ordained
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
forfeited
|
|
| （因违反协议、犯规、受罚等）丧失，失去( forfeit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
albeit
|
|
| conj.即使；纵使；虽然 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
discretion
|
|
| n.谨慎；随意处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
purport
|
|
| n.意义，要旨，大要；v.意味著，做为...要旨，要领是... | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
reigns
|
|
| n.君主的统治( reign的名词复数 )；君主统治时期；任期；当政期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
ascertained
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
compilation
|
|
| n.编译，编辑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
marine
|
|
| adj.海的；海生的；航海的；海事的；n.水兵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
consultations
|
|
| n.磋商（会议）( consultation的名词复数 )；商讨会；协商会；查找 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
purports
|
|
| v.声称是…，（装得）像是…的样子( purport的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
hardy
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，果断的，吃苦的；耐寒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
itinerary
|
|
| n.行程表，旅行路线；旅行计划 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
apocryphal
|
|
| adj.假冒的，虚假的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
antedated
|
|
| v.（在历史上）比…为早( antedate的过去式和过去分词 )；先于；早于；（在信、支票等上）填写比实际日期早的日期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
infraction
|
|
| n.违反；违法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
navigating
|
|
| v.给（船舶、飞机等）引航，导航( navigate的现在分词 )；（从海上、空中等）横越；横渡；飞跃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
overhauled
|
|
| v.彻底检查( overhaul的过去式和过去分词 )；大修；赶上；超越 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
curiously
|
|
| adv.有求知欲地；好问地；奇特地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
hull
|
|
| n.船身；(果、实等的)外壳；vt.去(谷物等)壳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
humble
|
|
| adj.谦卑的，恭顺的；地位低下的；v.降低，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
prominence
|
|
| n.突出；显著；杰出；重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
truce
|
|
| n.休战，(争执，烦恼等的)缓和；v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
judgments
|
|
| 判断( judgment的名词复数 )； 鉴定； 评价； 审判 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
tenor
|
|
| n.男高音（歌手），次中音（乐器），要旨，大意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
amity
|
|
| n.友好关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
abstain
|
|
| v.自制，戒绝，弃权，避免 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
commissioners
|
|
| n.专员( commissioner的名词复数 )；长官；委员；政府部门的长官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
mariners
|
|
| 海员，水手（mariner的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
auditors
|
|
| n.审计员，稽核员( auditor的名词复数 )；（大学课程的）旁听生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
redress
|
|
| n.赔偿，救济，矫正；v.纠正，匡正，革除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
isles
|
|
| 岛( isle的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
prohibitions
|
|
| 禁令，禁律( prohibition的名词复数 )； 禁酒； 禁例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
equity
|
|
| n.公正，公平，（无固定利息的）股票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
hindrance
|
|
| n.妨碍，障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
franchises
|
|
| n.（尤指选举议员的）选举权( franchise的名词复数 )；参政权；获特许权的商业机构（或服务）；（公司授予的）特许经销权v.给…以特许权，出售特许权( franchise的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
annexed
|
|
| [法] 附加的，附属的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
molest
|
|
| vt.骚扰，干扰，调戏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
descended
|
|
| a.为...后裔的，出身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
usurp
|
|
| vt.篡夺，霸占；vi.篡位 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
usurped
|
|
| 篡夺，霸占( usurp的过去式和过去分词 )； 盗用； 篡夺，篡权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
absolved
|
|
| 宣告…无罪，赦免…的罪行，宽恕…的罪行( absolve的过去式和过去分词 )； 不受责难，免除责任 [义务] ,开脱（罪责） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
wont
|
|
| adj.习惯于；v.习惯；n.习惯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
alludes
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
prescription
|
|
| n.处方，开药；指示，规定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
citation
|
|
| n.引用，引证，引用文；传票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
grievances
|
|
| n.委屈( grievance的名词复数 )；苦衷；不满；牢骚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
seizure
|
|
| n.没收；占有；抵押 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
thither
|
|
| adv.向那里；adj.在那边的，对岸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
specified
|
|
| adj.特定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
cargo
|
|
| n.(一只船或一架飞机运载的)货物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
imprisoned
|
|
| 下狱，监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
consorting
|
|
| v.结伴( consort的现在分词 )；交往；相称；调和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
malefactor
|
|
| n.罪犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
elastic
|
|
| n.橡皮圈，松紧带；adj.有弹性的；灵活的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
acquiesced
|
|
| v.默认，默许( acquiesce的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
memorandum
|
|
| n.备忘录，便笺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
delinquents
|
|
| n.（尤指青少年）有过失的人，违法的人( delinquent的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
reigned
|
|
| vi.当政，统治（reign的过去式形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
reprisal
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，报复性劫掠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
seamen
|
|
| n.海员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
hostilities
|
|
| n.战争；敌意(hostility的复数)；敌对状态；战事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
reprisals
|
|
| n.报复（行为）( reprisal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
actively
|
|
| adv.积极地，勤奋地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
promotion
|
|
| n.提升，晋级；促销，宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
seizures
|
|
| n.起获( seizure的名词复数 )；没收；充公；起获的赃物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
envoys
|
|
| 使节( envoy的名词复数 )； 公使； 谈判代表； 使节身份 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
divers
|
|
| adj.不同的；种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
assent
|
|
| v.批准，认可；n.批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
pillaging
|
|
| v.抢劫，掠夺( pillage的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
seaport
|
|
| n.海港，港口，港市 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
lizard
|
|
| n.蜥蜴，壁虎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |