In the early and middle ages the sea fisheries were indeed much more important relatively14 than they are now. There was a greater demand for fish, and fishermen from various countries—from France, Flanders, Spain, and England—made long and distant voyages, extending to Iceland and even beyond 58 the North Cape15, in quest of fish. One reason for the great demand was the numerous fast-days enjoined16 by the Church; for although fish were eschewed17 by the ascetic18 monks19 of early times as dangerous to purity of soul, the fashion changed, and they were later consumed plentifully20 on the days of fast both by clergy21 and laity22.96 The fasts were strictly23 observed throughout Catholic Europe, and a large variety of sea and fresh-water fishes, as well as seals and cetaceans, were consumed on such occasions. Some of the large monastic establishments had their own staff of fishermen, and their fish-houses at seaports24 for the salting and curing of herring. Another reason for the extensive consumption of fish was the want of winter-roots and the scantiness25 of fodder26 in winter, so that it was impracticable to keep cattle and sheep for slaughtering27 throughout the winter. It was customary to kill them and salt the flesh in autumn; and thus fish, fresh, dried, smoked, or salted, formed a valued article of food in place of salted beef and mutton. Fish were also used to an extraordinary extent in victualling the army and navy, and in provisioning castles, the expense on this item of the commissariat generally equalling or exceeding that for beef, mutton, or pork.97 The distribution even of fresh fish was also much better than might have been expected. Barges28 and boats carried them up the rivers, and pack-horses and waggons29 transported them throughout the country, so that even in inland counties the harvesters in the fields were supplied with herrings for their dinner.98 In medi?val times, moreover, fishermen and fishing vessels30 constituted a considerable part of the naval32 force available for the defence of the kingdom, for offensive operations and the transport of soldiers. The fishermen of the Cinque Ports, who had the government of the great herring fair at Yarmouth, had also to provide vessels for the king’s service under their charters. Later, when a permanent navy existed, the fisheries were looked upon as a very important “nursery” of seamen33 to man the fleets. 59
The herring fishery was by far the most important of all the sea fisheries, and as this fish was found in greatest abundance on the British coasts, foreign fishermen were attracted hither in great numbers. It was with reference to the herring fishery that exclusive claims were raised by England in the seventeenth century, and it is desirable at the outset to understand the policy which was pursued previously34 in regard to it both in England and Scotland. At what period foreign fishermen first began to frequent the British coasts is uncertain; but we know that within fifty or sixty years of the Norman Conquest fishermen from Flanders and Normandy—and doubtless from other countries—visited our shores and carried on a fishery for herrings by means of drift-nets. An important fishery was established at the mouth of the Firth of Forth35, on the east coast of Scotland, in the early part of the twelfth century, and it was shared by fishermen from England, Flanders, and France, who paid tithes36 to the monks of the priory on the Isle37 of May. This monastery38 was founded by King David I. before the middle of the twelfth century, and was endowed by him with the manor39 of Pittenweem in Fife, and by Cospatrick, the great Earl of Dunbar, with a house and “toft” at the village of Dunbar, both grants being of value in connection with the fishery. King William the Lion (A.D. 1165-1214) confirmed these grants, and addressed missives to “all his good subjects and the fishermen who fish round the Isle of May” commanding them to pay their tithes to the monks as they were paid in the time of his grandfather, King David (A.D. 1124-1153); and he prohibited them from fishing in their waters or using the island without license4 from the monks.99 This very early claim to the right of exclusive fishing in the sea is characteristic of the policy of all the Scottish kings. It was repeated on several occasions, the royal mandate40 being sometimes addressed solely41 “to all fishermen who fish around the Isle of May”; and that some of them were foreigners appears to be shown not only by the statement above given, on the authority of contemporary monks, but by the size of the vessels, some of which had four hawsers42, and paid much higher dues at the neighbouring 60 harbours than the local fishing-boats. We know also from contemporary Flemish records that as early as the first half of the twelfth century fishermen from Nieuport and other places in Flanders fished from large vessels for herrings with drift-nets in August and September in the northern parts of the North Sea.
The men from France and Flanders alluded43 to, no doubt continued to fish each season down the east coast of England to the mouth of the Thames, as they did later and do still. About the period mentioned, Yarmouth was a great fishing centre, and was frequented by foreign merchants—Flemings, French, Swedes, and Frieslanders—who purchased and cured herrings; but the earliest notice of foreign fishermen on the English coast is in the year 1274, shortly after Edward I. came to the throne. Complaint was then made that during a time of truce44 the English fishermen had been attacked by the Flemish disguised as fishermen and twelve hundred of them killed.100 On the other hand, the Countess of Flanders complained that twenty-two of her subjects who had been fishing on the coast of England and Scotland, and had gone ashore46 at Berwick to rest themselves and get provisions, had been seized, with their nets, at Norham and thrown into the castle there.101 About twenty years later, Edward I. issued a mandate to John de Botetourt, the Warden47 of the coast of Yarmouth, and to the bailiffs of that town, saying that he understood that many men from Holland, Zealand, and Friesland would shortly come “to fish in our sea off Yarmouth,” and commanding them to make public proclamation once or twice a-week forbidding any molestation or injury to be done to them, but that they should rather be helped to pursue their fishing to advantage.102 The number of English fishermen stated to have been killed by the Flemings in the encounter mentioned above, indicates how extensive the fishery then was. This also appears a few years later, when the Flemings resorted to a similar device; for in 61 July 1296 above a thousand men of Flanders, and others of France, disguised as fishermen, were preparing to attack and burn Yarmouth and neighbouring places, and the bailiffs and men of the port were ordered to collect their ships to oppose them. These proceedings48 show the lawless state of the sea in those times. In the thirteenth century an extensive herring fishing was also carried on by the Scots on the east coast, especially in the Firth of Forth and the Moray Firth, and particularly by the men of Fife, and cargoes49 of herrings, cod50, and haddocks, as well as salmon51, were exported to England and chiefly to London, but also to Bordeaux, Rouen, Dieppe, and other ports in France.
From the foregoing it is clear that centuries before the question of mare52 clausum was raised, important fisheries were established along the east coast of England and Scotland, and that foreign fishermen took part in them. The number of French and Flemish fishermen attending the fishery must have been always great, because they had to furnish a large part of Catholic Europe with fish. But the number was increased after the fourteenth century, and especially in the fifteenth, from two causes. One was the decline of the great herring fishery at Scania, in the Baltic, upon which the Hanseatic League had risen to power and opulence53, and which provided perhaps the greater part of continental54 Europe with salted and smoked herrings—Germany, Poland, Russia, part of France, and even to some extent Flanders and England. The Scanian herrings were esteemed55 the best, and the Hanse controlled the trade.103 The other circumstance was the invention in the latter part of the fourteenth century by Beuckelsz, a native of Biervliet, in Zealand, of a greatly improved mode of curing herrings,—an invention which most materially aided the Dutch in taking the place of the Hansards in the herring industry, and in the commerce which it brought in its train. Some of the towns in the Low Countries early belonged to the Hanseatic League, and their fishermen were in the habit of going to the Scanian fishery;104 but from the fifteenth century at least the herring fishery on the British coasts became by far the most important 62 in Europe. It attracted foreign fishermen in increasing numbers, and gradually the Dutch came to take the leading part in it, displacing the Flemings and the men from Normandy and Picardy, and even to a large extent the English themselves. In 1512 we find Margaret of Savoy appealing to Henry VIII. to protect the fishermen of Holland, Zealand, and Friesland in their herring fishery, in which they were menaced by the Hanseatic towns, which were fitting out vessels to interrupt them; and in her letter she describes the herring fishery as the principal support of these states.105 Towards the end of the century, when the Dutch had begun to call their herring fishery on the British coast their “great gold mine,” another event occurred which tended still further to strengthen their hold on it by opening fresh markets on the Continent. This was the failure of the great Bohusl?n fishery in Sweden, which continued barren for about seventy years.106 They were also enabled to prosper6 in their fishery by the beneficent policy of the English sovereigns towards them up to the reign2 of James I., when the claim to the exclusive fishing in the British seas was put forward on behalf of the crown.
When this claim was advanced in the seventeenth century, it was argued that the sea fisheries had always belonged to the crown. Selden declared that “license had usually been granted to foreigners by the Kings of England to fish in the sea; and that the protection which the kings gave to fishermen, as in their own territory, was an ancient and manifest evidence of their maritime dominion57.”107 The cases adduced in support of that contention58 are singularly few and unconvincing. One is the tax imposed by Richard II. in 1379 on fishing vessels, among others, in the admiralty of the north, but which, if it was imposed on foreign vessels at all, must have been done with their consent (see p. 33). Another relates to the arrangements which were occasionally made for “wafting” or guarding the fishermen at the Yarmouth fishing, and for which the fishermen thus protected had to pay,—an arrangement which 63 was also adopted in the reign of Charles I. Thus, in 1482, Edward IV. invested certain persons, called Guardians59, Conductors, and Wafters, with naval powers, to protect the fishermen “of whatever country they be, who shall desire to fish under the protection” of the said wardens60 on the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk; and all those who took advantage of such protection had to pay an equal share of the cost of it; any other persons pretending to have power to protect the fishermen were to be apprehended61. This arrangement was repeated in the reigns56 of Richard III. and Henry VII.108 It is evident that the payment was only exigible from such foreign fishermen as took advantage of the protection offered to them; those who desired to fish without protection of the wardens were at liberty to do so. A more pertinent62 case is the Act of the Irish Parliament in 1465—also during the reign of Edward IV.—which has been previously alluded to.109 It was passed to prevent aid being given to the king’s enemies by foreign vessels that went to fish at Ireland. All foreign fishing vessels were prohibited from fishing on the Irish coast (except the north part of Wicklow) without first obtaining a license from the Lieutenant63, his deputy, a “justice of the land,” or other person authorised to grant it, upon pain of forfeiture64 of ship and goods. All foreign vessels allowed to fish, which were of twelve tons burthen “or less,” and had a “drover” or boat, were to pay thirteen shillings and fourpence yearly for the maintenance of the king’s wars in Ireland; smaller vessels, as “scarfes” or boats not having “drover nor lighter,” and within the burthen of twelve tons, were to pay two shillings. This was obviously a temporary measure, designed for a special purpose, though clearly imposing65 a tax on foreign vessels; but there is not evidence to show whether it was enforced.
Other two instances referring to later times were adduced in support of the contention that the sea fisheries belonged to England, and they may be mentioned here. One was the statement 64 made by Camden about 1586,110 and by Hitchcock some years earlier,111 that the Hollanders and Zealanders before they began to fish for herrings off the east coast of England, first, “by ancient custom, asked leave of Scarborough Castle”; “for,” adds Camden, “the English have always given them leave to fish, reserving the honour to themselves, and resigning, as if from slothfulness, the benefit to strangers.” Neither Hitchcock nor Camden quotes any authority for the statement. Scarborough Castle was in early times an important stronghold on the north-east coast, and it is not unlikely that foreign fishermen, who were frequently at the port, found it to their interest to maintain friendly relations with the governor, and gave notice of their arrival, or perhaps asked leave to dry their nets and paid for the privilege. It was the practice for the governor to levy66 dues, in kind, on fish brought ashore, for Edward III., in 1347, ordered writs67 of attachment68 to lie against those who during the fishing season sold their fish at sea instead of bringing them to the town, thus defrauding69 the Castle of its dues. Another instance, which was frequently made use of in negotiations70 later with the Dutch on the question of the fishery, was an alleged71 lease for twenty-one years granted by Queen Mary to her husband Philip II. of Spain, by which his subjects received licenses72 to fish on the Irish coasts. The first trace of this story is found in a memorandum73 addressed to Lord Salisbury in 1609 by one Richard Rainsford, an agent for a fishery company,112 in which it is said that ￡1000 per annum had been paid into the Irish Exchequer74 by Philip for the privilege, and that Sir Henry Fitton, the son of the treasurer75 at the time, could substantiate76 the statement “on oath if need is.” No year is mentioned by any of those who put forward this story,113 and no record of it is referred to. If not entirely77 apocryphal78, and invented as an argument against the Dutch, who were subjects of Philip in the early part of his reign, it was probably constructed on a very slender basis.
There is, however, one interesting case, or series of cases, in 65 which licenses to fish in the Channel were frequently granted by the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports to a limited number of French fishermen, chiefly of Dieppe and Treport, for the ostensible79 purpose of supplying the king of France’s table with fresh fish, and especially soles. It is stated that the French kings “time out of mind” had applied80 for such licenses,114 and they were certainly granted under Elizabeth, the Stuart kings, and Oliver Cromwell. It is doubtful when the custom originated, but since the liberty of fishing was granted for a definite area or bank, called the Zowe or Sowe, off Rye and well out in the Channel, it was probably of considerable antiquity81, and may have survived from the Norman or Angevin reigns. James also furnished similar licenses for the use of certain high personages, such as the Duchess of Guise45 and the French ex-ambassador; but the liberty was greatly abused, and was the cause of much friction82 and trouble with the English fishermen later.115 The fact that such licenses were asked for by the French court on behalf of fishermen of Dieppe, Treport, Calais, and other ports on the coast of France, may indicate that the fisheries out in the Channel were at one time claimed by England. But it is possible it was only the survival of a custom adopted during the times when great lawlessness reigned83 on the seas, and when the men of the Cinque Ports were a terror to their neighbours. A license from the Lord Warden would be then a safeguard and protection.
Such are the cases which were adduced to prove the rights of the English crown to exclusive fishing in the British seas. On the other side there is an overwhelming body of testimony84 to show that the fishery was free. It may be noted85 in the 66 first place that Bracton and the other early English lawyers, unlike those of the seventeenth century, made no claim for an exclusive fishery. They merely propounded86 the Roman law that the sea and the shores of the sea were common to all; that the right of fishing in rivers and ports was likewise free to all; and that animals, fer? natur?, including fish, belonged to no person. The law laid down by Bracton and the others was not, of course, international; but if it had been in agreement with English jurisprudence in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (as it was made to be in the seventeenth) to consider the sea fisheries as the property of the crown, that would have been declared, because Bracton was embodying87 the customary law of England, and adopted Roman law only when that failed him. He is careful to state that wreck89 of the sea and “great fish,” such as sturgeons and whales, “belong to the lord the king himself by reason of his privilege” or prerogative90, precisely91 on the ground that Callis, Coke, Selden, and Hale claimed the sea fisheries generally for the crown in the seventeenth century. Had any such right existed or been thought of in the reign of Henry III., Bracton could not have failed to incorporate it, since the king placed the archives and everything necessary at his disposal to enable him to embody88 the common law of England.116 So also there is nothing in the rolls of Edward I. and Edward III., which deal with the sovereignty of the sea, to indicate any claim to the fisheries; nor is there in the Admiralty ordinances92 and regulations in the Black Book, although it was part of the duties of the admirals to supervise the sea fisheries and to enforce the laws relating to them.
But the assertion that the fisheries were free in those early times does not depend upon negative testimony. Liberty of fishing was guaranteed in various treaties concluded with foreign nations from the middle of the fourteenth century until the end of the sixteenth. The first of these was made in the reign of Edward III., and it was in keeping with the liberal policy of that monarch8 in regard to the promotion93 of foreign commerce. It was almost a necessity, for English fishermen were by themselves unable to meet the home demand for fish. 67 Fish caught by foreigners were regularly imported into England, and such importation was encouraged by the crown and by Parliament until after the Reformation. Foreign fishermen were also encouraged, as is shown by the mandates94 of Edward I. and Edward II. above alluded to, and by many others.
The first of the formal treaties providing for liberty of fishing was concluded in 1351 between Edward III. and the king of Castile and towns on the coast of Castile and Biscay. Edward had signally defeated the Spanish fleet in the year before in the battle known as “L’Espagnols sur Mer,” and in the truce for twenty years which followed, it was stipulated95 that there should be mutual96 freedom of commerce and navigation, and that the fishermen from Castile and Biscay should be at liberty to come freely and safely to fish in the ports of England and Brittany, and in all other places and ports, paying the dues and customs to the lords of the country.117 Spanish fishermen do not appear to have taken part in the great herring fishing on the east coast,—Spaniards, indeed, have never cared for pickled or cured herrings, differing in this respect from the Teutonic races, but have preferred the mackerel, the pilchard, and the cod. The liberty of fishing conferred by the treaty was no doubt chiefly valuable to them with respect to their fishery off the Irish coast, the south-west coast of England, and along the coasts of Aquitaine and Brittany for sardines97 and mackerel. Two years later a similar treaty was concluded between Edward and the towns of Portugal and Algarve, in which liberty of fishing was stipulated in precisely the same terms,118 and no doubt related to the same waters.
Early in the next century we find what seems to be the first of the numerous agreements as to the liberty of fishing for herrings in the narrow seas, quite a number of which were made in the comparatively short and troubled reign of Henry IV. In a truce concluded in 1403 between Henry and the King of France, it was provided that merchants, mariners98, and fishermen should be free to pass to and through either kingdom 68 without requiring letters of safe-conduct. Henry, therefore, issued a mandate to his admirals and other officers concerned, enjoining99 that during the current herring season the fishermen of both countries should freely fish for herrings and all other fish, from Gravelines and the Isle of Thanet down to the mouth of the Seine and Southampton, without hindrance100 or molestation, and that if they were chased by pirates or met with contrary winds they were to be allowed to take refuge in the ports within the area defined, and were to be well treated.119 As the king’s missive is dated 26th October, it appears that there was then, as there is now, a considerable winter herring fishing in the Channel. Three years later, on 5th October 1406, Henry took all the fishermen of France, Flanders, and Brittany, with their ships and boats, under his protection until 2nd February in the following year,—that is to say, during the winter herring fishery,—for which time they were to be allowed to fish freely and without molestation, and to carry away their fish, provided they did nothing to prejudice him or his kingdom.120 Considering the weak condition of the English navy at the time—the security of the sea had been committed to the merchants on the east coast, a system which in this month of October was known to have failed—and the prevalence of pirates, it is unlikely that the protection of the king was of much avail.
In November of the same year, with reference to his treaty with France, Henry published another proclamation stating that, on the supplication101 of the burgesses and people of Flanders, it had been agreed that the fishermen of England and Flanders, and generally of all the realm of France, should, during the continuance of the treaty, go in safety to fish in the sea. To the end that the fishermen who travelled on the sea at great peril102 to gain their living might fish in greater security, and obtain sea fish for the sustenance103 of the people, it was ordained104 that for a year from the publication of the proclamation all the fishermen of England, of Calais, and of other towns and places belonging to the King of England, as well as the fishermen 69 of Flanders, Picardy, Normandy, and Brittany, and other parts of France, might go in peace over the whole sea to fish and gain their living, without any restraint or hindrance; provided no fraud was committed, and that English fishermen had the same privileges from Flanders, Picardy, Normandy, Brittany, and other parts of France. If the fishermen were driven into port by the violence of the wind, or other cause, they were to be received freely and treated reasonably, paying the dues and customs as of old, and be at liberty to return to their own ports. The king, therefore, commanded his admirals, captains, bailiffs, the commanders of castles and ports, and others concerned, to see that the provisions of the treaty were carried out.121
In the following year was concluded the first of the great series of Burgundy treaties, about which so much was to be heard in the diplomatic negotiations with the Dutch in the seventeenth century. Flanders was then part of the dominions105 of the Duke of Burgundy, who held it as a fief of France, and freedom of commerce and fishery was of the highest importance to his Flemish subjects. A treaty or convention was therefore drawn106 up between Henry’s ambassadors and the Duke of Burgundy, dealing107 chiefly with commercial intercourse108, in which the above-mentioned provisions for mutual liberty of fishing were embodied109, in practically the same language, and comprising likewise the whole of France.122 In 1408 the mutual freedom of fishing in the sea was twice confirmed,—in the prorogation110 of the truce with the Duke of Burgundy, and in the ratification111 by the King of France of the treaty between Henry and the Duke;123 and it was again 70 confirmed at Amiens by John, Duke of Burgundy, in 1417, in the reign of Henry V.124
The various fishery truces112 and conventions of Henry IV., which were made at a time when great insecurity prevailed on the sea and depredations113 were committed on all hands, reflect credit on that able monarch, and notwithstanding the naval weakness in the early part of his reign, they must have had a favourable114 influence in fostering the sea fisheries. The sort of treatment that fishermen in those times had frequently to undergo is indicated in a complaint made to the king in 1410 that, notwithstanding the fishery truce with France, the men of Harfleur had seized an English fishing vessel31 of twenty-four tons, Le Cogge Johan de Briggewauter, and had thrown the master and fourteen of the crew into prison, without food and water, and held them to ransom115 for a hundred pounds.125 Such occurrences were by no means uncommon116, and it was customary for fishing vessels to go to sea armed,126—a provision which also enabled them on occasion to do a little piracy117 on their own account. It was sometimes difficult for the authorities to decide whether a vessel provided with fishing-lines and armed, as some were, with “minions, falcons118, and falconettes,” and having a good store of powder and bullets, had been equipped to catch fish or prey119 upon other vessels.
It does not appear that any treaty concerning liberty of fishing was made in the warlike reign of Henry V. (1413-1422); but, as stated above, this king confirmed the Burgundy treaty in 1417. In the succeeding reign of Henry VI., in 1439, a treaty was concluded for three years with Isabel of Portugal, as representing her husband, Philip, Duke of Burgundy, which provided for liberty in fishing in much the same language as in the treaty of Henry IV. It was stipulated that all the fishermen of England, Ireland, or Calais, as well as of Brabant and Flanders, should be free to go all over the sea for fishing, without any hindrance or molestation on either side, and that they should have free access to the ports of either, under the 71 usual conditions. Although the Duke of Burgundy was also Count of Holland and Zealand, these states were not specifically included in this treaty, which was renewed in 1442 for other five years, and again, at Calais, in 1446, for a term of twelve years, in precisely the same terms, and the commonalties of Ghent, Bruges, Ypres, and of the French dominions promised to observe it.127 In the renewal120 of the treaty of intercourse at Brussels, in 1468, by Edward IV. and the Duchess of Burgundy on behalf of her husband, Duke Charles, in addition to the mention of Brabant, Flanders, and Mechlin, words were added128 which brought Holland and Zealand into the treaty, and thus formally gave them that liberty of fishing on the British, or at least the English, coast which they struggled so hard and so successfully to retain in the seventeenth century. The article on the fishery also declared that the fishermen should be at liberty to fish without being required to obtain any license, permission, or safe-conduct,129 which appears to indicate that the practice of obtaining such letters for their security had been previously in vogue121. In 1468, in the treaty of peace, at Péronne, between Louis XI. of France and Charles, Duke of Burgundy, a similar clause was inserted providing for the freedom of the herring fishery;130 and in the ten years’ truce 72 agreed upon in 1471 between Edward IV. and the King of France mutual liberty of commerce and fishing was stipulated during the continuance of the truce.131 The treaty of 1467, above referred to, which included Holland and Zealand, was to last for thirty years, but by the death of Charles the Bold, and the marriage of Mary of Burgundy to Maximilian of Austria, it was deemed necessary to renew it with the new Duke; and this was done, and the compact declared to be perpetual, in 1478, the clause providing for the liberty of fishing remaining unaltered.132
It is thus clear from those numerous treaties that in the fifteenth century the liberty of fishing in the sea was so generally recognised by England that the principle might be regarded as having become a part of her international policy and custom. Towards the end of the century the Burgundy treaties were superseded122 by the great treaty of peace and commercial intercourse which was concluded in 1496 between Henry VII., the first of the Tudor sovereigns, and Philip, Archduke of Austria and Duke of Burgundy. This treaty, which became so well known later as the Great Intercourse (Intercursus Magnus, le Traité d’Entrecours, ’t Groot Commercie-Tractaat), was the sheet-anchor of Dutch policy in relation to England in the seventeenth century, and was constantly appealed to by them in their diplomatic struggles with the Stuarts and with Cromwell. It was the price paid by Henry for the expulsion of Perkin Warbeck from Flanders, the provisions in regard to whom, when slightly modified by St John in 1651 to apply to the “rebels” of the Commonwealth, so startled the Dutch Government (see p. 387). The treaty was to be perpetual, and it actually endured for a century and a half. The article dealing with the liberty of fishing was couched in almost the same language as in the preceding treaties. The fishermen of both nations were to be at liberty to go in security to fish anywhere on the sea, without requiring any license or safe-conduct, and to have free use of one another’s ports under stress of misfortune, weather or enemies, 73 on paying the ordinary dues.133 As conservators for this treaty of peace and commerce, which was received with much rejoicing in the Low Countries, Henry appointed, among others, the mayors and aldermen of London and of a large number of towns, including Southampton, Sandwich, Dover, Winchelsea, Boston, Yarmouth, and Berwick; and the Archduke, on his side, appointed the burgomasters of Ghent, Bruges, Dunkirk, Antwerp, Dort, Delft, Leyden, Amsterdam, Briel, and others.
Several supplementary123 treaties dealing with commercial subjects were concluded between Henry VII. and Henry VIII. on the one side, and the Archduke of Burgundy on the other—viz., in 1499, 1506, 1515, and 1520.134 While they confirmed in general terms the previous treaty, the clause referring to the freedom of fishery was not specifically mentioned, a circumstance which, considering the nature of the matters dealt with—the staple124 at Calais, the cloth trade, the Zealand tolls,—was not surprising. Nevertheless, the fact that treaties of commerce had been made with the Low Countries subsequent to the Intercursus Magnus, without containing a clause expressly renewing the liberty of fishing, was used later by English statesmen, as by Lord Bacon, as an argument that the provision of that treaty had thereby125 been rendered inoperative. But the policy of Henry VIII., and indeed of all the Tudor sovereigns, proved the contrary; liberty of fishing on the English coast was not called in question till James came to the throne.
We have already seen that Margaret of Savoy appealed to Henry VIII. in 1512 to protect the herring fishermen of the Low Countries from the attacks of the Hanseatic towns, and apparently126 with success. The same regard for the herring fishery 74 was shown in a marked manner in 1521 in the negotiations between the Emperor Charles V. and King Francis I. of France. Cardinal127 Wolsey, who was the “mediator” between them, strongly urged the need of allowing the herring fishery to be free, safe, and unmolested. He made this stipulation128 one of the chief points of the proposed treaty. It is stated in a despatch129 which was sent to Charles V. by his ambassadors at Calais, where the negotiations were being conducted, that the Cardinal declared his intention to propose, among other things, security for the fishermen and cessation of hostility130 on the sea between England and Flanders, and that either party should be free from attack by the other in English ports. There was no difficulty about the fisheries, the ambassadors said, as they knew the Emperor wished it, and that his subjects would more willingly go to sea in that event than they then did under the protection of ships charged to defend them.135 The French ambassadors also informed Francis that Wolsey pressed the point on them, and that they had ultimately agreed in order “to conciliate him, considering it can be revoked131 at pleasure, and will be profitable to those living on the coast of Normandy and Picardy, and without it they will not be able to pay their taxes.”136 It is clear from the political events that followed, that the great Cardinal, in stipulating132 for the security of the fishermen, had principally in view the interests of the Emperor, to whom the Netherlands belonged; but it was in perfect accord with established English policy. The agreement for the security of the herring fishery was embodied as a leading article in the formal treaty concluded between the two potentates133 in October of the same year, it being provided that until the end of the following January, even though the war should continue between the two countries, the fishermen of both parties should be allowed to fish unmolested and to go home in safety.137 In the war which ensued, the French admirals did not push the advantage they had on the sea to extremes, but sold safe-conducts to the fishermen of the Netherlands, and allowed them to pursue their fishing. In several treaties and truces made in the 75 next few years between the Powers named, it was provided that the herring fishery should be carried on freely and in security on both sides, even during the existence of hostilities134. One of these, to last for eight months, was concluded in 1528 between Charles V., Francis I., Henry VIII., and Margaret of Austria, who represented Holland, Zealand, and Friesland, as well as Flanders.138 It may perhaps be surmised135 that in the common concern about the winter herring fishery the influence of the Church was not without effect, so that the fish for Lent might not be wanting.
From the foregoing it is apparent that the kings of England, so far from claiming an exclusive right to the sea fisheries along the English coast, entered into a series of treaties with their neighbours, extending over a period of nearly two hundred years, by which freedom of fishing was mutually recognised and guaranteed. Throughout the reigns of the Plantagenet and Lancastrian kings, as well as under the Yorkists and Tudors, foreign fishermen were at liberty to fish freely in the English seas without requiring any license or paying any tribute. Not only so, but up to the middle of the sixteenth century, and especially in the time of the Plantagenet kings, they were encouraged to take part in the fisheries off our coasts, and to bring into the realm and freely trade in fish, both fresh and cured; and, in point of fact, a large proportion of the fish consumed in England was caught and sold by foreigners. It was not until after the Reformation, when the English fisheries began to decay, that protective measures were adopted in favour of the native fishermen; and it was not until the reign of James I. that any attempt was made to place restrictions136 on the liberty of fishing immemorially enjoyed by foreigners along the English coasts.
But when we turn to Scotland we find there was not only in that country an absence of the toleration which was extended in England to foreign fishermen, but that restrictive measures were in force from an early period. The claim made by the 76 Scottish kings in the twelfth century for the exclusive fishing in the sea around the Isle of May on behalf of the monks of the priory there, strikes the keynote of their policy in later times. This difference between the policy in England and Scotland might to some extent be due to the nature of the fishings. In the northern kingdom the herring fishery was confined almost entirely to the firths and lochs “within land”: the native fishermen did not compete with the foreign vessels which carried on the fishery at a greater or lesser137 distance from the coast from the neighbourhood of the Shetlands to the Thames. The encroachments of the foreign fishermen, which sometimes occurred from the vagaries138 of the shoals, were thus resented. On the English coast the native fishery was carried on for the most part alongside the foreign fishermen, and the English fishermen were thus accustomed to the presence of the foreigners. In Scotland, moreover, the sea fisheries, and in particular the herring fishery, were of greater relative importance to the people than was the case in England, which possessed139 rich pastures and was essentially140 agricultural. Fishing was much more of a national pursuit, and besides supplying what was required for home consumption, Scotland was able to export large quantities of fish to other lands: in the fifteenth century the title “Piscinata Scotia” was referred to as an “old proverb.” The fisheries, besides forming a not unimportant source of revenue to the crown, supplied a chief staple of the trade and commerce of the “royal burghs,” which were always extremely jealous of their rights and privileges, and possessed great power. Hence the Acts of the Scottish Parliaments which dealt with sea fisheries—and they are numerous—breathe a much more exclusive spirit than those of England. Hence also the treaties and conventions between Scotland and the Netherlands did not extend to foreign fishermen the generous treatment which was so evident in the south. The earliest of those commercial agreements seems to have been made in 1291; others were concluded in 1321 and 1323, in the reign of Robert the Bruce, by which free ingress and egress141 were given to merchants to pass with their merchandise to any parts of the kingdom, “with their ships and goods”; and similar freedom of commercial intercourse was stipulated in 1371, 1401, 1407, 1412, 1416, and on numerous occasions subsequently.139 77 These early agreements contain no provision about the fisheries, and nothing to indicate a desire on the part of the Scottish king or people to allow fishermen from the Low Countries to fish in the adjacent waters. The feeling of the coast population towards the foreigners was usually jealous and aggressive; attacks by the one and reprisal142 by the other were of frequent occurrence, especially in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Earl of Holland complained in 1410 that the Scots had attacked the fishermen of that province “when they went to sea to catch herrings in their fishing vessels and to gain their living like honest men”; and by way of reprisal he gave permission to the people of Brouershaven to attack and injure their “enemies,” the Scots, wherever they could find them, on sea or land.140 There is much testimony to show that in those times the Scottish fishermen were of a fierce and forceful disposition143, and little inclined to tolerate the intrusion of foreign fishermen within what they claimed as their “reserved waters,”—that is, the firths and bays and a distance along the coast described as “a land kenning,” which extended to fourteen miles or to twenty-eight miles from the shore. An indication of their treatment of those who intruded144 is afforded by a story told in one of the English State Papers on the authority “of the old Bishop145 of Ross, who came in with King James to England.” He said that in the time of King James V. (A.D. 1513-1542) the Hollanders, who had only a verbal license to fish at twenty-eight miles off, came near the shore within the mouth of the Firth of Forth, “and there fished in despite of the king’s command.” James thereupon set out men-of-war and took so many of them that “he sent a baril ful of their heads into Holland, with their names fixed146 to their foreheads on cards,” as a warning to their fellows.141 This tale 78 of savagery147, probably apocryphal, no doubt originated in the conflicts and reprisals148 between the Dutch and the Scots which are known to have occurred in the reign of James V., and led to the treaty of 1541, in which, for the first time, there is a stipulation concerning the fisheries. For some years previously the relations of the Emperor Charles V. (in whose dominions the Low Countries were included) and the King of Scotland had been strained, owing to the renewal of the old alliance between Scotland and France. A number of armed vessels, under the command of Robert Foggo of Leith, cruised about and captured many Dutch herring-busses, especially those belonging to Schiedam and Briel. The States of Holland retaliated149 by seizing Scottish goods in Holland, and then James V. threatened that he would put an entire stop to their herring fishing on the coast of Scotland.142 Owing to the war with France and the depredations of privateers, the Netherlands at that time had much difficulty in protecting their herring-busses, and the threat of the Scottish king speedily brought about negotiations. The States of Holland petitioned the Emperor to interfere,143 alleging150 that the prohibition151 of their herring fishing by the King of Scotland was inconsistent with the freedom of navigation, and even with the treaties subsisting152 between them—which, however, as has been said, did not include the question of fishing. In the treaty which followed between James V. and the Emperor,144 it was, amongst other things, agreed that means should be devised for reparation of the damages done on both sides “to merchants, fishers, and other traders or subjects,” or to their ships and goods, in time of peace; and that mutual protection should be afforded to the fishermen against pirates. It contained no fishery clause like those in the English treaties, and not a word about the liberty of fishing. It can scarcely be doubted that the omission153 was deliberate, and that those conducting the negotiations on behalf of the Dutch wished to have a guarantee of the kind. We learn from the treaty that the last article in the instructions of the Scots ambassador contained 79 some proposal about the fishery. Its nature does not appear; but from the fact that it was not agreed to, and was reserved for further consideration on the part of the Emperor, it is not unlikely that it referred to the fixing of a limit within which the Dutch were not to fish.145 The Scottish lawyer, Welwood, early in the next century referred to the “notorious covenant” which had been made with the Dutch, that they should not fish within eighty miles of the coast of Scotland, a statement that may have been a reminiscence of this proposal.
The peace was not of long duration. The Scots again attacked the Dutch fishermen on the coast of Scotland; the goods of Scotch154 merchants were in turn seized in the Netherlands, and their ships and seamen arrested, and arrangements were made by the Dutch to convoy155 their herring-busses with many ships of war.146 On the representations of Rotterdam and Schiedam—towns which had a great stake in the herring fishery on the Scottish coast—a request was made to the Emperor, in the name of the States of Holland, asking him to arrange in his negotiations with the Scots for the restitution156 of the goods taken by them from the Hollander fishermen; and early in 1545 he was petitioned to conclude a truce with them on account of the herring and dogger (cod) fishing.147 It was not until 1550 that another treaty was signed between the two countries,—also at Binche, on 15th December, on behalf of the Emperor Charles V. and Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland. It confirmed all previous treaties, and contained provisions for mutual freedom of commerce and navigation without the need of any safe-conduct or license, general or special, and with liberty to make use of one another’s ports, and also mutually to protect one another’s subjects, including fishermen, from the attacks of pirates. The part referring to the fishery did not, however, differ from that in the previous 80 treaty, which it merely confirmed. “With regard to the fishery and the free use of the sea,” it said, “that which was made, concluded, and agreed upon by the foresaid treaty made at Binche on the 19th February 1541, between the Most Serene157 Queen Mary (of Hungary and Bohemia) and the aforesaid ambassador of the King of Scotland, shall be truly and sincerely observed.”148 This treaty, which was called in the Netherlands “celebre f?dus,” may be regarded as the Scottish counterpart of the Intercursus Magnus, concluded with England in 1496. The older Dutch writers, as Wagenaar and Plegher, professed158 to regard it as having guaranteed freedom of fishery on the coasts of Scotland in the same way; and it was cited by the Dutch ambassadors in the negotiations concerning the fishery in the seventeenth century in this sense. But in the English treaty freedom of fishing all over the sea was expressly covenanted159 in the most plain and explicit160 language, while the treaty with Scotland in 1550 merely confirmed a previous treaty which certainly did not confer liberty of fishing, though the phrase “the free use of the sea,” now introduced in the preamble161, might at first sight imply the contrary. Nothing more appears to have been heard of the proposal of the Scottish ambassador in 1541, which had been deferred162 for further deliberation.149
A treaty which took a still more important place in the subsequent disputes and negotiations respecting mare clausum and unlicensed fishing, and upon which the Dutch relied even more, at least in the reign of James, than they did on the Intercursus Magnus, was concluded with King James VI. in 81 1594, fifteen years before he issued, as king of England as well as of Scotland, his famous proclamation forbidding promiscuous163 and unlicensed fishing. On the occasion of the baptism of his son, Prince Henry, which took place at Stirling on 30th August 1594, the States-General despatched two ambassadors, Walraven van Brederode and Jacob Valck, laden164 with costly165 gifts, to take part in the ceremony, and also to do a little business with the king. The two previous treaties between Scotland and the Netherlands had been concluded at a time when the whole of that country had been under the rule of Charles V. In the interval166 it had passed into the possession of Philip of Spain, and then the northern provinces had revolted, thrown off the Spanish yoke167, and formed the famous federal commonwealth of the seven United Provinces of Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, Gelderland, Over-Yssel, Friesland, and Groningen. It was thought to be desirable by the prudent168 Dutchmen to renew if possible on their own behalf the treaties with Scotland, especially as it was then recognised that James would succeed to the English throne. The ambassadors therefore brought with them a long draft treaty, in which the previous treaty of 1541 was recited and that of 1550 was given in full. James agreed to the confirmation169 of the previous treaties, and the ratification was signed at Edinburgh on 14th September 1594. In his declaration he stated that he had “seen, read, and examined” the treaty of peace and alliance made at Binche in 1550 between Charles V., Emperor of the Romans, in the capacity of sovereign of the Low Countries, and Queen Mary, “his honoured dame170 and mother,” and having found it very desirable, good, and beneficial for him and his country, it was to be observed inviolably for the good of the traffic and commerce of the subjects of the two nations; and he sincerely promised to observe the treaty and every clause and article in it. Then the easy-going monarch appears to have forgotten all about it. The document itself was lost, and when it was urgently wanted for the negotiations in the next century it could not be found, and nobody in this country seemed to know what it contained; it was even regarded by some—as the English ambassador at The Hague—as apocryphal. Although the Dutch relied much on this treaty, it contained no stipulation regarding liberty of fishing. 82 The treaty of 1550 was confirmed, by which it was provided that commerce and navigation were to be free; merchants were to be at liberty to pass safely and freely with their goods by land and sea, and to buy and sell; pirates were to be chased from the sea, and the subjects of either state, including fishermen, were to be mutually protected from their attacks; but the fishery clause was precisely the same as before.150
It is thus evident that there was a great difference between the English and the Scottish treaties with the Netherlands respecting the right of fishery. The former contained a separate clause, conceived in a broad and liberal spirit and again and again renewed, providing for mutual freedom of fishing everywhere on the seas, while no such agreement or anything like it was made on the part of Scotland. The Dutch fishing on the coast of Scotland was more important to them than their fishing on the English coast, and there is no doubt they strove to obtain the same privileges for it as they received in England. The omission of a corresponding clause in the Scottish treaties was in accordance with the long-settled policy of the Scottish kings and Parliaments, and it was that policy that James carried with him to England when he attempted to reverse the established practice with regard to the fisheries, and opened up the claims to mare clausum.
There is, unfortunately, little contemporary evidence as to the precise extent of the claim to the fisheries which was anciently put forward in Scotland. The Acts of the Scottish Parliaments do not help us very far, although they reveal the jealous and conservative spirit previously referred to. Many statutes171 were made prohibiting strangers from buying fish except such as were salted and barrelled, and then only at free burghs; concerning the “assize-herring,” of which so much was to be heard; and the payment of customs by foreigners exporting fish. The language of some of the Acts implied a certain control over foreign fishermen on the sea,151 and all that we know of 83 the practice and customs in Scotland makes it highly probable that these enactments172 were in point of fact enforced against foreign fishermen as far as they could be. The Scots were always particularly jealous about the fishings in the firths and lochs “within land.” An important herring fishery of this kind was carried on in the lochs on the west coast, especially in Loch Broom and Loch Fyne, in autumn and winter, by fishermen from the Clyde, the Ayrshire coast, and Fifeshire, who built timber houses on shore where they cured the herrings; and this fishing was attended by Frenchmen, “Flemings,” and English, who purchased the cured herrings or bought the fish and cured them themselves.152 Wishing to catch the herrings for themselves, these “divers strangers” most earnestly petitioned Queen Mary in 1566 for “license to fish in the said lochs.” But the Council, to whom the petition was referred, after consultation173 with the burghs, refused the request, and ordained that “no stranger of whatever nation they be come in the said lochs, nor use the commodity of the said fishing in any time to come, but the same to be reserved for the born subjects and natives of the realm,” under pain of confiscation174 of ships and goods.153 Some of the old Scots Acts, of the reign of James III. (1460-1488) and later, refer to previous statutes, which seem to be lost, respecting the herring fishery in the western seas; and they indicate that “letters” had sometimes been granted by the king favouring foreigners in some way, but whether by allowing them to fish there is unknown.
On the east coast, where the Dutch carried on their great herring-fishing from busses, there is evidence that a limit was early fixed within which they were not allowed to fish, but no contemporary records relating to it appear to have been preserved. It is probable that an arrangement was come to between them and the Scottish fishermen, possibly in the reign of James V. or even earlier, by which they were not to fish within sight of land. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, when the question of unrestricted fishing was raised in 84 an acute form, there was a remarkable unanimity175 of opinion in Scotland that the ancient and established custom was that foreigners were not allowed to carry on their operations within a “land-kenning” of the coast,—that is, not nearer than where they could discern the land from the top of their masts. This distance was usually placed at fourteen miles, but sometimes a double land-kenning, of twenty-eight miles, was claimed; and we shall see that the former distance was embodied in the Draft Treaty of union with England in 1604, as well as proposed to the States-General as a provisional limit in 1619 (see p. 192), and declared by Parliament and the Privy176 Council of Scotland to be the bounds of the “reserved waters” belonging to Scotland. Welwood, a Scottish lawyer who wrote at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries, states that before his time, after “bloody quarrels” about sea affairs between the Scots and the Hollanders, the disputes were arranged on the understanding that in future the Hollanders were to keep at least eighty miles from the coast of Scotland, which, he says, they did for a long time. If they were driven nearer by stress of weather they paid a tax or tribute at the port of Aberdeen, where a castle was built for this and other reasons. This tax, he adds, was paid until by frequent dissensions at home and the audacity177 of the Hollanders the right was lost.154 There is no very satisfactory evidence to show in how far the statements of Welwood were in accordance with the facts. In the records of the Privy Council a case is mentioned which might be interpreted in another way. In 1587 two English ships belonging to Shields, coming from the “easter seas” laden with fresh fish and bound for England, were seized and brought into port by one Thomas Davidson of Crail, apparently on the plea that they had been fishing too near the shore. The owners contended that the fish had been caught “upon the main sea, outwith his Majesty’s dominions, where not only they but the subjects of all other princes had had a continual trade and fishing in all times bygone past the memory of man.” But 85 even, it was argued on their behalf, if the fish had been caught within his Majesty’s waters, still, in respect of the “continual trade” which strangers had had there in all time past, “there being no inhibition made or published to the contrary as yet,” no such treatment should have been meted178 out to them.155 This was in the reign of James VI.; and the most likely explanation, in the absence of information as to the decision taken by the Council, is that while no official proclamation forbidding fishing by foreigners had been promulgated179, and no recent measures carried out to prevent them from doing so, it was believed that a certain part of the sea was reserved for the use of the Scottish fishermen, apart from the waters of firths and lochs.
The difference in the national policy of England and Scotland concerning foreigners fishing along our coasts prevailed until the union of the crowns, when James introduced the Scottish ideas into England and soon endeavoured to transform them into practice. Meanwhile, under the Tudors, certain changes were slowly and silently taking place which paved the way for the new policy, and that too although, very shortly before, the freedom of the seas had been proclaimed and vindicated180 by Queen Elizabeth.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
maritime
|
|
| adj.海的，海事的，航海的，近海的，沿海的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
stimulate
|
|
| vt.刺激，使兴奋；激励，使…振奋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
licensed
|
|
| adj.得到许可的v.许可，颁发执照(license的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
prosper
|
|
| v.成功，兴隆，昌盛；使成功，使昌隆，繁荣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
monarchs
|
|
| 君主，帝王( monarch的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
monarch
|
|
| n.帝王，君主，最高统治者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
commonwealth
|
|
| n.共和国，联邦，共同体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
catching
|
|
| adj.易传染的，有魅力的，迷人的，接住 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
molestation
|
|
| n.骚扰，干扰，调戏；折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
cape
|
|
| n.海角，岬；披肩，短披风 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
eschewed
|
|
| v.（尤指为道德或实际理由而）习惯性避开，回避( eschew的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
ascetic
|
|
| adj.禁欲的；严肃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
monks
|
|
| n.修道士，僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
plentifully
|
|
| adv. 许多地，丰饶地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
laity
|
|
| n.俗人；门外汉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
seaports
|
|
| n.海港( seaport的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
scantiness
|
|
| n.缺乏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
26
fodder
|
|
| n.草料；炮灰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
slaughtering
|
|
| v.屠杀，杀戮，屠宰( slaughter的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
barges
|
|
| 驳船( barge的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
waggons
|
|
| 四轮的运货马车( waggon的名词复数 )； 铁路货车； 小手推车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
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： |
|
|
|
|
31
vessel
|
|
| n.船舶；容器，器皿；管，导管，血管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
seamen
|
|
| n.海员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
tithes
|
|
| n.（宗教捐税）什一税，什一的教区税，小部分( tithe的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
isle
|
|
| n.小岛，岛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
monastery
|
|
| n.修道院，僧院，寺院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
manor
|
|
| n.庄园，领地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
mandate
|
|
| n.托管地；命令，指示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
hawsers
|
|
| n.（供系船或下锚用的）缆索，锚链( hawser的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
43
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
truce
|
|
| n.休战，(争执，烦恼等的)缓和；v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
guise
|
|
| n.外表，伪装的姿态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
ashore
|
|
| adv.在(向)岸上，上岸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
warden
|
|
| n.监察员，监狱长，看守人，监护人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
cargoes
|
|
| n.（船或飞机装载的）货物( cargo的名词复数 )；大量，重负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
cod
|
|
| n.鳕鱼；v.愚弄；哄骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
salmon
|
|
| n.鲑，大马哈鱼，橙红色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
mare
|
|
| n.母马，母驴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
opulence
|
|
| n.财富，富裕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
continental
|
|
| adj.大陆的，大陆性的，欧洲大陆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
esteemed
|
|
| adj.受人尊敬的v.尊敬( esteem的过去式和过去分词 )；敬重；认为；以为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
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： |
|
|
|
|
57
dominion
|
|
| n.统治，管辖，支配权；领土，版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
guardians
|
|
| 监护人( guardian的名词复数 )； 保护者，维护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
wardens
|
|
| n.看守人( warden的名词复数 )；管理员；监察员；监察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
apprehended
|
|
| 逮捕，拘押( apprehend的过去式和过去分词 )； 理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
pertinent
|
|
| adj.恰当的；贴切的；中肯的；有关的；相干的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
lieutenant
|
|
| n.陆军中尉，海军上尉；代理官员，副职官员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
forfeiture
|
|
| n.（名誉等）丧失 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
levy
|
|
| n.征收税或其他款项，征收额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
writs
|
|
| n.书面命令，令状( writ的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
attachment
|
|
| n.附属物，附件；依恋；依附 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
defrauding
|
|
| v.诈取，骗取( defraud的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
negotiations
|
|
| 协商( negotiation的名词复数 )； 谈判； 完成（难事）； 通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
licenses
|
|
| n.执照( license的名词复数 )v.批准，许可，颁发执照( license的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
memorandum
|
|
| n.备忘录，便笺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
exchequer
|
|
| n.财政部；国库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
treasurer
|
|
| n.司库，财务主管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
substantiate
|
|
| v.证实；证明...有根据 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
apocryphal
|
|
| adj.假冒的，虚假的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
ostensible
|
|
| adj.(指理由)表面的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
friction
|
|
| n.摩擦，摩擦力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
reigned
|
|
| vi.当政，统治（reign的过去式形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
propounded
|
|
| v.提出（问题、计划等）供考虑[讨论]，提议( propound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
embodying
|
|
| v.表现( embody的现在分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
embody
|
|
| vt.具体表达，使具体化；包含，收录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
wreck
|
|
| n.失事，遇难；沉船；vt.(船等)失事，遇难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
prerogative
|
|
| n.特权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
ordinances
|
|
| n.条例，法令( ordinance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
promotion
|
|
| n.提升，晋级；促销，宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
mandates
|
|
| 托管（mandate的第三人称单数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
stipulated
|
|
| vt.& vi.规定；约定adj.[法]合同规定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
sardines
|
|
| n. 沙丁鱼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
mariners
|
|
| 海员，水手（mariner的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
enjoining
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
hindrance
|
|
| n.妨碍，障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
supplication
|
|
| n.恳求，祈愿，哀求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
sustenance
|
|
| n.食物，粮食；生活资料；生计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
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： |
|
|
|
|
105
dominions
|
|
| 统治权( dominion的名词复数 )； 领土； 疆土； 版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
prorogation
|
|
| n.休会，闭会 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
111
ratification
|
|
| n.批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
truces
|
|
| 休战( truce的名词复数 )； 停战（协定）； 停止争辩（的协议）； 中止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
depredations
|
|
| n.劫掠，毁坏( depredation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
ransom
|
|
| n.赎金，赎身；v.赎回，解救 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
uncommon
|
|
| adj.罕见的，非凡的，不平常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
piracy
|
|
| n.海盗行为，剽窃，著作权侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
falcons
|
|
| n.猎鹰( falcon的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
prey
|
|
| n.被掠食者，牺牲者，掠食；v.捕食，掠夺，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
renewal
|
|
| adj.(契约)延期，续订，更新，复活，重来 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
Vogue
|
|
| n.时髦，时尚；adj.流行的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
superseded
|
|
| [医]被代替的，废弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
supplementary
|
|
| adj.补充的，附加的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
staple
|
|
| n.主要产物，常用品，主要要素，原料，订书钉，钩环；adj.主要的，重要的；vt.分类 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
stipulation
|
|
| n.契约，规定，条文；条款说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
despatch
|
|
| n./v.(dispatch)派遣；发送；n.急件；新闻报道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
hostility
|
|
| n.敌对，敌意；抵制［pl.］交战，战争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
revoked
|
|
| adj.[法]取消的v.撤销，取消，废除( revoke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
stipulating
|
|
| v.（尤指在协议或建议中）规定，约定，讲明（条件等）( stipulate的现在分词 )；规定，明确要求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
potentates
|
|
| n.君主，统治者( potentate的名词复数 )；有权势的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
hostilities
|
|
| n.战争；敌意(hostility的复数)；敌对状态；战事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
surmised
|
|
| v.臆测，推断( surmise的过去式和过去分词 )；揣测；猜想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
lesser
|
|
| adj.次要的，较小的；adv.较小地，较少地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
vagaries
|
|
| n.奇想( vagary的名词复数 )；异想天开；异常行为；难以预测的情况 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
egress
|
|
| n.出去；出口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
reprisal
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，报复性劫掠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
disposition
|
|
| n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
intruded
|
|
| n.侵入的，推进的v.侵入，侵扰，打扰( intrude的过去式和过去分词 )；把…强加于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
savagery
|
|
| n.野性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
reprisals
|
|
| n.报复（行为）( reprisal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
retaliated
|
|
| v.报复，反击( retaliate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
alleging
|
|
| 断言，宣称，辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
subsisting
|
|
| v.（靠很少的钱或食物）维持生活，生存下去( subsist的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
omission
|
|
| n.省略，删节；遗漏或省略的事物，冗长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
scotch
|
|
| n.伤口，刻痕；苏格兰威士忌酒；v.粉碎，消灭，阻止；adj.苏格兰(人)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
convoy
|
|
| vt.护送，护卫，护航；n.护送；护送队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
restitution
|
|
| n.赔偿；恢复原状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
serene
|
|
| adj. 安详的，宁静的，平静的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
covenanted
|
|
| v.立约，立誓( covenant的过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
preamble
|
|
| n.前言；序文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
deferred
|
|
| adj.延期的，缓召的v.拖延，延缓，推迟( defer的过去式和过去分词 )；服从某人的意愿，遵从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
promiscuous
|
|
| adj.杂乱的，随便的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
laden
|
|
| adj.装满了的；充满了的；负了重担的；苦恼的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
costly
|
|
| adj.昂贵的，价值高的，豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
interval
|
|
| n.间隔，间距；幕间休息，中场休息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
yoke
|
|
| n.轭；支配；v.给...上轭，连接，使成配偶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
prudent
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，有远见的，精打细算的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
dame
|
|
| n.女士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
enactments
|
|
| n.演出( enactment的名词复数 )；展现；规定；通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
consultation
|
|
| n.咨询；商量；商议；会议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
confiscation
|
|
| n. 没收, 充公, 征收 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
unanimity
|
|
| n.全体一致，一致同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
privy
|
|
| adj.私用的；隐密的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
audacity
|
|
| n.大胆，卤莽，无礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
meted
|
|
| v.（对某人）施以，给予（处罚等）( mete的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
promulgated
|
|
| v.宣扬（某事物）( promulgate的过去式和过去分词 )；传播；公布；颁布（法令、新法律等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
vindicated
|
|
| v.澄清（某人/某事物）受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的过去式和过去分词 )；表明或证明（所争辩的事物）属实、正当、有效等；维护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |