Notwithstanding this decision of the Privy Council of Scotland, James in 1614 again granted the assize-herrings of the North Isles, on this occasion to the Duke of Lennox, who was his Admiral in Scotland and one of the chief noblemen of the time. In ordinary course the grant came before the Privy Council for confirmation13, and the Council at once informed the Convention of Burghs, requesting them to make it known to the burghs that the Duke of Lennox had obtained a gift from the king of “ane excyse to be tayne of all heyring to be tayne be north of Buqhan Nes” (Buchan Ness, Aberdeenshire), so that they might lodge14 their defences. The commissioners15 for Dundee, St Andrews, Dunbar, and the burghs on the coast of Fife, were accordingly appointed to proceed to Edinburgh to give reasons to the Council against the “gift.”310 After hearing the representatives of the burghs and the agents of the Duke (one of whom was “Maister Johnne Browne,” the central figure in the dramatic episode in 1617, referred to later), the Lords of the Council indited18 a long letter to the king. They cited the decision in Mason’s case two years before, and the reasons for it. They expatiated19 on the great decay which had occurred in all trades and commerce in Scotland, and stated that the fishings would also decay if the duty was levied. In plain words they told the king that the fisheries should rather be encouraged—for the general welfare of the country, the increase of customs, the inbringing of bullion20, and providing work for the poor. In face of the decree in Mason’s case, the Duke’s agents had to admit that they could not levy21 the tax from the burghs, but they craved leave to exact them from the native fishermen of Orkney and Shetland, and from the foreign fishermen who fished there. On the former point the opinion of the Council was clear. They upheld the contention22 of the burghs that the native fishermen were only their servants, since they paid wages to them for their labour, and that the herrings, being cured and barrelled on the sea, were exempt23 from assize duty, which could be exacted only on herrings brought fresh and 167 “green” to land.311 The Council evaded24 giving an opinion on the point of chief importance, the proposal to levy the tax on the foreign fishermen, all of whom cured their fish on board their vessels26. There were, they said, according to information supplied by the burghs, “some strangers, especially of Holland,” who claimed the liberty and privilege of fishing “by his Majesty28’s patent granted in their favour to fish in his Majesty’s waters”; but the tenour of this patent was obscure and not known to them, and they had no record of it. They suggested that the king should ask his ambassador at The Hague to procure29 an authentic30 copy of it, to be sent to Scotland for inspection31 and consideration.312
Evidently the Council in Scotland were at this time as cautious as the Council in England in doing anything contrary to the treaties with the Netherlands. Had they sanctioned offhand32 the request of the Duke to exact the assize-herrings from the Hollanders, they would have taken the responsibility, without direct authority from the king, of an act which they knew might have serious consequences. They had no sympathy with the foreign fishermen, for complaints regarding them from the burghs were frequent. In 1611 the city of Edinburgh represented to them the “inconvenience” which was sustained 168 by the whole realm and by the merchants in particular through the non-observance of the Act of 1581, “anent the comming of schippis to burrowis in the west and north Isles be Flemings and uther nations”; and in the following year the “mater of the fischeing of the Flemins in the West and North Isles” was again brought up, and it was remitted33 to the burghs of Edinburgh and Dundee to draw up a supplication34 to the Privy Council to have the fishing by the Flemings in those places repressed.313
In view of the decision of the Privy Council, the Duke of Lennox did not at this time attempt to collect the tribute from the foreign fishermen at the North Isles. But two years later the political relations between this country and the Netherlands having become strained, the opportunity was seized to raise once more the question of the fishery and the exaction35 of the assize-herrings. Serious disputes involving retaliatory36 measures had broken out respecting the trade in cloth. In England strong resentment37 was aroused by an edict of the States prohibiting the importation of English dyed cloth. Winwood, now Secretary of State, wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton, who had taken his place at The Hague, that it was the opinion of “every true-hearted Englishman” that the king “ought to forbid all manner of intercourse38 between the Kingdoms and the United Provinces, and forbid the Hollanders, by a fresh reviving of former proclamations, to continue their yearly fishing upon our coasts.”314 The influence of this feeling was soon apparent. The Duke of Lennox was now instructed by the king to levy the assize-herrings from foreigners fishing at the North Isles, the grant, under the great seal of Scotland, being dated in June 1616; and to render his task more easy he obtained from Sir Noel Caron in the same month a letter of recommendation (“aanbevelingsbrief”) to the captains of the Dutch convoying-ships. This letter was innocently given by Caron in the belief that it concerned the payment of dues on land at Shetland, which the busses had been accustomed to 169 pay, and which were then payable40 to the Duke,315 but it was made use of by the Duke’s agent to cover the collection of the assize-herrings. The duty of collecting the tax was assigned to Mr John Brown, one of the Duke’s deputies. The detailed41 instructions he received in 1616 do not appear to have been preserved, but they were probably similar to those issued a year or two later (see Appendix G). He was to proceed to the North Isles in one of the king’s pinnaces and there to demand the assize duty from the foreign fishermen.
At the end of July 1616 Brown, in one of the king’s vessels, appeared among the Dutch busses at work off the Scottish coast, and began to carry out his instructions, offering a “quittance or receipt” for the tax claimed. Probably to his surprise, it was peaceably paid by the busses, amounting for each to one angel or a barrel of herrings and twelve cod42-fish. The fishermen were told that if they did not pay it the amount would be doubled in the following year; and that the king had a right to levy this tax for a distance of 100 miles from the coast in virtue43 of the agreement made with the States at the baptism of Prince Henry.316 Although the toll44 was paid by most of the busses, it was without the consent of the captains of the convoying men-of-war. They came to Brown and demanded to see his commission; and it is said that he showed them the letter which the Duke of Lennox had obtained from Sir Noel Caron. Since no force had been used in collecting the tax, the 170 States’ officers contented45 themselves with forbidding any further proceedings46, and Brown then departed.317
The success of the mission was gratifying to James, and the payment willingly made on this occasion by the Dutch fishermen was often afterwards cited as an argument that they had acknowledged the king’s rights in the fishery. In the United Provinces the matter was naturally viewed in another light. The Dutch officers promptly48 reported the occurrence to the directors of the Enkhuisen branch of the fishery; the authorities of the town complained to Barnevelt in energetic terms, and the matter was brought before a meeting of the States-General, who characterised the proceeding47 of Brown as an “unheard of and intolerable innovation, contrary to the existing treaties,” and instructed their ambassador in London to make a strong protest against it. Orders were, moreover, issued to the commanders of the convoying ships of war to put a stop to any further payments, and even to refuse to give their names. Caron, who was indignant at the use to which his friendly letter had been put, complained to the king and to the Duke of Lennox. James explained that it was merely a small tribute or tax which was levied in Scotland on all foreign fishermen, and even on his own subjects, and had been leased to the Duke of Lennox, who paid an annual rent for it into the Exchequer50. He had, he said, arranged that one of his ships of war should be stationed on the fishing-ground for the security of the fishermen and to protect them from pirates. Caron declared that their High Mightinesses were exempt from all imposts or taxes for their fishery, both by the treaties “and otherwise,” and he begged the king to give other instructions, as the matter had occasioned great disquiet52 and alarm in Holland. Lennox also tried to minimise the importance of the measure. It was, he said, a small matter; a mere49 “acknowledgment” of a barrel of herrings or ten shillings from each buss, which had to be paid thrice a year by all the king’s subjects who fished at the North Isles, and was willingly paid by the English, French, German, and all other foreign fishermen. The ambassador says he was shown a printed book in which it was stated that the Scottish Parliament had 171 decreed that the assize-herrings should be paid not only by the native fishermen but by foreigners who came to fish on their coasts.318 The latter were furthermore prohibited from approaching the coast nearer than they could see the land from the top of their masts, whereas of late they came within ten, eight, six, and even four miles of the shore, which had caused much murmuring in the country, particularly as in that year between 1500 and 1000 of their busses were there in June. Sir Noel Caron, however, continued to protest against what he said was an unjust innovation, and he closed the interview with the important declaration that, be the consequences what they might, the States would not allow a single herring to be paid in future, as it might be regarded as a precedent53 for further demands.319
Notwithstanding this strong protest from the Dutch ambassador, and a request he made to the king to forbear the right he claimed pending54 the appointment of a special embassy to treat of the matter, Brown was again sent to the North Isles in the next year to collect the king’s dues from the herring fishers. This he attempted to do as quietly and inoffensively as possible, but his mission had an abrupt55 and dramatic termination. Immediately on his arrival among the busses, Captain Andrees Tlieff, the commander of one of the convoying ships from Rotterdam, formally refused the payment in the name of all the Netherland fishermen, handing to Brown a declaration to that effect in writing. Brown professed57 himself satisfied, and was about to leave Tlieff’s vessel25 to proceed, as he said, among the fishermen of other countries, when the captain of the convoyer from Enkhuisen, Jan Albertsz by name, who had spoken to Brown in the previous year, came on board. He asked Brown if he was the person who had levied the tax in 172 the year before, and on receiving a reply in the affirmative he at once arrested him, saying he had orders to that effect; and notwithstanding Brown’s warning as to the consequences, and the exhibition of his commission, he was made prisoner by the irate51 Dutchman and carried off to Holland. Whether the king’s pinnace had on this occasion, as two years later, more than “two small guns and ten muscattis” to represent the power and majesty of the British navy, does not appear. But Brown, meek59 and peaceful, was seemingly quite contented with his position. He wrote from the Dutch ship to Captain Murray, in charge of the king’s pinnace, telling him of his arrest and advising him to make no attempt at rescue, but to return to Scotland and report the matter to the king.320
James received the news of the capture of Brown at Dumfries while on a visit to Scotland. He felt that the arrest of an officer of the state, discharging business of the state and with his Admiral’s commission in his pocket, was an “insolent” personal affront60 to himself. The members of the Privy Council who were with him—and the Duke of Lennox was one of them—immediately wrote to the Council in London requesting them in the name of the king to arrest the masters of two or three Dutch ships in the Thames by way of reprisal61, and to retain them as hostages; to inform Sir Noel Caron that reparation must be made by the States; and to instruct the British ambassador at The Hague to “demand satisfaction from them for this insolence62 offered to his Majesty.” Winwood at once sent for Caron, and informed him of the “disgraceful affront” which had been put upon the king while his Majesty himself was in Scotland. The king, he said, was very sensible of their “injurious and scornful carriage,” and immediate56 satisfaction and redress63 were demanded. Sir Dudley Carleton used even stronger language in addressing the States-General at The Hague. What, he asked, would the world say when they knew that a public officer and Minister of the King of England had been seized by them in Scotland, in sight of the ships of other nations and while the king himself was in that country? That the outrage64 was committed by the orders of the States 173 he did not believe; but the captains pretended they had a commission for what they did, and produced certain letters patent containing, as they said, an express commission from their masters. The ambassador concluded by requiring instant reparation and satisfaction.321
Meanwhile Brown himself had, perhaps, little cause for regret. He spent two days on board the Dutch man-of-war, and was then landed at Enkhuisen. The authorities of the town at once perceived the rashness of the step that had been taken by Captain Albertsz. Brown was immediately liberated65, treated with the greatest courtesy, and conducted by one of the chief magistrates66, with profuse67 apologies, to the British ambassador at The Hague. All his expenses were defrayed; he was presented with seventy “double Jacobus pieces” as a personal gift, and he left for home on 13th September. Count Maurice and Barnevelt promptly disavowed the act of Albertsz, and when the matter was brought before the States-General by Carleton, it fell to the lot of Grotius, in the absence of Barnevelt, to express the regret of the assembly for the “accident,” and to request the British ambassador to put the case in writing for inquiry68. In their reply later, the States-General threw the whole blame on the captains, Albertsz and Tlieff, who had, they said, acted without authority, and would be punished on their return from the fishing. They renewed their regrets, said that Brown had been immediately released, and begged that the Dutch merchant captains who had been thrown into prison in England and Scotland might be set free, and their “ancient accustomed liberty of fishing maintained.” In preferring this request the States relied on their treaty with James in 1594, and the gracious answer he had given to their ambassadors in 1610 concerning the proclamation of the year before.322
If the States-General thought they were to get so easily out of the awkward position in which the precipitate69 action of their officers had placed them, they were disappointed. James not 174 only refused to release the Dutch ships, but said their masters would be detained in prison until the offending commanders had been sent as prisoners to England, there to receive such justice as their case merited. This request was most unpalatable to the States, and they raised various objections to it, founded both on law and privilege; and although they were assured by Carleton that the only punishment the offenders71 would receive would be “the crossing and re-crossing the seas,” they begged that some other means might be found of settling the matter. James, however, who had submitted the case to counsel as to the legality of his demand, remained obdurate72.323 Finally, after much negotiation2 and debate, the States, in February 1618, resolved to send over the two captains to receive the personal rebuke73 of the king. Albertsz, the chief offender70, fell ill and died, but Tlieff did actually come to England in April. Notwithstanding letters of recommendation from the States-General, Sir Noel Caron, and Sir Dudley Carleton (with whom Grotius had interceded), he was “very 175 wrathfully” received by James, who scolded and rebuked75 him severely76 for the enormity of his offence, and then dismissed him without further punishment.324 Thus ended an incident in the claims to mare77 clausum which almost led to a rupture78 between the two countries.
It would appear that James, though thus foiled in his attempt to levy the assize-herrings from the Hollander fishermen in 1617, did not intend to let the matter rest in the following season, and circumstances occurred which brought up the question of the “land-kenning79” in another quarter. Early in 1618 the King of Denmark complained to him that Scottish fishermen were in the habit of fishing “within the waters of Faer?e,” which was part of the dominions80 of Denmark, and that the native fishermen had been so much injured by their encroachments that they were unable to pay their dues and taxes. Here was a complaint against Scottish fishermen like that which they so commonly made against the Dutch. The complaint was brought before the Privy Council of Scotland, who summoned the burghs concerned325 to appear and explain their conduct. They admitted that for some years they had gone to the Faer?e Isles to fish, but they said that they had been “driven thereto upon necessity, and by the violence and oppression of the Hollanders, who came yearly with two thousand sail and above within his Majesty’s waters, and within a mile of the ‘continent’ of Orkney and Shetland, and not contented with the benefit that the liberty of their fishing within the said bounds affords yearly unto them, they do very heavily oppress his Majesty’s poor subjects and fishers.” They said that the Hollanders “stoppis thame, houndis and chaisis thame frome thair fischeing, cuttis thair nettis, threatnis thair lyveis, and thairby compellis thame, who ar a nomber of poore people haveing no other trade quhairby to manteene thair families, to seeke thair fischeing elsquhair and far frome thair awne coist, with grite tormoyll, travell, trouble, and chargeis.”326 The Lords of the Council, however, held that the oppression committed by the Hollanders on them was no warrant for their oppressing the 176 subjects of other princes, and “that they ought not to have fished in the said waters without some license82 and oversight83.” A proclamation was thereupon issued by the king and Council forbidding Scottish fishermen “to fish within sight of the land of the Isle5 of Faer?e, but to reserve the [fishings there327] to the inhabitants of the said Isle, and to other” subjects of the King of Denmark, “conform to the law of nations,” under a penalty of confiscation84 of the ships, vessels, and goods of the persons offending. At the same time the Council wrote to the king acquainting him with the oppressions committed by the Hollanders on the Scottish fishermen, and suggesting that his ambassador at The Hague should demand reparation and “instant prohibition” by the States to their people, “that they fish not within sight of his Majesty’s land, but reserve these bounds to his Majesty’s own subjects, conform to the law of nations.”328
Sir Dudley Carleton accordingly made a strong representation to the States-General on the subject in April. They asked for particulars as to the persons who were alleged85 to have been ill-treated in Scotland, and the nature of the wrongs done to them; while with respect to the limit proposed to be set them in their fishery—namely, not to come within sight of land—they said they had never heard of any such custom, and did not understand how it could be put into practice.329 On reporting this home, Carleton was told by the king to raise the question of the fishing again before he came away, and he explained to him that the custom of the land-kenning was that no stranger should fish either within the creeks86 of the land or within a kenning of the land, “as seamen87 do take a kenning.” He asked Carleton to ascertain88 whether the Dutch claimed to fish wherever they liked, or were willing to accept reasonable bounds, adding that the resolution that might be taken on the subject would depend largely on this.330 177 A few months before this Carleton had brought similar complaints to the notice of the States-General, declaring that the Hollanders were daily guilty of “great outrages89 and insolencies on the Scottish fishermen.” It was even said to be the opinion in London that the prosecution90 of the herring fishery by the Dutch under the protection of ships of war was a direct challenge to and defiance91 of the king.331
The authorities in Scotland lost no time in preparing statements recounting in detail the outrages and insolences committed by the Dutch fishermen; but an impartial92 perusal93 of the complaints leaves little doubt that they were greatly exaggerated. The Dutch fishermen were accused of going ashore94 in large numbers and chasing, taking, and slaying95 sheep; they “intromitted” with growing timber, trod down all the corn they could find, induced the best and ablest of the native fishermen to join them, or even took them by force; entered the kirks, where they broke down the seats and polluted the pulpits; carved their names on the green pastures; took uninvited rides on the horses in the fields, “to the great hurt of the owners”; and made free with the eggs and young of seafowl on the uninhabited isles, to the hurt of the proprietors96. In the long catalogue of their supposed outrages on land, two were more important. It was alleged that they gave refuge to thieves and malefactors, so that justice could not reach them; and that some years before they seized an honest young woman who was selling stockings among them and held her head-downwards on an eminence97 in sight of the whole fleet, owing to which she died later. Among their offences at sea they were charged with shooting at native fishermen, “catching of their small netts and lynes 178 within those huge long netts” that they used, and which they laid hard by the shore, “whereas before they approached not nearer the coasts than fourty (sic) myles.” By fishing near the shore they had impoverished98 the whole trade of fishing; before they began to do so the herrings came close in, so that the poorest fisherman could enrich himself, while the shoals were now broken up and dispersed99. So near did the busses come in stormy weather that they fished “hard by gentlemen’s doors,” where the fishing was “appropriate to the owners of the land nearest adjacent for their own fishing in the time of storms when they could not go to sea for the entertaining of their houses.”332
Since the States-General appeared to be tardy100 in admitting the offences with which their fishermen were charged, the king wished strong measures to be taken by the Council in Scotland, and he instructed Lord Binning101, his Secretary there, to take steps “for interrupting and staying the Hollanders to fish in his seas within sight of the land.” The Council, however, pointed16 out in a very humble102 tone that inasmuch as it was a matter which concerned not only “thir Hollanders, who ar your Maiesties confederatis, pretending thair awne interes thairin, ather be right or lang possessioun,” but also the whole of the kingdom, it would be better if the king’s proposals were first imparted to the Privy Council in England. They requested, further, that the ambassador in Holland should again expostulate with the States as to the injuries caused to the king’s subjects by their “unjust usurpation103 to fish within sight of his Majesty’s land,” and to urge them to issue a proclamation to prohibit, under heavy penalties, their people from all further fishing within his Majesty’s seas, which, they said, ought by the Law of Nations to be exclusively reserved for his own subjects. They advised the king to make the States clearly understand that if they continued any longer in their “oppression,” he would so provide for the maintenance of his right and the freeing of his people as his honour and justice 179 required; and if the answer was not satisfactory he might then resolve upon the “next expedient,” and the Council would be ready to obey whatever he should command.333
The States-General, while they did not go so far as the Council desired in prohibiting their fishermen from approaching near to the land, did all that they reasonably could do to prevent injuries being committed on the Scottish people. After an inquiry was made among those taking part in the great herring fishery, without any evidence being forthcoming in support of the Scottish complaints, they published an edict forbidding their subjects, under pain of severe punishment “as pirates and malefactors,” from interfering104 with the Scottish fishermen, with whom they were enjoined105 to maintain “true friendship, neighbourliness, and good correspondence.”334 In forwarding a copy of this proclamation to the king, the States said that they had issued it for his satisfaction, and had given strict orders to their captains to apprehend106 any one who acted contrary to it. But they expressed the hope that he would not permit the fishermen of the United Provinces to be disturbed or troubled in the liberty and freedom of taking herrings throughout the whole sea, of which liberty they were in immemorial possession, and it had been confirmed to them by several treaties, in particular by that made in 1551 between the king’s predecessor107 and Charles V. The prosperity of their country, it was added, depended on navigation, traffic, and fisheries, and the freedom of these had been provided for in treaties.335 James, however, was far from satisfied. He sent on the missive to the Privy Council in Scotland, with the request that the rolls and registers should be searched to see if any record existed of any such treaty, whether “with the said Emperor or any other potentate108 of the Low Countries.” The States, he said, had promised to send a copy of it, but they 180 had not done so, and in the meantime he would cause the rolls in London to be searched.336
The negotiations with the States-General dragged on throughout the summer without much result, and in August James took the sudden resolution again to demand from the Dutch fishermen the payment of the assize-herrings. This was doubtless caused by the receipt of a letter from Sir Dudley Carleton, informing him that the herring-fishers had gone that year to the coast of Scotland with extraordinary convoy39, the number of their men-of-war having been doubled, and expressing the hope that notwithstanding this the king would send some one to make the usual demand in a peaceable manner; otherwise, said Carleton, the Hollanders “will think his Majesty has laid aside his pretension109.”337 James accordingly wrote hurriedly to the Council at Edinburgh, saying it was necessary to make requisition of his duties from the Hollanders fishing on the coasts of Orkney and Shetland, in order both to keep possession of the fishing and to foil any plea from the States-General that no such duties had been demanded of them. He had intended, he said, to send a ship of war, but those which were ready were otherwise engaged, and there would not be time to equip a vessel in England before the Hollanders returned from the fishing. The Council were therefore instructed to fit out with all expedition either his own pinnace or any other ship which could conveniently be procured110, and to send it to the North Isles with such person as the deputy of the Duke of Lennox should choose, who was to be instructed “in fair tearmes and calme and peciable maner to crave12 oure said dewties, and accept of any suche answer as they sall gif him, without making any furder questioun or dispute in the mater.”338 Here was another Brown mission over again; but James forgot, if indeed he ever knew, that at that time of year the Dutch herring 181 fishermen would be very far from the North Isles, and fishing along the English coast.339 The fact was well known at Edinburgh, but, for whatever reason, it was not pointed out to the king; and the Council, urged to use “exceeding great haste,” chartered a Leith vessel, the Restore, put Mr Patrick Bruce on board to demand the tax from the Hollanders, along with a notary111 “to give instruments thereupon,” and despatched it on its bootless errand to the Shetlands. No Hollanders could be discovered, and the Restore came back to Leith.
The reason of the king’s action, as well as of Carleton’s advice, is doubtless to be sought in the desire to strengthen the case against the Dutch in view of an expected special embassy from The Hague, whose appointment was now mooted113, and which was designed to settle various differences between the two countries that had become acute. Besides the herring fishery, which was a never-failing subject of dispute, there was the trade in cloth, the East Indies, and the “Greenland” whale fishery, about which it is necessary to say something here.
Allusion114 has already been made to this phase of the controversy115 respecting mare clausum which sprang up in the Arctic seas, and was now mixed up with the question of the liberty of fishing on the British coasts. Towards the end of the previous century English whalers, for the most part in the service of the Russia or Muscovy Company, frequented the coasts of Greenland, and the northern seas which had been opened up to English enterprise by the voyages of Willoughby and Chancellor;340 and early in the next century they also began to catch whales at Spitzbergen, where they were found in enormous numbers.341 The whalers of other nations followed in their wake, and in 1612 two Dutch vessels arrived at Spitzbergen to take part in the fishery, and although from their ignorance of the methods they failed of success that year, a company (Noordsche Compagnie) was formed at Amsterdam to continue the venture under better conditions.342 The Muscovy Company, whose 182 whalers in 1612 got within nine degrees of the North Pole, sighting 700 whales and bringing back 17,343 became jealous of competitors. In 1613 they procured from King James a charter by which they were entitled to exclude all others, foreigners as well as subjects, from sailing to Spitzbergen; and in that year they dispatched thither116 a fleet of seven armed vessels to defend their rights by force as well as to catch whales.344 In the seas at Spitzbergen they found a number of other whalers from Spain and France, as well as two Dutch ships which had returned to the fishery. The English vessels immediately attacked them, and drove most 183 of the intruders away.345 The Englishmen then set up a cross on the shore with the king’s arms on it, and they called the land “King James’s Newland.” It is noteworthy as indicating the attitude and practice towards France throughout almost the whole of the disputes about mare clausum, that the French whalers were allowed to continue their operations, subject, however, to the payment of a tribute of whales or train-oil, while the two Dutch ships were despoiled117 of their catches and fishing-gear and were sent home empty. On their arrival at Amsterdam the ill-treatment to which they had been subjected was naturally resented, and representations to King James were made through the ordinary channels, but without success. The Dutch founded their case partly on the general principle “that according to the practice of all times and peoples, navigation, fishery, and the use of the shore were free and common to all,” and partly on the claim of prior discovery. Spitzbergen, they said, was discovered by Jakob van Heemskerk, a Dutchman, in 1596; they had therefore at least as good a right as the English or any other nation to the fisheries there. On the other hand, the powerful Muscovy Company argued that Spitzbergen was discovered by Willoughby in 1553, and accordingly belonged to England; and the king adopted this view, notwithstanding the elaborate case drawn118 up by the famous cosmographer, Plancius, on the other side, which was submitted to him.346 The seas around Spitzbergen were held to pertain119 to the British seas, and to be under the maritime120 dominion81 of the King of England,—a claim which Selden attempted to vindicate121 later.
Fig17. 8.—Dutch Whalers at Spitzbergen. After Van der Meulen. 184
Having failed by diplomacy122 to obtain recognition of what they believed to be their plain rights, the States resolved to oppose force by force. Early in 1614 a new Dutch company was formed, and exclusive privileges were conferred on it “to navigate123, trade, and fish, from the Netherlands on or to the coasts of the lands between Nova Zembla and Davis’ Straits,” including therefore Greenland and Spitzbergen.347 A tax of “last-money” was established, and in the same year eighteen Dutch whalers, armed, and convoyed by three States’ men-of-war, left Holland for the Arctic seas, prepared to maintain their right to freedom of fishery by fighting for it if necessary. The English whalers did not venture to attack so powerful a squadron, and as the Hollanders came in 1615 and 1616 in even greater force, they were for these three years enabled to carry on their whale-fishing without molestation124. In 1617, however, their convoyers having been reduced in numbers, they were again assailed125 by the English; one of the Dutch vessels was despoiled, and their “cookeries,” or the buildings on shore in which the oil was made, were destroyed. Then in 1618 the Dutch reappeared, and in strength sufficient not only to maintain the right they claimed, but to make reprisals126. They attacked, despoiled, and drove off thirteen English ships, most of which returned to England empty, and the Muscovy Company were loud in their complaints to the king. They put their loss at £66,436, 15s., besides the spoiling of the ships and the killing127 of the men.348
At this time, as we have seen, James was pressing more than ever for the recognition of his claims to the herring fishery in the British seas, and it may be easily imagined how he was moved by the news of this fresh “outrage” at Spitzbergen. At a meeting of the States-General in October, the British ambassador used strong language in animadverting on these “violencies, robberies, and murders” committed by the Dutch on the king’s subjects in the Arctic seas, on the injuries inflicted128 on the English in the East Indies, and on other matters in dispute; and he demanded that the embassy so 185 repeatedly promised by the States should be sent to England without any further delay. The embassy in question had been originally proposed by the Dutch with the view of arranging the differences as to the trade in cloth and the herring fishery. Their diplomacy through the ordinary channels had, however, been so successful in preserving their freedom of fishing, notwithstanding the harassing130 efforts of the king, whom they invariably foiled, that they preferred to procrastinate131, and the proposed embassy had from time to time been put off. But now the minatory132 demands of Sir Dudley Carleton were reinforced by the insistence133 of the Dutch East India Company, for it had been proposed in England to arrest the vessels of that company in the Channel in reprisal for the wrongs done to the English in the East Indies, and one of their ships had just narrowly escaped capture.349
The Dutch ambassadors arrived in England on 27th November;350 but notwithstanding the earnest exhortations134 of Carleton, their instructions were confined to the “Greenland” (Spitzbergen) and East Indian questions, and did not contain what the king most desired—full powers to treat on the herring fishery.
James had been looking forward to this embassy as providing an opportunity for the final settlement of the fishery dispute. Sir Dudley Carleton had informed the States-General that the king wished to go into the matter of the treaties on which their claim to liberty of fishing was in great measure based, adding jesuitically that it was probably with the view of confirming them. The king in reality felt that owing to the dissensions in the Low Countries and the general political state of Europe, the time was specially27 opportune135 for negotiating a treaty in his favour.351 He had accordingly made 186 considerable preparations to meet their arguments both with reference to the treaties and the Law of Nations. Early in November he wrote to the Council at Edinburgh, saying that the wrongs suffered by his Scottish subjects from the fishing of the Hollanders in the seas of Scotland had caused him to bring the matter before the States, and to acquaint them of his “resolution to have them duly repaired.” The States had signified their desire to have their rights and the actions of their subjects “orderly tried and determined,” and they were therefore about to send over commissioners “sufficiently136 authorised” for that purpose. As commissioners to meet them, he had chosen the Duke of Lennox, the Marquis of Hamilton, Lord Binning (Secretary), and Sir George Hay (Clerk of Register), and he asked the Council to expedite the issue of their commission under the great seal. He also desired them to send him, in writing, the most perfect information they could procure as to his right to exclude the States from their pretended right or alleged possession of the herring-fishing, with full particulars of the wrongs committed by the Dutch on the Scottish people, either by scattering137 the shoals of herrings or by “usurpation of farder libertie to themselves nor hes bene formerlie granted or tolerated be us or our prediceesoris to them.”352
The commissioners named were accordingly authorised to treat with the Dutch commissioners “anent the trial and verification of the rights, immunities138, and privileges alleged to have been granted by his Majesty or any of his most noble progenitors139, Kings of Scotland, to the said States-General of the United Provinces, or any others from whom they deduce and derive140 their claim to fish in the seas of the said kingdom of Scotland, or any part or place thereof.” They were further instructed to treat as to the redress required for the injuries 187 committed by the Dutch fishermen, and for preventing in future any unlawful proceeding by the States, “either by fishing in his Majesty’s Scottish seas” or by doing wrong to the inhabitants. They were, moreover, “to concur” with the English commissioners to be appointed as to the “friendly behaviour” of British subjects and the subjects of the United Provinces in all other seas, fishings, voyages, and other foreign intercourse, necessary for the continuance of peace and amity141.353 The business of the herring fishery was thus placed in charge of the Scottish commissioners, while the English had specially to deal with the other subjects in dispute—the East Indian trade, the whale fishery, the coinage, and the trade in cloth. Towards the end of November Lord Binning informed the king that the Council had sent off the commission, together with a statement of the injury sustained by the whole kingdom by the daily increase of the Dutch usurpation in his seas.354
With regard to the other matter about which James had desired “the most perfect information,”—his right to exclude foreigners from fishing on his coasts,—the Council had the greatest difficulty in discovering anything whatever pertaining142 to it. It was the most important part of the question to come before the commissioners, because the States had already issued a strongly-worded edict forbidding their people from committing any wrongs upon the Scottish people (p. 179), and the king could scarcely make out a just case for prohibiting the Hollanders from fishing on this ground alone. He desired to show, what he no doubt fully74 believed, that his claims were supported by historical precedents143 and the laws of Scotland, and that none of the treaties on which the Dutch always relied in such negotiations were contrary to his claims. In his letter to the Council he therefore repeated the request that the public records should be searched, and desired that Lords Lauderdale and Balmerino, 188 the Laird of Lundy, and others into whose hands such documents might have come, “from their ancestors, Chancellors144, secretaries, clerks of register, ambassadors, or councillors of state,” should try to find any which bore upon the matter, and to have them forwarded to him without delay. The terms of the king’s letter show plainly enough the confusion and imperfection of the Scottish state records at that time; and the Lords of the Council sought high and low to discover copies of the treaties or any other official papers relating to the subject, but for a long time without any success. Copies of some of the treaties were afterwards found, but nothing to establish the king’s right to exclude the Hollanders from the fishery. In these circumstances the Council advised the commissioners “to proceed warily,” and to make the Dutch ambassadors produce what they had to show for their claim to the fishing, and then to answer that.355
But as things turned out, it was of no immediate importance whether or not the Scottish commissioners were armed with documentary proofs of the king’s claims to the fishery. The Dutch ambassadors, as has been said, came without any powers to treat on that subject. In their private instructions, indeed, they were enjoined to avoid carefully any discussion about the herring fishery. If it was forced upon them, they were to point out that the States had already issued a proclamation to prevent wrongs being done to Scottish fishermen, which would be strictly145 enforced. If this was not sufficient, they were to fall back on general arguments as to the natural freedom of the sea, their 189 immemorial possession of the fishery and its paramount146 importance to their country, and to plead for delay on account of the confusion and difficulties of their home affairs.
On their arrival in London they were met by two high Scottish personages, who had been awaiting their coming for some weeks. They took this for a bad sign, concluding from it that the king was resolved to raise the fishery question. They had several interviews with the Council and the king. On finding that their instructions limited them to the discussion of the two points on which there was least anxiety in England, the East India business and the whale-fishing, the Council received them coldly, Bacon indeed rating them soundly for coming without adequate powers. James himself was very angry, and made no effort to conceal147 his disappointment. He expressed astonishment148 that after all the complaints that had been made, and after all the negotiations that had gone on through the ambassadors at London and The Hague, they had ventured to come unprepared to deal with the principal matter in dispute. “The fishing,” he told them, “on the coasts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, as a regality and point of sovereignty, was possessed149 by him alone, to the exclusion150 of all others.” Spain, he said, had asked leave to negotiate about freedom of fishing, while France enjoyed the privilege only under great limitations, a few small vessels being allowed to fish for the use of the Court and the king’s family.356 How little becoming was it therefore, continued James with heat, that a Republic which had only been recognised for a few years should be the first to contest his sovereign rights! It was useless for them to plead unprofitable years and immemorial possession. He was king of the greatest islands in the world, and he knew very well the rights he had on the coasts of his three kingdoms.357 He further informed them that he was bound by oath at his coronation to maintain the rights, liberties, and privileges of his crown, and that he would rather lose all that he had than give 190 up his right to the fishings.358 Declarations equally strong were expressed in despatches to the British ambassador at The Hague. The king, it was said, would not be taught the laws of nations “by them nor their Grotius.”2 It would be to their advantage to ask the king’s leave for the fishing and to acknowledge his right as other princes had done, or it might well come to pass “that they that will needs bear all the world before them with their Mare Liberum, may soon come to have neither Terram et solum nor Rempublicam Liberam,”—phrases which lead one to think that James penned the missive himself.359 The Council intimated to the ambassadors that the king declined to discuss only the two points mentioned in their instructions, and that they must get powers from the States-General to deal with the question of the herring fishery.
Language of this kind from the king and Council disturbed and perplexed151 the envoys152. They were anxious that the friendly relations between the two countries should be strengthened, and yet it appeared not unlikely that they would have to return home without having been heard on any of the matters in dispute. They began to think that after all it would be better if the fishery question were taken up and settled, and they advised the States-General in that sense. The British ambassador at The Hague was using pressure with the same object. But the Prince of Orange told him that in his opinion the States of Holland would refuse to give authority for the fishery question to be opened, “for fear of the people,” because the livelihood153 of 50,000 of the inhabitants of that province depended on the herring-fishing, and they feared that the same thing would happen with the tribute the king claimed as had happened with the dues at the Sound, which had been gradually raised until they had become an intolerable burden. He threw out the suggestion at the same time that perhaps the freedom of fishing might be purchased by a lump sum. A little later Carleton proposed to the States-General that the three subjects omitted from the ambassadors’ instructions should also be brought into the negotiations—viz., the trade in cloth, the coinage, and especially the herring fishery. In a minatory 191 speech he declared that the king, who had “a legitimate154 title and the exclusive sovereign right and propriety155 to the fishery on the coasts of his three kingdoms,” would not any longer permit the subjects of the United Provinces to encroach on his rights, which were recognised by all other princes and states. The condition of affairs, he said, had been brought to extremities156 by the extravagant157 discourses158 of one of their politicians and the violent conduct of the commanders of their ships.360 Sweeping159 aside the treaties and the claim to immemorial possession, and using much the same language as the king had done as to the hardihood of a young republic flouting160 the sovereign rights of princes, he ended a long harangue161 by declaring that if there was any further delay in dealing162 with the fishery question, England would take measures to provide for her rights by force of arms, “for such,” he said, “was the demand of the people, the advice of the Council, and the resolution of the king.”
But all those strong speeches and brave words came to nothing. The leaders in the States knew the character and difficulties of James, and felt that the warlike threats of a monarch163 whose greatest desire was that he should be known as Rex pacificus361 were not likely to be carried to the extremity164 of the sword. A little more delay brought about a change in the English attitude. In the Privy Council there were signs of wavering and evident hesitation165 to recommend extreme measures against an allied166 and Protestant state. In the political condition of Europe—troubles in Bohemia, the King of Spain threatening the overthrow167 of Venice, &c.—it was urged that harsh measures might drive the Dutch to have recourse to France, which supported Barnevelt, the king’s enemy. Above all, it was feared that the Protestants throughout the world would be unable to understand how the king could attack the Dutch at that critical time over so small a matter. On the whole, “for the sake of the peace of Christendom,” it might be better to “continue” the question to another time, and thus avoid an immediate rupture. The faltering168 in the Council coincided with a humbler tone on the part of the Dutch 192 ambassadors. They strove to convince James that it was by no means the desire of the States to refuse to treat of the fishery, or absolutely to deny his right to regulate it on his own coasts. All they asked was that the matter might be delayed a little owing to the religious troubles which were raging in the Netherlands, and because as all the provinces were concerned and the records and treaties would have to be searched, it would take some time before they would be in a position to deal with it in an equitable169 way. The States-General used language equally conciliatory to Sir Dudley Carleton, and promised to send other ambassadors later, fully empowered to treat of the herring fishery and the trade in cloth. James was appeased170 and agreed to the delay, but he told the ambassadors that unless the States gave an undertaking171 in writing to send commissioners sufficiently authorised to settle the matter before a year had expired, he would take it as “a plain and perpetual declining of the treaty.”362
Thus James was again baffled in his endeavour to force the United Provinces to acknowledge his rights in the fishery. But scarcely had the arrangement been completed when he brought forward another proposal. Pending the conclusion of the final treaty, he wished the States to issue a provisional edict forbidding their fishermen from approaching within fourteen miles of the British coasts, to which they had been coming closer and closer in recent years, a proceeding which was the principal cause of the complaints from Scotland.363 The distance mentioned was that embodied172 in the Draft Treaty of union in 1604, and was supposed to be equivalent to a “land-kenning.”364 193 Carleton, however, thought the States would not immediately agree to this,—their cumbersome173 system of government would alone cause great delay,—and he counselled the king “to begin with the fishers themselves,” by publishing a proclamation fixing the distance at which they would be permitted to fish.365 But the States were disposed to go so far to meet the wishes of the king. They objected, indeed, that fourteen miles was a greater distance than that at which a person could see the coast from the sea, and thus exceeded a “land-kenning” or the range of vision, but they promised to issue orders to their fishermen to keep so far from the land as to be out of sight of people on the shore, and to strongly prohibit them from going nearer.366
The business of the herring fishery having thus been shelved, the negotiators took up the other matters in dispute. The East Indian question was settled by a treaty,367 but the differences as to the whale fishery were not so easily adjusted. The English case was founded on the contention that Spitzbergen belonged to King James, on their prior fishing in those seas, and on the depredations174 committed by the Dutch in 1618 on English vessels. The Dutch claimed a right to the fishery from their discovery of the island, and they proposed three alternatives: (1) that both nations should fish at Spitzbergen with an equal number of ships, the bays to be divided by drawing lots;368 (2) that fishing should be carried on by both parties everywhere with an equal number of ships of equal size, disputes to be settled by regulations; (3) that the island should be divided by an imaginary line into two equal parts, the Dutch to have one part and the English the other. The English declined all these proposals, and James informed the ambassadors that even if the island had been discovered by their nation the English had the right to the fishery because they were the first to practise it,—an argument which, it may be remarked, if applied175 to the herring fishery, would have been unfortunate for the king’s claim to it. But while maintaining his abstract right to the sea at 194 Spitzbergen, James gave way on the immediately practical point, consenting that the Dutch should continue their fishery at the island for three years longer.369
We have mentioned that late in 1618 James caused the Scottish Council to send a vessel (the Restore) to the Shetlands to demand the assize-herrings from the Dutchmen, and that it arrived on the scene too late. Next year he resolved to be in time, and while the Dutch ambassadors were still in London he wrote to the Council saying it was necessary “for divers176 imperative177 reasons” that the duties should still be craved, and requesting them to send a ship that summer with some discreet178 person on board, “who in fair terms may require our duties of the said Hollanders and report their answer”; and the Council were desired to take special care that the business should not fail through negligence179.370 At a meeting of the Council at Holyrood House on 29th June, arrangements were made to carry out the king’s wishes. Mr John Fenton was appointed “his Majesty’s commissioner” for “craving his Majesty’s rent of assize and teind from the Hollanders and other strangers fishing in his Majesty’s seas,” and a Mr James Brown was instructed to accompany him as notary.371 Fenton’s commission, under the 195 great seal, commanded him to repair to the north seas, and there “in his Majesty’s name to ask, crave, receive, intromit with, and uplift from those of Holland, Zealand, Hamburg, Embden, and Rostock, and from all other strangers following the trade of fishing in his Majesty’s said seas this present year, his Majesty’s rent of assize and teind of the whole fishes taken, or to be taken by them in his Majesty’s said seas and waters this present year.” The tribute levied by John Brown, in 1616, on behalf of the Duke of Lennox, amounted to only one angel (about ten shillings) or a barrel of herrings from each buss, or twelve cod from a line-boat. But that claimed by the king was now considerably181 greater. The “assize” was to be computed182 at ten thousand herrings (which would be fully ten barrels) for every buss that fished for herrings, and a last of white fish for every buss that fished for white fish, that is to say, cod and ling; or, if the fishermen preferred to pay in money, they were to pay at the rate of £6, 13s. 4d. Scots for every thousand of the assize-herrings, and at the rate of £50 Scots for every last of the assize white fish; and the same equivalents were to be asked for each thousand “teind herrings,” and for each last of “teind white fish,”—a new duty now first mentioned, “teinds” being the Scottish term for ecclesiastical tithes183. The value of the assize-herrings to be levied from each buss was thus about £5, 11s. 1d. sterling184, and the value of the assize white fish from each dogger about £4, 3s. 4d. On the basis of two thousand Dutch herring vessels the total duty would amount to the respectable sum of about £11,000, while the dogger-boats would yield some £1500 additional. On receiving payment Fenton was to give an “aquittance and discharge,” which would be as valid185 and sufficient as if given 196 by his Majesty’s comptrollers or ordinary receivers of his Majesty’s rents.372
In the particular instructions given to Fenton,373 and which, there are reasons for thinking, were essentially186 the same as those previously187 given to Brown, he was enjoined to proceed to the north seas in H.M.S. Charles, under the command of Captain David Murray, and in the first place to inquire the names of the admirals and vice-admirals of the Dutch fleet, the names of their ships, to what towns and provinces they belonged, and also the number of the convoys188 and busses sent out to the fishing by every town, province, and state. This having been done, he was “in fair and gentle terms and with modesty189 and discretion190” to demand from the admirals or vice-admirals, and from two or three of the convoyers and busses of each state, “his Majesty’s rent of assize and teind” as specified191. He was not to dispute with them as to the amount of the duty. If they offered a smaller amount, “although it were only an angel for every buss,” he was to accept it, but not less; so also if he were offered fish instead of money. It was left to his discretion to make a differential duty according to the size of the busses, if that point was raised, and also to compound with the admiral for the whole of the busses of a town, state, or province. If payment of the duties were refused, Fenton was merely “to take instruments upon the said refusal without further contestation,” and to report the result. He was also to inform the Dutch of the oppressions made by those landing from the fleet at Shetland, and to demand redress and a promise that such conduct would not be repeated.374
A short time before this the Council, for the sake of economy, had ordered the Charles to be disfurnished, but now, in view of her important mission, they judged it to be “no ways meet or expedient” that she should be made altogether empty of her furniture and munitions192 of war, so that she might be able to resist any sudden or secret onslaught by the Hollanders or others. They therefore instructed that there should be left 197 on board “twa of the smallest pecceis of hir ordinance193 and ten muscattis, with some few bullets ansuerable thairto, and a litill quantitie of poulder, yf ony be within the schip.”375 Orders were given for the manning of the vessel, which was to be ready to sail before 1st July. It was with this scrimp and penurious194 armament, and in this attorney-like manner, that James prepared to obtain an acknowledgment from the Dutch of his rights in his seas, whereas Charles I., as we shall see, employed his great ship-money fleet for the same purpose. But apparently195 the king would be almost as satisfied with a refusal as with the payment of the tribute, either of which he would be able to make use of in the negotiations for the “final treaty” on which he had set his heart. It is therefore unfortunate that we can discover no further information as to the expedition of Fenton. That the Charles left on its mission we know,376 but the records are silent as to the result. It may perhaps be inferred from this circumstance alone that the Charles was no more successful than the Restore in the year before.
Early in 1620 the States, which had taken no steps to redeem196 their promise to send another embassy to deal with the question of the herring fishery, were reminded of it, and Carleton urged this course as a point both of policy and honour. But they were as reluctant as ever to handle the matter. The increased duty which Fenton was commanded to ask—of which very probably they had heard—was not likely to make them more willing, and they continued to procrastinate, alleging197 the unsettled state of their affairs at home and the troubles in Bohemia and Germany as reasons for further delay. Some prominent men in Holland indeed began now to assume a firmer tone. Hints were thrown out to the British ambassador that there was really little difference between forcing on the matter and declaring war, since freedom of fishing was of fundamental importance to the people of the United Provinces. The Prince of Orange gave it as his opinion that the seaport198 towns of Holland would never be brought to consent to “any innovation” in the herring fishery, even if it were urged at the cannon’s mouth. Still more significant was the action of the States in now voting large additional sums for 198 the equipment of a greater number of men-of-war to guard the herring-busses from molestation.377
To all appearance, therefore, the Dutch had now stiffened199 their backs and were prepared to fight for their liberty to fish on the British coasts, as they had done at Spitzbergen, instead of sending commissioners to London to haggle200 over it. But their uncompromising attitude was soon modified owing to certain political events, which taught them the need of caution in flouting the wishes of the King of England. In the autumn of 1619, Frederick, the Elector Palatine, who had married Elizabeth, the daughter of James, was offered and accepted the crown of Bohemia under circumstances pregnant with troubles. In consequence of this, Spain, in alliance with the Emperor, attacked and took possession of the Palatinate. The strengthening of the Spanish power in Germany was by itself inimical to the United Provinces, and the sense of danger was intensified201 when it was found that the occupation of the Lower Palatinate was part of a plan for marching the Catholic troops overland from Lombardy to the Spanish Netherlands. In view of an impending202 conflict with their hereditary203 enemies, it became a matter of grave anxiety to the States to retain the goodwill204 of England. Accordingly, after many discussions, the States-General at the end of 1620 appointed another embassy to go to London; but it was rather with the view of meeting the political dangers with which they were threatened than of dealing effectually with the subjects in dispute. The ambassadors’ official instructions, which were most carefully considered, referred in general terms to the affairs of Germany and the approaching expiry of the truce205 with Spain, and more particularly to the cloth trade, the coinage, and the East Indies. On the all-important subject of the herring fishery they were mute. In their private instructions the envoys were enjoined to avoid all discussion about it; if pressed, they were to assure the king that the States would be glad to consider it “later”; and in any discussion that did arise, they were to bear in mind that they always had been in undisturbed possession of it, and that the profit they derived206 from it had been greatly exaggerated 199 and was far less than the king supposed—so little indeed that they would be quite unable to carry it on if any “innovation” were made.378
The embassy of six persons arrived in London towards the end of January 1621. At their first audience with the king they spoke58 only of the affairs in Germany and the seizure207 of the Palatinate, desiring it to be understood that this was the principal matter to be considered; and when they met the Council they raised the question of a warlike alliance between the two countries against Spain. But the herring fishery had not been forgotten by the English, and when the subject was mooted the Dutch begged that it might be allowed to rest for a time, pleading in particular that the expiry of the truce with Spain would leave them face to face with a powerful foe208. The Council reminded them of the promise given, and James bluntly expressed the hope that they had come on this occasion fully empowered to treat of the business of the fishery, which had been suspended at the conferences two years before. While disclaiming209 any wish to diminish their legitimate profits from the fishery, he warned them that the question touched his honour and sovereignty so closely that it could not be always left undecided and in dispute; and that he would only agree to further delay when he was informed at what time it would suit the States to conclude an agreement both about the fishing on the coasts of Great Britain and at “Greenland.”379 After many conferences and much negotiation it was arranged that another embassy should be sent by the States before the lapse210 of a year, and the Dutch commissioners quitted London on 16th April.
In accordance with this understanding, still another embassy came to London, in November 1621. On this occasion the ambassadors were provided with full powers to settle the East Indian disputes, and with less ample authority to deal with the Spitzbergen fishery question. But, astonishing as it appears, they were again sent without any power to negotiate any treaty about the herring fishery. That the States, after so many delays and evasions211, in the face of so many protests from the king, should again break their promise, shows both the great 200 importance they attached to the matter and their belief that James would not force on a quarrel about it. In their secret instructions the old injunctions were repeated. They were to beg that as a year had not yet elapsed a little further delay might be granted; laying stress on the danger to the Protestant cause, in view of the relations with Spain, if anything were done to lessen212 the sea-power of the Netherlands, which depended so much on their fisheries. At this time the East Indian question had become important and pressing in England, and the early conferences were confined to it. But later the king broached213 the subject of the herring-fishing; and after listening to the ambassadors for a while, he peevishly214 asked them to make an end of their long harangue, called them leeches215 and blood-suckers, who sucked the blood from his subjects and tried to ruin him,380 and then treated them to the same sort of disquisition as on former occasions. To the king’s railing and reproaches the ambassadors made such answer as they could, and the upshot was that they were allowed to go on with the conferences on the East Indian question. This embassy, at the head of which was Fran?ois Van Aerssen, Lord of Sommelsdijck, remained in England until the spring of 1623, engaged in negotiations, often interrupted, on political affairs, and on the East Indian and Greenland fishery questions. James did not harass129 them further about the herring fishery. At the farewell audience he spoke of it in a good-natured way. He must, he said, resume his old song, veterem cantilenam, but not at that time. But whenever the condition of the Netherlands was favourable216, he would, he said, be glad to resume the negotiations.381
During their long stay in England the ambassadors had an opportunity of learning what was thought about the fishery question. On their return to the Netherlands they earnestly counselled the States-General to come to some agreement with England both on the herring fishery on the British coasts and the whale-fishing at Spitzbergen. These matters, they said, 201 were close to the king’s heart, and many people whom they had met had shown much irritation217 in speaking of them, and had even advised forcible measures against the Dutch. By this time the Republic was again at war with Spain, while Prince Charles and Buckingham had gone to Madrid to woo the Infanta: it would be prudent218 to do all that could reasonably be done to cultivate good relations with England. The States therefore wrote to Sir Noel Caron telling him they had resolved to take the fishery matter into serious consideration, and their efforts were directed to the removal of all cause of complaint in Scotland. Two edicts had already been issued—one, in 1618, prohibiting any wrong from being committed on Scottish subjects; the other, in 1620, ordering their fishermen to refrain from taking herrings within the rocks and reefs of Shetland, Ireland, and Norway, on the ground that such herrings were inferior in quality and unfit for curing.382 The technical reason given in the latter for keeping away from the coast had some foundation, but the real motive219 was probably to redeem the pledge which the States had given in the year before (see p. 193). What the States now did was to renew the edict of 1618, and, after a conference between the ambassadors who had returned from England and the College or Board of Fisheries, to issue orders that the herring-busses were not to go too near the coast of Scotland, which had, indeed, been agreed upon some years earlier, so as to avoid causing inconvenience to the native fishermen.383
There is evidence that the warning which the ambassadors gave to the States-General as to the feeling in England was well founded, and there occurred at this time, both in England and Scotland, a revival220 of proposals aimed against the Hollanders. The Scottish burghs complained of the “heavie hurt” they sustained owing to the English and the “Fleymings,” who had lately taken up the “trade of fishing” in the North and West Isles, by which was probably meant the curing of herrings and other fish. The Council accordingly ordained221 that the Islesmen should “suffer no strangers to come within their 202 bounds to the fishing,” and that none of the country people should sell fish to them; and they issued a proclamation forbidding “all and sundry222 strangers” to “slay or take any fish within the Isles, lochs and bays of the kingdom, and that they buy no fish but salted and barrelled, and at free burghs.”384
In England fresh attempts were made to establish a great national herring fishery which might rival that of the Dutch. Within a month of the departure of the ambassadors, Lord George Carew, Master of the Ordnance223, was busy with a project. Along with Lord Hervey and Sir William Monson—who was perhaps the prime mover in the matter—he had several conferences with “skilful fishermen,” and then he sent for the city merchants to consider how the scheme might be floated. To them he proposed that six busses and four doggers should be bought or built at a cost not exceeding £10,000, explaining, after the usual manner, how the return from the first year’s fishing would repay the whole of that sum and encourage “all men” to adventure. The city merchants, one of whom was Sir William Cockaine, were loud in their praises of the scheme,—“it was the best work for the public and the most profitable that the wit of man could imagine,”—but as for the money required, they were afraid that it could not be raised. Then the promoters asked the Lord Mayor to propound224 the plan to the Court of Aldermen. But the Lord Mayor curtly225 replied that the Aldermen were engaged in other adventures, and were “utterly unwilling” to enter into the project of building busses, while the Merchant Companies were too much in debt to undertake it. On a second appeal being made to him, he said the Court of Aldermen “absolutely declined” to entertain either the general project for fishing-busses or the lesser226 scheme of building six busses and four doggers. They would have nothing to do with it;385 and this scheme was therefore nipped in the bud.
Fresh proposals were now brought forward by others, based 203 on Government support, and a plan was propounded227 similar to the old one of Hitchcock and Dee in the reign1 of Elizabeth, but to be carried out under an Act of Parliament. Each city, county, and seaport town was to be encouraged to equip fishing-busses at their common charge and for their common benefit, with power to employ their idle inhabitants in manning them. For the security of the fishing fleet the king was to provide twenty ships of war, five of which were to belong to the royal navy, and they were to continue at sea from the beginning of April till the end of September. To meet the cost of this guard the king was to receive the tenth fish taken both by English and foreign fishermen, the promoters thinking that the latter would be quite willing to be taxed when the tax was demanded by an “Act of the King and Kingdom,” and when they knew they would be protected by a squadron of men-of-war.386 It was a pretty scheme, well-intentioned, but innocent of information as to the actual state of affairs.
Scarcely anything more was heard about the herring fishery or the taxation228 of Dutch fishermen during the brief remainder of James’s reign. Another embassy came from the Netherlands in 1624, but it was to conclude a defensive229 alliance against Spain, and in the shadow of this new alliance the Dutch fishermen quietly reaped the harvest of the sea without fear of English interference. James’s policy of the assize-herring had thus completely failed. All his efforts to induce or to force the Netherlands’ fishermen to acknowledge his right were baffled by the superior diplomacy of the States,—their “artificial delays, pretences230, shifts, dilatory231 addresses, and evasive answers.” The only immediately practical result of the king’s policy was that the herring-busses kept for a time farther from the coast of Scotland. But a new weapon had been forged for the contest with the United Provinces for supremacy232 at sea, and one which was to be used by his successors with much more skill, if with little greater ultimate success. 204
Of one symbol of this sovereignty of the sea comparatively little was heard during James’s reign—namely, the salute233 or homage234 to his flag. This traditional custom of the narrow seas, while maintained on important occasions, was not enforced with the vigour235 and arrogance236 which characterised it later, perhaps less rigorously than under the Great Queen. “I myself remember,” said Raleigh a few years before his execution, “when one ship of her Majesty’s would have made forty Hollanders strike sail and come to anchor. They did not then dispute de mari libero, but readily acknowledged the English to be domini mavis Britannici.”387 Sir William Monson, too, who was Admiral of the Narrow Seas in the earlier part of James’s reign, tells us that the Hollanders were very “stubborn” about striking their top-sails and performing the duty due to the king’s prerogative237, and that he earned their lasting238 ill-will by compelling them to do it.388
But the English commanders were punctilious239 in enforcing the salute in the narrow seas on state occasions. A notable instance occurred in 1603, when King Henry IV. of France sent over the famous Sieur de Rosny, afterwards Duke of Sully, to congratulate James on his accession to the throne of England. With a numerous retinue240 he went on board an English man-of-war at Calais, which then made sail for Dover accompanied by a French warship241 under the command of M. de Vic, the Vice-Admiral of France. The English captain observed with displeasure that the French vessel bore the arms of France at his top, “contrary to the custom of the narrow seas”; but on account of the important personage on board and the nature of his mission, he restrained himself from challenging the “indignity” until they approached Dover Road. Unable to brook242 the affront any longer, he fired at the French ship, and so “constrained her to strike her flag.” The shot did no harm, but M. de Vic at once turned round his vessel and went back to France in high dudgeon. Cecil thought it necessary to send a despatch112 to the English ambassador at Paris explaining the circumstances, and while saying that the English captain “rashly discharged” his gun, he thought that if the matter was “well looked into, and the 205 former customs observed, there would be reason found for us to stand upon.”389
A somewhat similar incident happened two years later, when Sir William Monson was bringing over an ambassador of the Emperor from Calais to Dover. In Dover Road he found a number of States’ men-of-war, and their admiral, as Monson drew near, struck his flag thrice, but then “advanced” it again and kept it flying in the presence of the king’s ship. Monson believed the Dutch admiral had come in on purpose to put this “affront” on him, so that the ambassador, as well as the Spaniards then at Dover, might “spread it abroad throughout all Europe” that the Dutch, “by their wearing their flags, might be imputed243 kings of the sea as well as his Majesty,” and so lessen the esteem244 of the king’s prerogative in the narrow seas. Instead of firing upon the Dutch ship, he sent to invite the admiral to dinner, and to tell him that he must take in his flag. To this request the admiral demurred245, saying that he had struck it thrice, and that no former admirals of the narrow seas had required more at his hands. Monson rejoined that “times were altered”; that when the mere striking of the flag as he had done was sufficient, England and Holland were both at war with Spain and it was tolerated; but now, since the war was ended so far as England was concerned, his Majesty required “such rights and duties as have formerly246 belonged to his progenitors.” On the Dutch admiral still refusing, Monson threatened to weigh anchor and come near him, and that the force of their ships should determine the question; “for,” said the English admiral, “rather than I would suffer his flag to be worn in view of so many nations as were to behold247 it, I resolved to bury myself in the sea.” The flag was then struck, and the Dutch ships stood out to sea. Monson tells us that he was congratulated by a Spanish general who had been watching the proceedings, who said that if the Hollanders had worn their flag times had been strangely altered in England, since his old master King Philip II. was shot at by the Lord Admiral of England 206 for wearing his flag in the narrow seas when he came to marry Queen Mary.390
Sometimes, however, the zeal180 of the naval248 officers led them too far in their resolution to compel the salute. Thus in 1613, when the Count of Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador, was returning to England accompanied by two galleons249, an English man-of-war forced the Spanish ships to take in their flags off Stokes Bay. The ambassador complained to the Lord Admiral (the Earl of Nottingham), who decided that the captain had exceeded his authority, for the Spaniards were not bound to strike their flag unless to the admiral of the narrow seas, and the captain was neither admiral of the narrow seas nor employed under his commission. The rules or etiquette250 regarding this ceremony were indeed somewhat complicated, occasionally changed, and not always well understood, and as a good deal will be heard of the striking of the flag in the following chapters, it may be well to say something here about the practice. It appears that it was customary from a remote period for merchant vessels to lower their sails on meeting a ship of war in seas under the dominion of the state to which the latter belonged,391 but the ceremony only attained251 to international notoriety in connection with the claims of England to the sovereignty of the narrow seas. The practice varied252 at different times. Generally speaking, by the custom of the narrow seas as interpreted in this country, any foreign man-of-war meeting with an English man-of-war in those seas had to take in her flag and strike her top-sails as soon as she came within sight or within range of the English guns, and she had to keep in the flag until she had passed out of range. A merchant vessel had to strike in the same way. Further, no vessel in the narrow seas was to pass to windward of an English ship of war, but must “come by the lee”; the inferior had to make way for the superior.392 In an English port or 207 road no foreign ship or English merchant vessel could wear her flag in the presence of a king’s ship. This custom was also sometimes enforced in foreign ports and roads, but usually only when out of range of forts on shore. If a foreign vessel, whether man-of-war or merchant ship, did not thus “do her duty” or “perform the homage of the sea,” the English ship of war might hail her or send a boat to command her to strike. Or they might at once, without any parley253, fire a shot across her bows, and after an interval254 another, also across her bows or over her poop, and if this was ineffective, then a third between her masts or at her flag. If the foreigner still refused to strike, a broadside was usually poured in, and the vessel might be carried into port and the offender punished. In the reign of Charles II., Spaniards, Dunkirkers, Frenchmen, and other foreigners, were not infrequently brought before the courts and fined for refusing to strike. If a merchant vessel refused to strike until she was shot at, she was compelled to pay to the king’s ship twice the value of the gunpowder255 and shot expended256.
In England the custom, no doubt, originated in the Channel, probably in the time of the early Angevin kings, when the opposite coasts were under the same rule; and it is most probable, as formerly said, that it arose in connection with the exercise of jurisdiction257 over pirates and for securing peaceful commerce. In early times the utmost lawlessness prevailed on the sea: it would be a common duty of the king’s ships to satisfy themselves as to the character of the vessels they encountered, and the lowering of the sails and the coming under the lee, for “visit and search,” might well be a relic258 of a duty enforced for that purpose. With regard to ships of war, the 208 ceremony appears to have been first confined to the Channel, and was held to be peculiarly a privilege of the admiral of the narrow seas. Thus, when Captain Plumleigh was appointed admiral of a squadron for service in Ireland in 1632, he was ordered by the Admiralty if he met “in any part of the narrow seas with the Convertive, in which Captain Pennington commands as admiral of those seas,” to take in his flag, and to “continue it furled whilst in sight of that ship, it being an ancient honour and privilege belonging only to that admiral to carry the flag in the maintop in those seas.”393 Monson also tells us, in referring to the decision of the Lord High Admiral in Gondomar’s case, above alluded259 to, that every ship of the king’s serving under an admiral could not demand the striking of the flag when out of sight of the admiral; but the foreign ship, “be he admiral or no, is to strike his top-sail and hoist260 it again, to any one ship of the king’s that shall meet him.” He further states that any foreign ship or fleet arriving in an English port, or passing by a fort or castle, had to take in their flag three times, and advance it again, unless the English admiral’s ship was in the same harbour, in which case they were to keep it in so long as the admiral was present; “but if any other ship of his Majesty’s be there but the admiral’s, they are not bound to keep in their flag, but only to strike it thrice as aforesaid.” Monson added that he wished, in these later times (the reign of Charles I.), “that his Majesty’s ships would take more authority upon them than is due,” in order to curb261 the insolence of the French and the Hollander—a wish which, as we shall see, must have been fully gratified. It was against the Dutch that the striking of the flag was most thoroughly262 enforced, and one cannot but admire the patience and restraint they exhibited under great provocation263. The French and Swedes avoided giving the salute as much as they could. As the century wore on, the English exaction on this point grew more outrageous264. Foreign ships of war were forced to strike on their own coast even to our royal yachts, and the Hollanders were asked to strike not merely in the British seas, but wherever they were encountered. To the old sea-dogs all seas were “British” where their fleets were strongest.
点击收听单词发音
1 reign | |
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 negotiation | |
n.谈判,协商 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 negotiations | |
协商( negotiation的名词复数 ); 谈判; 完成(难事); 通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 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: |
|
|
5 isle | |
n.小岛,岛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 isles | |
岛( isle的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 omissions | |
n.省略( omission的名词复数 );删节;遗漏;略去或漏掉的事(或人) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 strenuous | |
adj.奋发的,使劲的;紧张的;热烈的,狂热的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 privy | |
adj.私用的;隐密的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 craved | |
渴望,热望( crave的过去式 ); 恳求,请求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 crave | |
vt.渴望得到,迫切需要,恳求,请求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 confirmation | |
n.证实,确认,批准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 lodge | |
v.临时住宿,寄宿,寄存,容纳;n.传达室,小旅馆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 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: |
|
|
16 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 fig | |
n.无花果(树) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 indited | |
v.写(文章,信等)创作,赋诗,创作( indite的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 expatiated | |
v.详述,细说( expatiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 bullion | |
n.金条,银条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 levy | |
n.征收税或其他款项,征收额 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 contention | |
n.争论,争辩,论战;论点,主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 exempt | |
adj.免除的;v.使免除;n.免税者,被免除义务者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 evaded | |
逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 ); 避开; 回避; 想不出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 vessel | |
n.船舶;容器,器皿;管,导管,血管 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 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: |
|
|
27 specially | |
adv.特定地;特殊地;明确地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 majesty | |
n.雄伟,壮丽,庄严,威严;最高权威,王权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 procure | |
vt.获得,取得,促成;vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 authentic | |
a.真的,真正的;可靠的,可信的,有根据的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 inspection | |
n.检查,审查,检阅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 offhand | |
adj.临时,无准备的;随便,马虎的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 remitted | |
v.免除(债务),宽恕( remit的过去式和过去分词 );使某事缓和;寄回,传送 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 supplication | |
n.恳求,祈愿,哀求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 exaction | |
n.强求,强征;杂税 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 retaliatory | |
adj.报复的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 resentment | |
n.怨愤,忿恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 intercourse | |
n.性交;交流,交往,交际 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 convoy | |
vt.护送,护卫,护航;n.护送;护送队 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 payable | |
adj.可付的,应付的,有利益的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 detailed | |
adj.详细的,详尽的,极注意细节的,完全的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 cod | |
n.鳕鱼;v.愚弄;哄骗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 toll | |
n.过路(桥)费;损失,伤亡人数;v.敲(钟) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 contented | |
adj.满意的,安心的,知足的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 proceedings | |
n.进程,过程,议程;诉讼(程序);公报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 proceeding | |
n.行动,进行,(pl.)会议录,学报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 promptly | |
adv.及时地,敏捷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 exchequer | |
n.财政部;国库 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 irate | |
adj.发怒的,生气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 disquiet | |
n.担心,焦虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 precedent | |
n.先例,前例;惯例;adj.在前的,在先的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 pending | |
prep.直到,等待…期间;adj.待定的;迫近的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 abrupt | |
adj.突然的,意外的;唐突的,鲁莽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 professed | |
公开声称的,伪称的,已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 meek | |
adj.温顺的,逆来顺受的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 affront | |
n./v.侮辱,触怒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 reprisal | |
n.报复,报仇,报复性劫掠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 insolence | |
n.傲慢;无礼;厚颜;傲慢的态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 redress | |
n.赔偿,救济,矫正;v.纠正,匡正,革除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 outrage | |
n.暴行,侮辱,愤怒;vt.凌辱,激怒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 liberated | |
a.无拘束的,放纵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 magistrates | |
地方法官,治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 profuse | |
adj.很多的,大量的,极其丰富的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 precipitate | |
adj.突如其来的;vt.使突然发生;n.沉淀物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 offender | |
n.冒犯者,违反者,犯罪者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 offenders | |
n.冒犯者( offender的名词复数 );犯规者;罪犯;妨害…的人(或事物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 obdurate | |
adj.固执的,顽固的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 rebuke | |
v.指责,非难,斥责 [反]praise | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 rebuked | |
责难或指责( rebuke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 severely | |
adv.严格地;严厉地;非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 mare | |
n.母马,母驴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 rupture | |
n.破裂;(关系的)决裂;v.(使)破裂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 kenning | |
n.比喻的复合辞v.知道( ken的现在分词 );懂得;看到;认出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 dominions | |
统治权( dominion的名词复数 ); 领土; 疆土; 版图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 dominion | |
n.统治,管辖,支配权;领土,版图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 license | |
n.执照,许可证,特许;v.许可,特许 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 oversight | |
n.勘漏,失察,疏忽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 confiscation | |
n. 没收, 充公, 征收 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 creeks | |
n.小湾( creek的名词复数 );小港;小河;小溪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 seamen | |
n.海员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 ascertain | |
vt.发现,确定,查明,弄清 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 outrages | |
引起…的义愤,激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 prosecution | |
n.起诉,告发,检举,执行,经营 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 defiance | |
n.挑战,挑衅,蔑视,违抗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 impartial | |
adj.(in,to)公正的,无偏见的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 perusal | |
n.细读,熟读;目测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 ashore | |
adv.在(向)岸上,上岸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 slaying | |
杀戮。 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 proprietors | |
n.所有人,业主( proprietor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 eminence | |
n.卓越,显赫;高地,高处;名家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 impoverished | |
adj.穷困的,无力的,用尽了的v.使(某人)贫穷( impoverish的过去式和过去分词 );使(某物)贫瘠或恶化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 dispersed | |
adj. 被驱散的, 被分散的, 散布的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 tardy | |
adj.缓慢的,迟缓的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 binning | |
n.装箱,进仓v.扔掉,丢弃( bin的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 humble | |
adj.谦卑的,恭顺的;地位低下的;v.降低,贬低 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 usurpation | |
n.篡位;霸占 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 interfering | |
adj. 妨碍的 动词interfere的现在分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 enjoined | |
v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 apprehend | |
vt.理解,领悟,逮捕,拘捕,忧虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 predecessor | |
n.前辈,前任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 potentate | |
n.统治者;君主 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 pretension | |
n.要求;自命,自称;自负 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 procured | |
v.(努力)取得, (设法)获得( procure的过去式和过去分词 );拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 notary | |
n.公证人,公证员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 despatch | |
n./v.(dispatch)派遣;发送;n.急件;新闻报道 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 mooted | |
adj.未决定的,有争议的,有疑问的v.提出…供讨论( moot的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 allusion | |
n.暗示,间接提示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 controversy | |
n.争论,辩论,争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 thither | |
adv.向那里;adj.在那边的,对岸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 despoiled | |
v.掠夺,抢劫( despoil的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 pertain | |
v.(to)附属,从属;关于;有关;适合,相称 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 maritime | |
adj.海的,海事的,航海的,近海的,沿海的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 vindicate | |
v.为…辩护或辩解,辩明;证明…正确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 diplomacy | |
n.外交;外交手腕,交际手腕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 navigate | |
v.航行,飞行;导航,领航 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 molestation | |
n.骚扰,干扰,调戏;折磨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 assailed | |
v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 );困扰;质问;毅然应对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 reprisals | |
n.报复(行为)( reprisal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 killing | |
n.巨额利润;突然赚大钱,发大财 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 inflicted | |
把…强加给,使承受,遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 harass | |
vt.使烦恼,折磨,骚扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 harassing | |
v.侵扰,骚扰( harass的现在分词 );不断攻击(敌人) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 procrastinate | |
v.耽搁,拖延 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 minatory | |
adj.威胁的;恫吓的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 insistence | |
n.坚持;强调;坚决主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 exhortations | |
n.敦促( exhortation的名词复数 );极力推荐;(正式的)演讲;(宗教仪式中的)劝诫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 opportune | |
adj.合适的,适当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 scattering | |
n.[物]散射;散乱,分散;在媒介质中的散播adj.散乱的;分散在不同范围的;广泛扩散的;(选票)数量分散的v.散射(scatter的ing形式);散布;驱散 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 immunities | |
免除,豁免( immunity的名词复数 ); 免疫力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 progenitors | |
n.祖先( progenitor的名词复数 );先驱;前辈;原本 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 derive | |
v.取得;导出;引申;来自;源自;出自 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 amity | |
n.友好关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 pertaining | |
与…有关系的,附属…的,为…固有的(to) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 precedents | |
引用单元; 范例( precedent的名词复数 ); 先前出现的事例; 前例; 先例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 chancellors | |
大臣( chancellor的名词复数 ); (某些美国大学的)校长; (德国或奥地利的)总理; (英国大学的)名誉校长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 paramount | |
a.最重要的,最高权力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 conceal | |
v.隐藏,隐瞒,隐蔽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 astonishment | |
n.惊奇,惊异 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 exclusion | |
n.拒绝,排除,排斥,远足,远途旅行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 perplexed | |
adj.不知所措的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 envoys | |
使节( envoy的名词复数 ); 公使; 谈判代表; 使节身份 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 livelihood | |
n.生计,谋生之道 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 propriety | |
n.正当行为;正当;适当 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 extremities | |
n.端点( extremity的名词复数 );尽头;手和足;极窘迫的境地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 extravagant | |
adj.奢侈的;过分的;(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 discourses | |
论文( discourse的名词复数 ); 演说; 讲道; 话语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 sweeping | |
adj.范围广大的,一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 flouting | |
v.藐视,轻视( flout的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 harangue | |
n.慷慨冗长的训话,言辞激烈的讲话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 monarch | |
n.帝王,君主,最高统治者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 extremity | |
n.末端,尽头;尽力;终极;极度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 hesitation | |
n.犹豫,踌躇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 allied | |
adj.协约国的;同盟国的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 overthrow | |
v.推翻,打倒,颠覆;n.推翻,瓦解,颠覆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 faltering | |
犹豫的,支吾的,蹒跚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 equitable | |
adj.公平的;公正的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 appeased | |
安抚,抚慰( appease的过去式和过去分词 ); 绥靖(满足另一国的要求以避免战争) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 undertaking | |
n.保证,许诺,事业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 embodied | |
v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 );象征;包括;包含 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 cumbersome | |
adj.笨重的,不便携带的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 depredations | |
n.劫掠,毁坏( depredation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 divers | |
adj.不同的;种种的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 imperative | |
n.命令,需要;规则;祈使语气;adj.强制的;紧急的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 discreet | |
adj.(言行)谨慎的;慎重的;有判断力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 negligence | |
n.疏忽,玩忽,粗心大意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 zeal | |
n.热心,热情,热忱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 considerably | |
adv.极大地;相当大地;在很大程度上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 computed | |
adj.[医]计算的,使用计算机的v.计算,估算( compute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 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: |
|
|
184 sterling | |
adj.英币的(纯粹的,货真价实的);n.英国货币(英镑) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 valid | |
adj.有确实根据的;有效的;正当的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 previously | |
adv.以前,先前(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 convoys | |
n.(有护航的)船队( convoy的名词复数 );车队;护航(队);护送队 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 modesty | |
n.谦逊,虚心,端庄,稳重,羞怯,朴素 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 discretion | |
n.谨慎;随意处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 specified | |
adj.特定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 munitions | |
n.军火,弹药;v.供应…军需品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 ordinance | |
n.法令;条令;条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 penurious | |
adj.贫困的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 redeem | |
v.买回,赎回,挽回,恢复,履行(诺言等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 alleging | |
断言,宣称,辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 seaport | |
n.海港,港口,港市 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 stiffened | |
加强的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 haggle | |
vi.讨价还价,争论不休 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 intensified | |
v.(使)增强, (使)加剧( intensify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 impending | |
a.imminent, about to come or happen | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 hereditary | |
adj.遗传的,遗传性的,可继承的,世袭的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 goodwill | |
n.善意,亲善,信誉,声誉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 truce | |
n.休战,(争执,烦恼等的)缓和;v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 derived | |
vi.起源;由来;衍生;导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 seizure | |
n.没收;占有;抵押 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 foe | |
n.敌人,仇敌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 disclaiming | |
v.否认( disclaim的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 lapse | |
n.过失,流逝,失效,抛弃信仰,间隔;vi.堕落,停止,失效,流逝;vt.使失效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 evasions | |
逃避( evasion的名词复数 ); 回避; 遁辞; 借口 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 lessen | |
vt.减少,减轻;缩小 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 broached | |
v.谈起( broach的过去式和过去分词 );打开并开始用;用凿子扩大(或修光);(在桶上)钻孔取液体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 peevishly | |
adv.暴躁地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 leeches | |
n.水蛭( leech的名词复数 );蚂蟥;榨取他人脂膏者;医生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 favourable | |
adj.赞成的,称赞的,有利的,良好的,顺利的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 irritation | |
n.激怒,恼怒,生气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 prudent | |
adj.谨慎的,有远见的,精打细算的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 motive | |
n.动机,目的;adv.发动的,运动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 revival | |
n.复兴,复苏,(精力、活力等的)重振 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 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: |
|
|
222 sundry | |
adj.各式各样的,种种的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 ordnance | |
n.大炮,军械 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 propound | |
v.提出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 curtly | |
adv.简短地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 lesser | |
adj.次要的,较小的;adv.较小地,较少地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 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: |
|
|
228 taxation | |
n.征税,税收,税金 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 defensive | |
adj.防御的;防卫的;防守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 pretences | |
n.假装( pretence的名词复数 );作假;自命;自称 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 dilatory | |
adj.迟缓的,不慌不忙的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 supremacy | |
n.至上;至高权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 salute | |
vi.行礼,致意,问候,放礼炮;vt.向…致意,迎接,赞扬;n.招呼,敬礼,礼炮 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 homage | |
n.尊敬,敬意,崇敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 vigour | |
(=vigor)n.智力,体力,精力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 arrogance | |
n.傲慢,自大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 prerogative | |
n.特权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 lasting | |
adj.永久的,永恒的;vbl.持续,维持 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 punctilious | |
adj.谨慎的,谨小慎微的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 retinue | |
n.侍从;随员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 warship | |
n.军舰,战舰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 brook | |
n.小河,溪;v.忍受,容让 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 imputed | |
v.把(错误等)归咎于( impute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 esteem | |
n.尊敬,尊重;vt.尊重,敬重;把…看作 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 demurred | |
v.表示异议,反对( demur的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 formerly | |
adv.从前,以前 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 behold | |
v.看,注视,看到 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 naval | |
adj.海军的,军舰的,船的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 galleons | |
n.大型帆船( galleon的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 etiquette | |
n.礼仪,礼节;规矩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 varied | |
adj.多样的,多变化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 parley | |
n.谈判 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 interval | |
n.间隔,间距;幕间休息,中场休息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 gunpowder | |
n.火药 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 expended | |
v.花费( expend的过去式和过去分词 );使用(钱等)做某事;用光;耗尽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 jurisdiction | |
n.司法权,审判权,管辖权,控制权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 relic | |
n.神圣的遗物,遗迹,纪念物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 alluded | |
提及,暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 hoist | |
n.升高,起重机,推动;v.升起,升高,举起 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 curb | |
n.场外证券市场,场外交易;vt.制止,抑制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 thoroughly | |
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 provocation | |
n.激怒,刺激,挑拨,挑衅的事物,激怒的原因 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 outrageous | |
adj.无理的,令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |