THE PARLIAMENT, THE COMMONWEALTH1, AND THE PROTECTORATE.
THE FIRST DUTCH WAR.
On the 3rd November 1640 the Long Parliament commenced its sittings at Westminster, and within two years thereafter—on 22nd August 1642—Charles raised the royal standard at Nottingham, and initiated2 the great Civil War. During the period of strife3 little was heard of the claim to the sovereignty of the sea, although the Parliament continued to issue the usual instructions to the naval5 commanders to compel homage6 to the flag. But under the Commonwealth and Protectorate the English pretensions7 were carried to as high a pitch as ever they were under the Stuarts. The stern men who then guided the destinies of England were as jealous of the symbols of the nation’s greatness as had been the vacillating king they destroyed. In particular, the salutation of the flag was enforced with great vigour9. A dispute on the point between Tromp and Blake occasioned the first Dutch war, and the result proved to the world that after all England possessed10 the actual dominion11 of the sea by reason of her naval power. In the negotiations12 with the Dutch which preceded the treaty of peace, we shall find that Cromwell put in the forefront of his conditions the recognition of England’s right to the herring fishery, and to the striking of the flag within the British seas.
At first, as might have been expected from the actions of the king with regard to the ship-money collections, little sympathy was shown by the Parliament for the claim to 379 the sovereignty of the sea. The necessity of maintaining that sovereignty had always been put forward as a principal argument for levying13 the money, and on that ground it was objectionable to many of those opposed to the king. In a work said to have been presented to the Parliament at its first meeting, forcible opinions were expressed against the pretension8. It was doubtful, it was said, whether the sea really belonged to the crown, as the king claimed. Even if it did, it was not apparent that the fate of the land depended upon the dominion of the sea. That dominion might be considered as a right, an honour, or a profit. As a right it was a theme “fitter for scholars to fret14 their wits upon than for Christians15 to fight and spill blood about”; as an honour, by making others strike sails to our ships as they passed, it was “a glory fitter for women and children to wonder at than for statesmen to contend about”; as a matter of profit, to fence and enclose the sea, it was of moment, but not more to us than to other nations: by too insolent16 contentions17 about it we might provoke God and dishonour18 ourselves, and rather incense19 our friends than quell20 our enemies.680 If such sentiments reflected the feeling of the Parliament at the beginning of their labours, they were not of long duration. Within a few years a change was wrought21, which was probably in large measure due to the part taken by the fleet in the struggle with the king, as well as to the abiding22 spirit of the people for predominant power on the sea.
From an early stage in the conflict the control of the fleet passed into the hands of the Parliament. In the summer of 1642, when the Earl of Northumberland, the Lord High Admiral, was laid aside by illness, the Parliament succeeded, with his connivance23 and assistance, in placing the Earl of Warwick in actual command; Sir John Pennington, the nominee24 of Charles, having to stand aside.681 Under the management of its new masters the navy rapidly became a powerful and efficient instrument for the defence of the 380 realm, as was shown at the opening of the Dutch war. The general instructions given by the Parliament to its naval officers respecting the honour of the flag and the sovereignty of the sea were almost identical with those which had been issued to the Earls of Lindsey and Northumberland, but the phraseology was sometimes a little varied25. On 5th April 1643 the Parliament, in view of the attempt organised by Queen Henrietta Maria to smuggle26 into England military supplies from the Netherlands for the use of the royalists, ordered the Earl of Warwick, if he met with “any foreign forces, ships, or vessels27, as Spaniards, French, Danes, Dunkirkers, or any other whatsoever29, making towards the coasts of England, Ireland, or any other of his Majesty’s dominions,” to command them, “according to the usual manner, to strike their flags or top-sails,” and cause them to be examined and searched for soldiers or munitions30 of war. If they refused to strike, he was “to compel them thereunto by force of arms and surprise, and to take all such ships and vessels, or otherwise to burn, sink, or destroy them.”682 In the following year the Committee for the Admiralty instructed Vice31-Admiral Batten, who was in command of the fleet, “upon all occasions, as you shall be able, to maintain the Kingdom’s sovereignty and regality in the seas.”683
In the spring of 1647, the Committee of the Admiralty, for some reason or other, appears to have devoted32 special attention to the question of the flag and the sovereignty of the sea. Collections were made from the Admiralty archives of precedents33 showing that all ships refusing to strike in English waters were to be reputed enemies, and were liable to forfeiture,—the examples beginning with the Ordinance34 of King John and ending with the instructions issued by Charles.684 These collections were probably made in connection with the instructions which the Committee drew up at this time for the guidance of the captains and officers of the navy, and which were essentially35 similar to those given 381 by Charles to his ship-money fleets. “It must be your principal care,” they ran, “to preserve the honour of this kingdom, and the coasts, jurisdictions37, territories, and subjects thereof, being in amity38 with the Parliament, and within the extent of your employment, as much as in you lieth; that no nation or people whatsoever intrude39 thereon or injure any of them. And if you chance to meet in any of the seas that are under the jurisdiction36 of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with any ships or fleets belonging to any foreign prince or state, you must expect that they, in acknowledgment of this kingdom’s sovereignty there, shall perform their duty and homage in passing by, in striking their top-sails and taking in their flags.” If they refused they were to be forced to do so in the usual way. It will be noticed that the region within which foreigners were to be compelled to strike was greatly extended by the Parliament. Up to and including the reign4 of James the “acknowledgment” was confined to the narrow seas, in which it had been exacted for centuries; Charles in 1635 ordered Lindsey to compel it “in his Majesty’s seas,” and now the Parliament extended it specifically to all the seas under the jurisdiction of England, Scotland, and Ireland. From a clause in the instructions it is clear that the seas over which the Parliament claimed sovereignty reached to the coasts of the Continent; but a territorial40 limit was excepted on foreign coasts. The clause in question enjoined41 the naval officers “to be very careful not to meddle42 with any ships within the harbours, or ports, or under the command of any of the castles of any foreign prince or state, or within any buoys43 (Buoyes) or rivers, that they may have no just cause of offence.” Another feature of these instructions is of interest. The clause which was inserted in the instructions to Lindsey and Northumberland in 1635, 1636, and 1637, commanding them to prevent all hostilities44 between men-of-war or merchant vessels in the presence of the king’s ships, was repeated.685 382 The Parliament clearly intended to abate45 no jot46 of the pretensions which had been put forward by the king.
An opportunity soon came for putting the instructions regarding the flag into force. In May of the same year a Swedish fleet of fifteen sail, consisting of ten merchantmen bound for the Mediterranean48 and five ships of war convoying them, was met by Captain Owen in the Henrietta Maria off the Isle50 of Wight. On being called upon to strike, the Swedes refused, declaring that they had been commanded by the Queen of Sweden “not to strike to any whatsoever.” Owen, reinforced by Batten, thereupon attacked them, the fight continuing till night. The Swedes suffered much loss; the colours of their vice-admiral and rear-admiral were shot away, a “great breach51” was made in the vice-admiral’s ship, and their vessels were captured and taken into Portsmouth. They were afterwards released, but the Admiralty Committee expressed the opinion that the proceedings53 of their officers “in order to the maintenance of the kingdom’s sovereignty at sea” were to be commended, and this resolution was reported to both Houses of Parliament.686 The question of the salute54 between ships of war of different nations had been brought to the front in most other maritime55 countries by the forcible measures taken by Charles in 1633 and later. Two years before the encounter with the Swedes in the Channel, Denmark and Sweden had regulated the ceremony, as affecting their own ships of war, in the treaty of peace then concluded between them.687
From this time until shortly before the war with the Dutch there is little to record about the claims to the dominion of the sea. In 1649, the instructions issued to Popham, Blake, and Dean, the commanders of the fleet, included the guarding of the North Sea and the mackerel-fishing, as well as the maintenance “of the sovereignty of the Commonwealth in the sea,” all in the prescribed form.688 In the following year the Council of State issued express commands to Blake on the subject when he was ordered to proceed against Prince Rupert and the revolted ships at Lisbon. The dominion of “these seas,” they said, had anciently and time out of mind belonged to the English 383 nation, and the ships of all other nations in acknowledgment of that dominion had been accustomed to take down their flags “upon sight” of the Admiral of England, and not to bear them in his presence. Blake was therefore, to the best of his powers, and “as he found himself and the fleet of strength and ability,” to do his utmost endeavours to preserve the dominion of the sea, and to cause the ships of all other nations to strike their flags and keep them in in his presence, and to compel such as were refractory56, by seizing their ships and sending them into port, to be punished according to the “laws of the sea,” unless they, submitted and made such reparation as he required. At the same time, although the dominion of the sea was so ancient and indubitable, and it concerned the honour and reputation of the nation to uphold it, Blake was not to imperil his fleet over it in the expedition on which he was employed. If he was opposed in the question of the flag by a force so considerable as to prove dangerous, he was not to press it, but to note who they were that refused, so that they might be forced to strike at some better opportunity.689
Such were the instructions of the Government to the English naval commanders, and they were soon to bear bitter fruit. At this period the Dutch men-of-war apparently57 did not show unwillingness58 to salute the English flag, even sometimes in distant seas. Penn notes in his journal, on 13th September 1651, that on meeting with the Dutch Admiral with his vice- and rear-admirals between Cape60 Trafalgar and Cape Sprat, they struck their flags to him and saluted61; but they then hoisted62 them, which would have been contrary to the custom in the narrow sea, and Penn thereupon called his captains together for advice, but they said the Dutch “had done enough.” A little later he records that young Tromp, convoying thirteen merchantmen, came into Gibraltar Road, where Penn was lying, with his flag in the main-top. The English Admiral, however, did nothing, since Tromp was in a port of the King of Spain. Shortly afterwards in the same place eight sail of Hollanders, four of which were men-of-war, all struck their flags and saluted the English fleet.690
The claims of England to the sovereignty of the seas were 384 now about to enter on a new phase, which culminated63 in the first Dutch war. So long as the ambitious and energetic Prince William II. of Orange was alive, the relations between the United Provinces and the Parliament were strained and menacing. The States-General, under Orange influence, refused to enter into diplomatic communication with the English Government, or to admit their ambassador, Strickland, to audience. The execution of Charles I. had raised strong feelings of reprobation64 and horror in the Netherlands, even amongst the Hollanders and Zealanders, who sympathised with the Puritans; and it was believed in England that the Prince of Orange was contemplating66 war against them for the restoration of his brother-in-law, Charles II., to the throne. The death of the Prince, on 27th October 1650, produced a great change. It was followed by a political revolution in the United Provinces, the chief outcome of which was the predominance of the States of Holland and of the party opposed to the Orange faction68, and most favourably69 inclined to maintain good relations with the English Commonwealth.691 It was therefore agreed at The Hague to send back Joachimi, who had been dismissed by the Parliament in the previous year, with credentials70 as ambassador from the States-General to the Parliament.
In London the accession to power of the republican party in the Netherlands had been watched with keen interest. The time, it was believed, was come for a close alliance between the two great Protestant Republics for safeguarding their religious and political liberties; perhaps, it was thought by some, for even a closer union than was implied in the strictest alliance known to diplomacy71. The Parliament accordingly lost no time in opening negotiations with the States-General. On 17th March, 1651, Lord Chief-Justice St John and Walter Strickland entered The Hague with great pomp and splendour as ambassadors from the Commonwealth, attended by an imposing72 retinue73 of 246 persons. They were greeted in the street with insulting cries from Orange partisans74 and royalist refugees. On the following days their suite75 only ventured abroad in parties, and with their rapiers in their hands. The 385 ambassadors themselves were openly jeered76 at, and threatened by Prince Edward, son of Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia; and though the States-General received them with ostentatious courtesy, and prompt measures were taken to suppress the disorders77 and insults, the conditions of their surroundings produced irritation78 and impatience79 in their minds, with important results in the sequel.692 The principal object of the Parliament was to make use of the Dutch Republic to help them to maintain the Commonwealth, and to resist any attempt to place Charles II. on the throne. In return they were willing to aid the Republic against the House of Orange or any other inclined to disturb it.
St John had with him two series of propositions,—one relating to a strict alliance and union; the other, private and never fully80 disclosed, included a novel scheme for the coalescence81 and fusion82 of the two states and peoples, on the lines propounded83 by the Council of State in the following year. He brought out his propositions one by one, requiring categorical acceptance of each before dealing84 with the next, the design being to lead step by step to the proposals for coalescence and fusion. His first proposition was in substance for “a more strict and intimate alliance and union” than any before, by which there might be “a more intrinsical and mutual85 interest of each in other” for the good of both.693 After some fencing and much hesitation86 and delay—the Dutch proferring a qualified87 acceptance, which the ambassadors rejected—a guarded assent88 was 386 given. St John, though not satisfied, thinking the “manner of penning the answer was dark and doubtful,” “determined to proceed into some further thing which might come nearer to make a discovery of their temper and inclination89 in point of their neutrality, than stay any longer upon general terms,” and he accordingly at the same meeting submitted another proposition requiring the confederation of the two states for the defence and preservation90 of the freedom and liberty of the people of each against all that might attempt to disturb them, or that were declared to be enemies to the freedom and liberty of the people living under either Government.694 The Dutch commissioners91, however, declared that this was a general proposition, and they insisted on a request they had made from the first, to be furnished with the “particulars”—they wanted the particulars, simul et semel, that were intended to be insisted upon.
The negotiations had been protracted92. By this time a month had elapsed since the ambassadors arrived, and St John, now conscious that his mission for coalescence would fail, and irritated by the indignities93 to which he had been subjected, obtained an order from the Parliament for his recall. At the urgent entreaty94 of the States of Holland the Parliament allowed their ambassadors to stay for other forty days, and also gave them authority to treat on the basis of the old Intercursus Magnus of 1496, which the Dutch had suddenly proposed. The States, in truth, had totally different aims from the Commonwealth. They were thinking about their commerce, their navigation, and their fisheries, rather than about the repression95 of “rebels”; and they desired that their alliance with England should confirm and extend the benefits conferred upon them in these respects by the old treaty. The Intercursus Magnus had for generations been the sheet-anchor of Dutch policy towards England. It gave them the utmost freedom of commercial intercourse96, and complete liberty of 387 fishing on the English coasts. But it contained other clauses appropriate in spirit to the political conditions of 1651. The treaty had been concluded by Henry VII. in the year in which apprehensions97 were entertained that Perkin Warbeck would effect a landing in England; it provided for mutual military aid against the enemies of either country, and the expulsion of rebels and fugitives98 from the territories of the other. St John naturally took the clauses embodying99 these stipulations as the basis of his new draft articles, which he submitted to the Dutch commissioners on 10th May. They were seven in number. The first required that the proposition made on 17th April for mutual defence of the freedom and liberty of each people should be an article of the treaty. The second provided that neither party should afford any aid or favour to any one whomsoever to the injury or prejudice of the other, but should expressly oppose “and really hinder all whomsoever,” abiding in either commonwealth or under its power, that should do or attempt anything against the other; and the remaining articles were of similar tenour, relating to “rebels” and enemies. They were, in short, political articles of the most comprehensive scope, aimed against the royalists; so comprehensive and thorough that the English Commonwealth might, by declaring the Prince of Orange himself its enemy, demand his expulsion from the Provinces.695 St John’s articles were by no means to the liking100 of the Dutch; and though he pointed101 out that they were “but a translation of the old treaty, only enlarged for the better assurance of performance,”—the treaty which they themselves had proposed as the basis for the new one,—they insisted on sending the articles to the various Provinces for their opinion. For a full month the English ambassadors waited without an answer to their articles—a delay which they believed was meant “to spin out the treaty until the Scotch102 mist was over” and the result of the struggle in Scotland apparent. But the Dutch, though slow, had not been idle. On 14th June, when 388 only four of the forty days allotted103 by the Parliament remained, the Dutch produced counter-proposals in the form of draft articles, thirty-six in number, which were paraphrased104 from the Intercursus Magnus, the treaty with King James VI. of Scotland in 1594, the treaty of Southampton with Charles in 1625, and the marine105 treaty with Spain in 1650.
These articles had been submitted by Holland to the convocation of the States-General on 15th May, and were under the consideration of the provincial106 states for nearly a month. They provided for a “perpetual friendship, unity47, correspondence, and a further and nearer alliance, confederation, and union” against all who should attempt anything derogatory to the liberties of the two peoples, their commerce, and common interests; mutual defence and mutual assistance with men and ships against “notorious or known” enemies of the other, and the prohibition107 of assisting rebels. But there was no article under which the royalists could be expelled from the United Provinces, or which prevented the House of Orange from aiding or harbouring declared rebels of England; and it was expressly stipulated108 that the States should in no way be drawn109 into the disputes and war between Scotland and the Parliament. Having thus whittled110 down the proposals of the Parliament for a close alliance directed against the royalists, the Dutch propounded a whole series of articles providing for the freest commercial intercourse between the two countries, for freedom of navigation and of fishing. The trade to Virginia and the Caribbean Islands, which had been closed by the Parliament, was to be thrown open to both nations; ships were to be free to anchor without seizure111 of goods; the subjects of one state were not to be taxed higher in the territories of the other than the natives, and they were to be free to carry on their business or profession with the same liberty. A number of articles dealt with questions relative to the sovereignty of the seas, in such a way as to show clearly that the design of the Dutch was to render harmless a pretension which had caused them so much trouble. They had not forgotten the declarations of Charles sixteen years before, or the forceful operations of Northumberland against their herring-busses. With regard to fishing, they wished the subjects of either state to be at liberty to go to any part of the sea to fish for herrings and all other kinds 389 of fish, great or small, without any license112 or pass being required. If the fishermen were forced by storms, pirates, enemies, or any other cause, to go to land, they desired that they should be courteously113 received and well treated in the ports of either country, and permitted to depart with their ships and cargoes114, and if they had not broken their cargoes, without paying any customs or dues.696 These stipulations paraphrased corresponding provisions in the Intercursus Magnus, and rather more favourably to the Dutch. If they had been accepted, they would have destroyed the English policy which had been pursued, though fitfully, from 1609 to the outbreak of the Civil War, of requiring foreigners to pay tribute and take out licenses116 for fishing on the British coasts.
Some of the other articles proposed by the Dutch were directed against the claims put forward in Selden’s Mare117 Clausum, and by Charles himself, to a special dominion and jurisdiction of England in the surrounding seas. If the freedom of commerce and navigation was to be assured, it would be necessary, it was said, for both countries to equip fleets to secure the safety and liberty of the subjects of both, to purge118 the sea of pirates and sea-rovers, and to preserve the security of commerce and of fishing. The proposition was that each state should set forth119 a fleet yearly, its strength to be fixed120 by mutual agreement, and the ocean as well as the North Sea and the Mediterranean, with their straits and channels, were to be patrolled by the two fleets, each under its own admiral and flag. This was in effect asking the Commonwealth not only for equality of sovereignty on the sea, but for the assistance of England in protecting the immense commerce and shipping121 of the United Provinces. They desired that each nation should shield and defend the merchant vessels of the other, and help to recover them if taken by an enemy.
Among other proposals were that men-of-war, but only in small numbers, should be allowed freely into the ports and havens122 of the other, and were not to be subjected to visitation and search, the showing of the commission to be sufficient; and that no sea-rovers were to be tolerated in harbours, and no 390 ships with letters of marque allowed to leave without first providing security that they would not exceed their commissions. One of the provisions went much further, and seems to smack123 of Dutch humour, when we think of the action of James and Charles. For the sake of liberty, both peoples were to use their fleets, not only against pirates, but against all and sundry124, whomsoever they might be, who should attempt to molest125, hinder, or—“against the right of all peoples”—impose exactions on their commerce, navigation, or their fishery. In such an event, if amicable126 remonstrances127 failed, the whole sea forces of each nation were to attack the depredators and wage war against them until complete satisfaction had been obtained.697
So resolved were the Dutch to have a general clearing-up with England on all points concerning the sovereignty of the sea, that they at first proposed to insert among their draft articles one relating to the striking of the flag and similar ceremonies, which frequently gave rise to differences. The States-General, however, considered the matter “too delicate” to be raised at that time, and the article was not inserted.698 Two or three months before this, as elsewhere mentioned (p. 398), the question of striking the flag to the English had been raised and debated in the States-General in connection with Tromp’s expedition to the Scilly Islands.
With the foregoing proposals before him, it is not to be wondered at that St John was dissatisfied, and longed more than ever to get away from The Hague. The Commonwealth had asked for a strict and close alliance at the very least, for the security of religious and political liberty and the common interests of both Republics, but in reality and above all for aid against the royalists. The Dutch also desired security for liberty, but it was chiefly for the liberty of commerce, navigation, and fishing; and they were anxious, if they could, to get rid of the troublesome English pretension to a sovereignty of the sea. The proposals of the two sides were incompatible128, and St John left The Hague a few days 391 later with the unuttered plan for the fusion of the nations in his pocket and with bitterness in his heart. His disappointment was to cost the Dutch dear. Within a few months of his return the Navigation Act was passed, mainly by his impulse, and it dealt a serious blow to the commerce of the United Provinces.699 It was the retort of the English Commonwealth to the rebuff of the States. If the Dutch put their commerce and fisheries above everything else, the Parliament would show them how they could injure them and at the same time foster English shipping and fisheries.
But much more than the Navigation Act, some other proceedings of the Parliament increased the tension between the two countries. In November they renewed certain letters of reprisal129 against the Dutch, under which a few of their vessels were captured. More serious were the actions of English men-of-war and of some privateers who held letters of reprisal against the French. An informal maritime war with France began in 1649 and continued till 1655, and though there was nominally130 peace, the English captured French vessels, and vice versa. They then began to seize Dutch ships, suspected of having French goods on board, and brought them into English ports for trial in the Admiralty Court. This was an interference with freedom of commerce which the States could not tolerate, and an embassy to England, which had been decided132 upon after St John left The Hague, was despatched thither133.700 The three ambassadors, Cats, Schaep, and van de Perre, arrived in London on 15th December 1651. 392 They were instructed to renew negotiations for a treaty on the basis of the thirty-six articles, to endeavour to get the Navigation Act repealed134, the captured vessels released, and the letters of reprisal withdrawn135, with compensation for the losses suffered by reason of them. The question of adding another article to their instructions, about the striking of the flag, which had been omitted from the thirty-six articles, had again been considered. But, for the same reason as before, it was withheld136. “The carrying or striking of the flags by the one side or the other” was judged to be “very delicate”; and it was decided (on 10th November 1651) that the States-General should deliberate further on the matter, and send later to the ambassadors such instructions “as should be found suitable for the removal of misunderstandings and hostilities.”701 We thus see that in 1651 the Government of the United Provinces was fully alive to the risks and difficulties about the flag. But from their proceedings at this time it would seem that they were unwilling59 to acknowledge unreservedly the claim of the Commonwealth to the salute, which was looked upon as a symbol of England’s sovereignty of the sea. The question was only rendered “delicate” because of certain qualifications and conditions of reciprocity which they desired to attach to it, and for which they struggled hard with Cromwell during the subsequent negotiations for peace.
The ambassadors had an audience with the Parliament on 19th December,—Cats treating the members to a long and flowery oration67 in Latin,—and with the Council of State on 1st January 1652; but it was not until the 16th that commissioners were appointed to deal with them. The English commissioners702 showed no anxiety to facilitate the negotiations. The spirit with which they were animated138 was evident from their eagerness to bring forward all imaginable reasons for dispute,—the interest taken by the Dutch in the fate of Charles I.; the partiality of some of their ambassadors at foreign Courts; their refusal to receive Strickland; and so forth. In the end, the Dutch ambassadors failed to get what they wanted. The English refused to cancel or modify the Navigation Act, to release the captured ships before the cases 393 had been tried in the Admiralty Court, or to make reparation. They suspended the letters of direct reprisal against the Dutch, but not those against the French, which were by far the more important.
It was felt in Holland that such interference with their trade could not be endured. There were loud complaints about the seizure of the ships, and the opinion was growing in the Netherlands that it was the intention of the Commonwealth to force a war upon them. As a precautionary measure the States-General decided on 22nd February to add 150 ships to the existing fleet, “for the security of the sea and the preservation of the shipping and commerce of the United Provinces”; and the ambassadors were requested to inform the English Council of their intention, which was done on 5th March, with the explanation that it was not with the object of doing the slightest harm to any nation, and least of all to England, that the increase in the fleet was to be made, but only to preserve their freedom of navigation.703 As this extraordinary addition to the navy of the Dutch Republic would raise it to the formidable number of 226 ships, it is not surprising that the proceeding52 was viewed in England as a preparation for war. The Council, on their part, put forward a series of more or less provoking claims. They demanded reparation for wrongs and losses suffered by the English at the hands of the Dutch at “Greenland” in 1618, in the East Indies since 1619, and at Brazil; and they complained of various other wrongs and affronts139 they had suffered. But pending141 an answer from the States-General to their complaints and requests, they agreed, on 3rd May, to discuss with the ambassadors the thirty-six articles.
These articles had been previously142 considered by the Council of State, which had prepared a commentary on them; and now both documents were taken up together. On the proposals concerning the sovereignty of the sea many differences arose. With regard to the right of the English to visit and search vessels, men-of-war as well as merchantmen, the ambassadors referred to the edicts of the States forbidding warships143 to take merchandise on board, and to the certificates of their Admiralty to the same effect; but it was argued on the other side that 394 these measures had not stopped the abuse, and that the visitation was not prejudicial; and no agreement on this clause was reached. The commentary of the Council on the fishery article (see p. 388) was that, saving and asserting the right of the Commonwealth, they would be willing to proceed to such an agreement as should be found fit and reasonable; while the Dutch took their stand on the provision in the Intercursus Magnus, and urged that it would be unjust to deviate144 from an agreement which had endured for a century and a half. It was admitted by the English commissioners that the treaty gave liberty of fishing, but they asserted that long before the time of Henry VII. the right to the fisheries and to the sovereignty of the sea belonged to England. It had, moreover, been impeached145 by succeeding kings and especially by James, to whom, as King of Scotland, the right to the fishery pertained147; while after the union of the crowns he pursued the same policy as King of England, and now that Scotland had been brought under the dominion of the English Republic, it was thought that the best course was to make a new treaty about the fisheries.704 The ambassadors could obtain no definite information as to the nature of the treaty proposed, but it would not be difficult for them to comprehend its general tenour, for they had to listen to the recital148 of the “evidences” that England had constantly made use of her rights in the fishery, and of the care she had always exercised as to the sovereignty of the sea. The Dutch endeavoured to avoid mixing up these two questions, pleading that the fishery concerned the lives of a multitude of poor fishermen; but the commissioners retorted that it was a very valuable industry, the right to which belonged to England, and this, they said, had been acknowledged by neighbouring nations paying taxes for liberty to fish in their seas, adding that all peoples had been accustomed to recognise in them the masters of the sea by striking the flag to them, and that the Dutch themselves had earlier instructed their naval officers to salute English ships “cum debita reverentia,” and it was also expressly ordered in the commissions issued by Prince William and Maurice. From 395 the language of the English commissioners, it appears probable that they were acquainted with the proceedings of the States-General as to the proposed article on the striking of the flag, and with the debates in the previous year concerning Tromp’s instructions (see p. 398). The negotiations on the fishery question were not carried further at this stage.
With regard to the article relating to the equipment of a fleet by each nation for the protection of commerce, the commentary of the Council of State was that “the Commonwealth of England shall take such care for the guard of their seas and defence of the freedom of trade and commerce therein as shall be fit”; and with respect to the next, which stipulated that both countries should protect commerce and fisheries from molestation149 or impositions, the reply was equally uncompromising. “If any person,” it was said, “shall, within those seas, trouble, hinder, or unlawfully burthen any in the exercise of that freedom of trade which belongs of right unto them, this Commonwealth will use all means just and honourable152 to restore and preserve freedom to all lawful151 commerce in those seas as aforesaid.”705 The meaning of this language was unmistakable. The Commonwealth intended to adhere to the old claim to the dominion of the seas, which had been revived by Charles. And this exclusive sovereign jurisdiction, it was explained, would be of advantage to the Dutch, since they would bear no part of the cost; they must be content with freedom of navigation and commerce, and leave to the English the duty of maintaining the security of “their seas.” On inquiring what means the Commonwealth proposed to take for this purpose, the ambassadors were told that the intention of the Council was “to defend the sea in their own right,” and that any further explanation would be given by the Council if they applied153 to it.
At this stage of the proceedings William Nieuport, a member of the States-General, came to London with fresh instructions for the ambassadors. That body had been considering the English demands for reparation, above alluded154 to, and also the commentary of the Council on the thirty-six articles; but the refusal to liberate137 the captured ships, or to stop the operations of privateers against Dutch vessels, made them obdurate155. The 396 ambassadors were now told to insist on the articles relating to visitation and search as an essential part of the treaty. No Dutch vessel28 was to be visited, whether it was on the sea, in harbour, or in a roadstead. The principle of “free ship, free goods,” was to be strictly156 enforced, and no investigation157 of the cargo115 of a merchant vessel was to be permitted; still less should they agree to the visitation of a man-of-war. The ambassadors were specially146 requested to avoid discussion as to any claim on the part of England to exclusive right in any portion of the sea; in any case, they were not to admit that such right existed, but were to treat only about the liberty and security of the fishery on both sides.706 If the English protested that they would not allow themselves to be prejudiced in any of their “pretended rights,” the ambassadors were then to make a formal declaration that they, on their part, could not allow the freedom of navigation and of fishery, or the free use of the sea, to be called in question, nor could they recognise the special claims of any one over the sea which might prejudice those rights. In order to avoid, if possible, directly raising the question of the dominion of the sea, they were requested when dealing with the crucial articles to speak only of commerce and fishery, and not of the “purging” of the sea of pirates; and they were also to abandon the proposal for a division of the sea into districts.707
So passed, peacefully enough, the early weeks of May at the conferences in London. The States’ ambassadors, on the one hand, demanding freedom of navigation and fishery; above all, that the visitation and seizure of their vessels should cease. The English commissioners, on their part, putting forward incompatible claims to the sovereignty of the British seas: the right of exclusive jurisdiction, of guardianship158, the right to the fishery. Whether the negotiations would have reached a happy conclusion, as the ambassadors, and apparently also the States-General, believed they would, may only 397 be conjectured159. For an event of momentous160 importance now occurred which swept their labours away and embroiled161 the two nations in war. On the 19th May, at the very moment when the Dutch ambassadors were conveying their new instructions to the English commissioners, Tromp and Blake were engaged in furious battle in the Straits of Dover about that very matter which the States-General had found to be “so delicate”—the striking of the flag. The long-impending struggle engendered162 by years of mutual jealousy163 and commercial rivalry164 had now come suddenly. The claim of England to the sovereignty of the sea was to be decided, in the words of Sir Philip Meadows, by a longer weapon than a pen.
Tromp had put to sea early in May, 1652, with a fleet of forty-two sail, and bearing instructions to prevent the searching of Dutch merchantmen, to protect them against any who interfered165 with them, and to free them, by force if necessary, if they were captured. He was further told to refrain as far as possible from going on the English coast.708 On one important point his instructions were defective166. He received no definite orders as to how he should act if the fleet of the Commonwealth called upon him to strike his flag. The subject of the salute had been much discussed in the Netherlands, and an opinion was widely held that while their ships would suffer no loss of dignity in striking to a fleet belonging to a crowned head, it was doubtful whether the same homage should be rendered to the ships of a republic like themselves. The question had been definitely raised and fully discussed early in the previous year in connection with Tromp’s expedition 398 to the Scilly Isles167, in view of the likelihood of his falling in with the English fleet,—its consideration, indeed, delayed his departure,—but the Government hesitated in coming to a decision, and a general wish was expressed to hear Tromp’s own opinion first. He accordingly prepared a memorandum168 describing what the States’ ships had done in the past. He said that whenever their men-of-war met at sea a ship of the King of England carrying the flag of an admiral, vice-admiral, or rear-admiral, they struck their admiral’s flag, lowered top-sails, and fired nine, seven, or five guns, the English answering with a like number, and the States’ flag remained struck until the ships separated, when three or one adieu-shots were fired, and the flag was then hoisted. On meeting a single king’s ship, he said, they did not strike their flag, but only exchanged guns; but it sometimes happened that an English ship of little power tried to compel them to strike, out of pride (“uyt hooghmoet”), but when they fired back and showed their teeth, and the English ship found it had not power to force them, it went on its way with derision; in such cases striking was a matter of discretion169. When they entered a harbour or came before a castle they fired a salute, which was returned; the flag was taken in and a pennant170 run up in its place, and kept flying so long as they were there, particularly if a king’s ship, carrying the king’s flag, was present. If no king’s ship was present, the governor sometimes gave his permission, out of courtesy, for the admiral to wear his flag until his departure, when it was again struck and a salute exchanged.709
The substance of Tromp’s report was communicated to the States of Holland by De Witt on 1st/11th March 1651, stress apparently being laid on the point that it had been the custom in 399 earlier times for the States’ ships, “particularly when they were weakest,”710 to salute with guns and strike their flag on meeting the English fleet.711 The Government, however, thought that the conditions had changed; but they failed to give the admiral definite directions one way or the other as to how he should act if he met the fleet of the Parliament. He was merely told in general terms that he must so manage matters, if he met with the English fleet, that the state should suffer no affront140 (“geen cleynicheyt”),—a decision which left everything to his own discretion. There was the more risk in this course as the English at this time were said to be jealous of Tromp, owing to his reluctance171 to strike his flag to them.712
Later in the same year, the question was again raised by Vice-Admiral Jan Evertsen, who was placed in command of a squadron to cruise between Cape Ortegal, the Scillies, and Ushant. Before his departure he endeavoured to obtain precise orders as to how he should comport172 himself if called upon to strike, so that no “inconvenience” might be caused. The States thereupon merely renewed the instructions they had given to Tromp in March, and they ordered that copies of Tromp’s memorandum should be distributed to the other commanders.713
No further directions on the matter were given to Tromp when he took command of the fleet in 1652, though it ought to have been evident to the States that in the delicate position of affairs with England, and from the nature of the duties they had laid upon their admiral, the risk of misunderstanding and collision with the English fleet was great and imminent173. They hesitated to give decided orders to strike, apparently lest such action might be construed174 into an acknowledgment of the inferiority of the Dutch Republic to the English Commonwealth, especially at a time when they believed themselves to be superior to it in naval power;714 and though alive to the importance of the matter, they were very reluctant to 400 have it discussed in the negotiations in London. But if the Dutch had no clear idea as to what they were to do about the flag on meeting the English fleet, the English commanders had no doubt about their own line of action. Their instructions were explicit175. They were, by force if necessary, to compel the ships of all nations to this acknowledgment of England’s sovereignty of the sea.
Tromp proceeded to his cruising station off the coast of Flanders, between Dunkirk and Nieuport, and while riding at anchor there a strong north-east gale176 set in, which damaged some of his vessels, and on the evening of the 18th May he crossed over to the English coast for shelter and repairs. At this time Bourne was lying in the Downs with eight Parliamentary ships, and Tromp sent two of his captains to him to explain the accidental cause of his coming, the ships conveying them saluting177 Bourne’s flag. One of the officers, according to Bourne’s account, said that Tromp himself would have gone into the Downs “but that he was not willing to breed any difference about his flag, forasmuch as he had not orders to take it down”; to which Bourne replied that he “presumed there would be no new thing required of them, and neither more nor less would be expected from them but what they knew to be the ancient right of this nation”; and he added that the reality of the explanation given for their presence “would best appear by their speedy drawing off from this place.”715 According to Tromp’s account of the interview, Bourne merely thanked him courteously for the message.716
At all events, the Dutch fleet passed along the English coast in all its bravery, the admiral’s ship with his flag on the main-top-mast head, the rest with “jacks and ancients” flying, and about seven in the evening they cast anchor off Dover, within little more than gunshot of the castle. Here they remained till the following afternoon with all their flags displayed, 401 and without saluting. Three times a gun was fired from Dover Castle, according to the usual practice, warning the Dutch admiral to strike his flag; but Tromp—strictly within his right if beyond gunshot—took no heed178. He had probably purposely selected an anchorage beyond the range of cannon179 in order to avoid striking to the English flag. Not only did he not strike, but he exercised his raw musketeers in discharging volleys of small-shot for many hours together, in a way that must have been provoking to the English. On the afternoon of the 19th, Blake, who had been lying at anchor in Rye Bay a little to the westward180, and who had received intimation from Bourne of the presence of the Dutch fleet, came upon the scene with fifteen ships. As he approached Tromp weighed anchor and stood off to sea towards Calais,—a movement which Blake thought to be due to a desire to avoid “the dispute of the flag.”717 So far Tromp had carried out his instructions. He had indeed, through stress of weather, gone upon the English coast, which he had been requested to avoid as far as possible. But he had preserved the States from suffering any “indignity” about the flag. Obviously there was great tension between the fleets as to the question of striking. Not unnaturally181, Tromp’s proceedings were regarded by the English as an attempt to brave them upon their own coast; and the English admirals, who were vigilantly182 watching, would not be slow to challenge any infraction183 of the custom of the narrow seas. They too had to take care that their country suffered no dishonour, as they understood it.
When Tromp was on his way to Calais, and about half seas over, a small Dutch vessel fired a gun and came up to him, and communicated the intelligence that a week earlier a Dutch convoy49 had been attacked by the English for not striking their flags; and, above all, that the seven homeward-bound merchant vessels which had been under their charge, with valuable cargoes on board, were at that moment lying at anchor off the English coast, and, it was believed, in danger from the English fleet.718 The occurrence referred to took place on 12th May. Captain Young, in the President, 402 while off the Start, accompanied by two other English men-of-war, fell in with seven Dutch merchantmen from Genoa and Leghorn, convoyed by three men-of-war, with their flags displayed. Young sent a boat to their admiral to request him to strike his flag “before any blood was shed in the controversy184,” which he did. But the vice-admiral, contrary to the custom in the narrow sea, came to the windward of Young, and refused to strike, telling him to come on board and strike the flag himself. The President then poured a broadside into the Dutch ship, together with a volley of small-shot, and several broadsides were exchanged before the vice-admiral struck, and then the rear-admiral did the same. On Young demanding the vice-admiral or his ship to carry into port to make good the damage done, he was told by the admiral that he himself had not interfered so long as it was only a question of striking the flag, but if he attempted to seize the ship he would resist him; and the matter was carried no further. “I do believe,” said Young, “I gave him his bellyful of it, for he sent me word he had order from the State that if he struck he should lose his head.”719 It is probable that the Dutch vessels encountered the north-east gale that forced Tromp from his anchorage; at all events, they were brought by their convoyers along the English coast to Fairlight,720 between Hastings and Winchelsea, where they cast anchor; then the Dutch captain who had been attacked, Joris van der Saen, went in search of Tromp to tell him of their plight185.
On hearing his story, Tromp instantly turned about and made straight for the English coast, which he had left only a few hours before. In this case, at all events, his instructions were explicit. He had been ordered to prevent Dutch vessels from being visited or searched, and to recover them 403 if captured. Blake, on seeing the Dutch fleet returning, stood off to meet it. He did not know the real reason that had made Tromp alter his course: he had passed the merchant-ships a few days after their meeting with Young, and had done nothing to them. He believed that Tromp was seeking an occasion of quarrel, and watching for an advantage to brave them on their own coast. The Dutch admiral came on with his flag at the main-top, and when he was well within range, Blake fired a gun across his bows to make him strike, and after an interval186 a second, and yet again a third at his flag; the ball going through the main-sail and killing187 a man on deck. Tromp then, still with the States’ colours aloft, fired a single gun at Blake’s flag, ran up a red flag,—the prearranged signal for battle,—and poured a broadside into Blake’s ship, and the two fleets entered into a fierce encounter.721 The fight lasted from four or five o’clock until nine, Blake being assisted by Bourne, who came from the Downs with his small squadron and assailed188 Tromp in the rear. The Dutch fleet, with the loss of two ships, gradually drew off towards the French coast, and Blake kept his position all night and anchored some leagues off Dungeness.
This was the first great fight over the striking of the flag, and it occasioned immediate189 war between the two countries. Encounters on a small scale had been not infrequent before, but no foreign fleet had hitherto ventured to challenge an English fleet in this way off the English coast. Tromp himself, thirteen years before, when he possessed an overwhelming force, readily struck his flag to Pennington’s small squadron in the Downs. After the battle attempts were made to justify190 Tromp’s action, but not at all on the ground that the demand for him to strike his flag to the English admiral was unjust or contrary to custom. Blake was accused of having precipitated191 the battle. Tromp, it was said, had men aloft ready to strike the top-sails, or had already done so; he 404 had sent a man up to strike his flag; he was preparing to send his boat to Blake after the second gun was fired to ask him the reason of his firing, and so forth. But the Dutch admiral well knew the custom of the narrow sea, and had no need to ask Blake the reason of his firing across his bows.722 When the nature of his instructions with reference to saluting is considered, along with his memorandum and the discussions connected with it, his action before Dover Castle on the day before, and the variation in his own subsequent accounts of his intentions and proceedings, the inference is strong that he had resolved not to strike to the weaker fleet of the Commonwealth.
In London the news of the battle aroused intense indignation. It was everywhere believed that Tromp had deliberately192 attacked the English fleet,—an opinion confirmed by the commissioners, of whom Cromwell was one, sent to Dover to inquire into the facts. The meeting of Joris van der Saen with Tromp, which had been seen from the English fleet, was viewed in a sinister193 light. The little Dutch ship was thought to have carried instructions from the States for Tromp to make the attack. The Parliament thought so also: “They found too much cause,” they said, “to believe that the Lords the States-General of the United Provinces have an intention by force to usurp194 the known rights of England in the seas, to destroy the fleets that are, under God, their walls and bulwarks195, and thereby196 405 expose this Commonwealth to invasion at their pleasure.”723 It was in vain that the States disowned responsibility for Tromp’s action and sent over a copy of their instructions to him, showing that he had been commanded to avoid the English coast. The ambassadors appealed to the Council to hold their hand until the States-General had made an inquiry197. Tromp was cautioned to use the greatest circumspection198, so that while preserving the reputation of his country, nothing further should be done to widen the breach with England. And now, when too late, the Dutch Government came to a definite decision as to the striking of the flag. Tromp was expressly ordered to strike his flag on meeting the English fleet, according to the manner that had been customary when England was under its kings; and not to attack them, but only to defend himself if assailed.724
The States also sent over a special ambassador, Adrian Pauw, the Grand Pensionary of Holland, and the most venerable and influential199 personage in the Republic, to assure the Parliament of their pacific intentions, and to strive to maintain peace. He urged that the encounter of the fleets should be looked upon as an “accident,” and that a joint200 inquiry should be made and the admiral found to have been in fault duly punished. He proposed, further, that regulations should be drawn up for the fleets, so that in future such disputes might be avoided,—not, he said, that it was the wish of the States to dispute the honour and the dignity of the English Republic, which they esteemed201 the first and greatest in Europe.725 But the Parliament insisted that the States should first pay them the costs and compensate202 them for the injuries they had sustained by the Dutch naval preparations and Tromp’s attack, and give security for an alliance between the two countries. Meanwhile, the Parliament had been seizing Dutch vessels and preparing for war, while in the United Provinces feeling was 406 rising steadily203 and angrily against England. The ambassadors were recalled and the naval preparations on both sides pushed on with energy.
It was well understood that the most vulnerable part of the States lay in their shipping and fishery. A day or two after the news of Blake’s encounter with Tromp reached London, the Council issued instructions to Major-General Dean, who commanded the troops in Scotland, that in view of the fishery carried on every year by the Dutch about Orkney and Shetland, the forces there should be increased.726 A month later, on 26th June, before the ambassadors had left London, Blake himself sailed northwards with a fleet of about sixty ships, with a double object of putting a stop to the Dutch herring fishery and intercepting205 their homeward-bound East-Indiamen, which were expected to return to Holland by way of the Shetlands.727 On 12th July he sent forward in advance eight frigates206 to discover the Dutch convoying men-of-war, which they soon fell in with, guarding the herring-busses, to the north of Buchan Ness. They were twelve in number, and after a stubborn fight of over three hours’ duration, towards the end of which the English frigates were reinforced by other five, they were all taken, before the main fleet came up. The English wounded were sent in three of the captured ships to Inverness; other three ships were so much shattered that they were sunk. While the fight went on, most of the herring-busses escaped and made their way homewards with all speed, but about thirty were taken by the English. Blake dealt with them very leniently208. He took from them “a taste and toll” of herrings, and then sent them home with this “lesson,” that they “fish no more in those seas without leave from the Republick of England.”728 For this humane209 action Blake was subsequently 407 blamed, on the ground that the busses might have been made use of in establishing a native fishery, while the detention210 of their crews would have helped to cripple the resources of the Dutch in manning their fleets.729 The same generous spirit was shown towards the French boats that fished in the Channel, which were excepted from the general seizure of French shipping, unless they acted improperly211.730 In the course of the war, however, it became the rule for both the Dutch and the English vessels to bring into port all the fishing-boats captured from the enemy.
After Blake dispersed212 the Dutch busses, the States of Holland at first thought of calling home the rest of the herring fleet (only about 600 or 700 had returned), and for that year to put a stop to the fishing, which had just begun; but it was finally decided to continue it with twenty-four armed busses and six men-of-war as a guard,—a conclusion, no doubt, helped by the gentle way in which the English admiral had dealt with the busses that fell into his hands. When English herring-boats were seized and taken to the Netherlands, Holland, which had the greatest stake in the fishery, tried to induce the States-General to release them, and to issue orders that British fishermen were not to be molested213, in the hope that such forbearance would be imitated in England. But the policy failed, and orders were given to do the English fishermen all harm possible. In the following year the States-General forbade the whaling-ships sailing for Greenland, but they did not prohibit the herring fishery, though the greater number of the busses were kept at home by the prudence214 of their owners. Many were captured by English cruisers. More than fifty were taken by the English fleet on the Dutch coast in May 1653, most of them being brought into Aberdeen and there sold. Some of those seized in the course of the war were handed over by the Council of State to the London Corporation for the Poor, to be used in fishing on the English coast. 408 On the other hand, the English fishermen suffered greatly. The Iceland and North Sea fishing came almost to a stop, and men-of-war had to guard the herring and mackerel boats. In September 1653 the Council sent a force of men and three “fit and nimble” ships to the Shetlands to ply150 about the islands, to intercept204 the enemy’s trade of fishing, with what results do not appear.731
But the operations against the enemy’s fisheries played only a small part in the war. The struggle for the command of the sea was concentrated in many fierce battles between the contending fleets in 1652 and 1653. The exploits of Blake, Dean, Monk215, and Penn on the one side, and of Tromp, De Ruyter, Evertsen, and De With on the other, are famous in the naval history of the two countries; and although victory finally rested with England, there were times when the actual control of the British seas was in the hands of the Dutch. It was on one of those occasions that the Dutch admiral was said to have hoisted a broom at his mainmast-top as a sign that he would sweep the seas of all Englishmen. Tromp unexpectedly appeared in force in the Channel in the winter of 1652, and on 30th November he defeated Blake off Dungeness. From that date till the end of February in the following year no English fleet was able to oppose him. The Dutch were “lords and masters” of the sea, and English commerce suffered severely216. But the popular story about the broom seems to have uncertain foundation. It was first set afloat in two English newspapers, published on 9th March 1653, after the decisive “three days’ battle.” In one it was said that Tromp had set forth “a flag (or standard) of Broom; and being demanded what he meant by it, reply’d, That he was once more going to sweep the Narrow Seas of all Englishmen.” The other paper gave a letter from the Nonsuch frigate207 at Portsmouth, stating that the Hollanders had probably gone home after the battle, and that “their gallant217 Mr Trump218 when he was in France (we understand) wore a flagg of Broom, and being demanded what he meant by it, replied that he was going 409 to sweep the narrow seas of all English men.” The story is not mentioned by Dutch authorities, and is now generally discredited219, but in an earlier century the broom had been used in this way by a Dutch admiral to signalise a victory in the Baltic;732 and it is said that after the two days’ battle in the following summer, when the Dutch had been driven from the sea, the English fleet rode triumphant220 off the Texel with a broom displayed at their mast-heads, perhaps in ironical221 parody222 of Tromp.
While the fleets were contending for actual dominion over the sea, the Parliament took care to keep alive the historic claims to maritime sovereignty and to place them well before the people. As early as 25th June 1652—the day before Blake sailed away to the north in quest of the herring-busses—they passed a resolution: “That it be referred to the Council of State to prepare a declaration to assert the right of this Commonwealth to the Sovereignty of the Seas, and to the fishery; to be made use of when the Parliament shall see cause.”733 No time was lost, for on the same day the Council remitted223 the instruction of the Parliament to the Committee for Law and Examinations, with the request that they should bring the declaration to the Council with all speed, and Bradshaw was desired to see that this was done.734 Apparently, for the use of the Committee in drawing up this declaration, Mr William Ryley, the Keeper of the Records in the Tower, made transcripts224 of several of the records in his charge referring to the sovereignty of the sea, as the ordinance of King John, Edgar’s charter, the mandate225 of Edward I. to the Bailiffs of Yarmouth, the rolls of the same king concerning Grimbald, and of Edward III. on the laws of the sea, and some others.735 410
It was soon apparent to the Council that the task of again attempting formally to vindicate226 the claims of England to the sovereignty of the seas, while Selden’s Mare Clausum was at their disposal, would be like painting the lily. They therefore instructed the Committee for Foreign Affairs “to take order for printing the book called Mare Clausum and Mr Dugard to print it.”736 But simply to reprint Selden’s work, with its fulsome227 dedication228 to Charles II., and in the Latin tongue, would not have served the purpose in view, and it was then resolved to translate it. This task was assigned to Marchamont Needham, who had deserted229 the royalist cause and placed his pen at the service of the Commonwealth, writing the Mercurius Politicus, in which he had latterly the assistance of Milton.737 The translation was rapidly made, and the work was published later in the year.738 And just as the original had been dedicated230 to the king, so now the translation was dedicated to “the Supreme231 Authority of the Nation, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England”; and so pleased were the Council of State with it that they, on 8th November, ordered two hundred copies for their own use, and paid Needham ￡200 for his labours, as the book, they said, “learnedly asserted the rights and interests of the Commonwealth in the adjacent seas, and would be of good use for these and future times.”739
The “additional evidences” brought forward by Needham 411 comprised the proclamation of James in 1609, and of Charles in 1636, forbidding unlicensed fishing; some of the letters that passed between the English Government and their ambassadors at The Hague; extracts from Sir John Boroughs’ Sovereignty of the British Seas, which was first published in the previous year; and a few other papers of little importance. The purpose of the book was better served by Needham’s bitter if rather frothy invective232 against the Dutch, and by his ranting233 appeals to English patriotism234 to conquer the foe235 and establish our interests on the sea beyond the possibility of future question.740
Selden was still alive, and the translation was doubtless made with his concurrence236, whatever he may have thought of it. He was himself soon drawn into the controversy which the book evoked237. Graswinckel, the Dutch lawyer who had been chosen by the States-General in 1636 to reply to Selden’s Mare Clausum, and whose neglected treatise238 had ever since being lying in the secret archives at The Hague, again entered the lists. His shaft239 was ostensibly directed against a certain Italian writer, P. B. Burgus, who had published a work eleven years before in support of the right of Genoa to the dominion of the Ligurian Sea.741 There was no apparent reason why the Dutch lawyer should be at the pains to attempt to refute a claim so remote and after so long an interval; but Burgus quoted largely from Mare Clausum, and Graswinckel seized upon the opportunity to attack Selden, and to gratify his feelings by making use of his early abortive240 treatise, under the guise241 of replying to the Italian author. And his attack on Selden was very bitter.742 On the main question, the familiar arguments were adduced against the appropriation242 of seas, 412 with the usual seasoning243 of Scriptural and classical quotations244; the historical claims of England to the sovereignty of the sea were treated in a sarcastic245 and bantering246 spirit, and the authenticity247 of some of the records cited by Selden was questioned; while he said that in many respects the Hollanders were the real lords of the British seas. But he made a personal attack on Selden, accusing him of having written Mare Clausum in order to get out of prison.743 Selden made a strong reply, explaining the circumstances under which his treatise was written, and entering into a minute description of the documents which Graswinckel suggested he had invented; but on the controversy as to the dominion of the seas he contributed nothing new.744
Stimulated248 by the war and the dispute which had precipitated it, a number of works were now published in Holland in defence of the freedom of the seas and the liberty of fishing, and opposing the claims of England to any special maritime jurisdiction. Among them was another dissertation249 by Graswinckel, published before he was aware of Selden’s reply to his attack, and apparently containing further extracts from his stillborn treatise. This time the earlier Scottish lawyer, Welwood, was assailed, and his book, De Dominio Maris, was republished in Holland in order to serve, apparently, as a theme and target. Graswinckel was especially severe against any claim to interfere131 with the herring fishery or to impose tribute on the fishermen.745 The controversy continued to rage on both sides of the North Sea, but in England it fell for the most part into the incompetent250 hands of ignorant pamphleteers, who vilified251 the Dutch in 413 pious252 but intemperate253 language without shedding much light upon the question.
But if there was a dearth254 of competent pens in England able to carry on a juridical controversy about the sovereignty of the sea, it was not for lack of belief in the importance of the matter. At no previous time in English history had popular feeling been more aroused or was the general resolution stronger to maintain the rights of the country in the seas. The traditional sentiment of the nation, which Charles had in large measure alienated255 by his ship-money exactions and his bungling256 and fruitless attempts to maintain those rights, was revived in full force, and it was greatly strengthened by other considerations relating to commerce and trade. Though English commerce and shipping had greatly developed since the earlier part of the century, by far the larger part of oversea traffic was still in the hands of the Dutch. It was against this predominance that the Navigation Act was aimed. The pre-eminence of the Dutch excited the emulation257 of the nation to outvie and outdo them, and success in this policy was believed to be closely bound up with the assertion of the sovereignty of the sea. Before the war began, the authors of works on commerce and navigation had urged the Parliament to enforce these claims, even in the Mediterranean against France, and for the same reasons that were formerly258 used by Sir Walter Raleigh.746 To the national sentiment and commercial ambitions was added the zeal65 of religious fanaticism259. The godly Barebones Parliament of 1653, who looked askance at the Dutch as carnal and worldly politicians, held it necessary that the seas should be secured and preserved as peaceable as the land, in order to prepare for the coming of Christ and the personal reign.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
commonwealth
|
|
| n.共和国，联邦，共同体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
initiated
|
|
| n. 创始人 adj. 新加入的 vt. 开始，创始，启蒙，介绍加入 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
strife
|
|
| n.争吵，冲突，倾轧，竞争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
homage
|
|
| n.尊敬，敬意，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
pretensions
|
|
| 自称( pretension的名词复数 )； 自命不凡； 要求； 权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
pretension
|
|
| n.要求；自命，自称；自负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
vigour
|
|
| （=vigor）n.智力，体力，精力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
dominion
|
|
| n.统治，管辖，支配权；领土，版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
negotiations
|
|
| 协商( negotiation的名词复数 )； 谈判； 完成（难事）； 通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
levying
|
|
| 征（兵）( levy的现在分词 )； 索取； 发动（战争）； 征税 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
fret
|
|
| v.(使)烦恼；(使)焦急；(使)腐蚀，(使)磨损 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
insolent
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，无理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
contentions
|
|
| n.竞争( contention的名词复数 )；争夺；争论；论点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
dishonour
|
|
| n./vt.拒付（支票、汇票、票据等）；vt.凌辱，使丢脸；n.不名誉，耻辱，不光彩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
incense
|
|
| v.激怒；n.香，焚香时的烟，香气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
quell
|
|
| v.压制，平息，减轻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
wrought
|
|
| v.引起；以…原料制作；运转；adj.制造的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
abiding
|
|
| adj.永久的，持久的，不变的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
connivance
|
|
| n.纵容；默许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
nominee
|
|
| n.被提名者；被任命者；被推荐者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
smuggle
|
|
| vt.私运；vi.走私 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
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： |
|
|
|
|
28
vessel
|
|
| n.船舶；容器，器皿；管，导管，血管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
munitions
|
|
| n.军火，弹药；v.供应…军需品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
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： |
|
|
|
|
34
ordinance
|
|
| n.法令；条令；条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
jurisdictions
|
|
| 司法权( jurisdiction的名词复数 )； 裁判权； 管辖区域； 管辖范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
amity
|
|
| n.友好关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
intrude
|
|
| vi.闯入；侵入；打扰，侵扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
meddle
|
|
| v.干预，干涉，插手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
buoys
|
|
| n.浮标( buoy的名词复数 )；航标；救生圈；救生衣v.使浮起( buoy的第三人称单数 )；支持；为…设浮标；振奋…的精神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
hostilities
|
|
| n.战争；敌意(hostility的复数)；敌对状态；战事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
abate
|
|
| vi.(风势，疼痛等)减弱，减轻，减退 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
jot
|
|
| n.少量；vi.草草记下；vt.匆匆写下 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
Mediterranean
|
|
| adj.地中海的；地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
convoy
|
|
| vt.护送，护卫，护航；n.护送；护送队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
isle
|
|
| n.小岛，岛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
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： |
|
|
|
|
55
maritime
|
|
| adj.海的，海事的，航海的，近海的，沿海的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
refractory
|
|
| adj.倔强的，难驾驭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
unwillingness
|
|
| n. 不愿意，不情愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
cape
|
|
| n.海角，岬；披肩，短披风 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
saluted
|
|
| v.欢迎，致敬( salute的过去式和过去分词 )；赞扬，赞颂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
hoisted
|
|
| 把…吊起，升起( hoist的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
culminated
|
|
| v.达到极点( culminate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
reprobation
|
|
| n.斥责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
contemplating
|
|
| 深思，细想，仔细考虑( contemplate的现在分词 )； 注视，凝视； 考虑接受（发生某事的可能性）； 深思熟虑，沉思，苦思冥想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
oration
|
|
| n.演说，致辞，叙述法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
faction
|
|
| n.宗派，小集团；派别；派系斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
favourably
|
|
| adv. 善意地，赞成地 =favorably | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
credentials
|
|
| n.证明，资格，证明书，证件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
diplomacy
|
|
| n.外交；外交手腕，交际手腕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
retinue
|
|
| n.侍从；随员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
partisans
|
|
| 游击队员( partisan的名词复数 )； 党人； 党羽； 帮伙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
suite
|
|
| n.一套(家具)；套房；随从人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
jeered
|
|
| v.嘲笑( jeer的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
disorders
|
|
| n.混乱( disorder的名词复数 )；凌乱；骚乱；（身心、机能）失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
irritation
|
|
| n.激怒，恼怒，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
impatience
|
|
| n.不耐烦，急躁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
coalescence
|
|
| n.合并，联合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
fusion
|
|
| n.溶化；熔解；熔化状态，熔和；熔接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
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： |
|
|
|
|
84
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
assent
|
|
| v.批准，认可；n.批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
inclination
|
|
| n.倾斜；点头；弯腰；斜坡；倾度；倾向；爱好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
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： |
|
|
|
|
92
protracted
|
|
| adj.拖延的；延长的v.拖延“protract”的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
indignities
|
|
| n.侮辱，轻蔑( indignity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
entreaty
|
|
| n.恳求，哀求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
repression
|
|
| n.镇压，抑制，抑压 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
apprehensions
|
|
| 疑惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
fugitives
|
|
| n.亡命者，逃命者( fugitive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
embodying
|
|
| v.表现( embody的现在分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
liking
|
|
| n.爱好；嗜好；喜欢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
scotch
|
|
| n.伤口，刻痕；苏格兰威士忌酒；v.粉碎，消灭，阻止；adj.苏格兰(人)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
allotted
|
|
| 分配，拨给，摊派( allot的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
paraphrased
|
|
| v.释义，意译( paraphrase的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
marine
|
|
| adj.海的；海生的；航海的；海事的；n.水兵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
provincial
|
|
| adj.省的，地方的；n．外省人，乡下人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
stipulated
|
|
| vt.& vi.规定；约定adj.[法]合同规定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
whittled
|
|
| v.切，削（木头），使逐渐变小( whittle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
seizure
|
|
| n.没收；占有；抵押 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
courteously
|
|
| adv.有礼貌地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
cargoes
|
|
| n.（船或飞机装载的）货物( cargo的名词复数 )；大量，重负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
cargo
|
|
| n.(一只船或一架飞机运载的)货物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
licenses
|
|
| n.执照( license的名词复数 )v.批准，许可，颁发执照( license的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
mare
|
|
| n.母马，母驴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
purge
|
|
| n.整肃，清除，泻药，净化；vt.净化，清除，摆脱；vi.清除，通便，腹泻，变得清洁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
shipping
|
|
| n.船运（发货，运输，乘船） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
havens
|
|
| n.港口，安全地方( haven的名词复数 )v.港口，安全地方( haven的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
smack
|
|
| vt.拍，打，掴；咂嘴；vi.含有…意味；n.拍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
sundry
|
|
| adj.各式各样的，种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
molest
|
|
| vt.骚扰，干扰，调戏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
amicable
|
|
| adj.和平的，友好的；友善的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
remonstrances
|
|
| n.抱怨，抗议( remonstrance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
incompatible
|
|
| adj.不相容的，不协调的，不相配的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
reprisal
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，报复性劫掠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
nominally
|
|
| 在名义上，表面地； 应名儿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
thither
|
|
| adv.向那里；adj.在那边的，对岸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
repealed
|
|
| 撤销，废除( repeal的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
withheld
|
|
| withhold过去式及过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
liberate
|
|
| v.解放，使获得自由，释出，放出；vt.解放，使获自由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
affronts
|
|
| n.（当众）侮辱，（故意）冒犯( affront的名词复数 )v.勇敢地面对( affront的第三人称单数 )；相遇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
affront
|
|
| n./v.侮辱，触怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
pending
|
|
| prep.直到，等待…期间；adj.待定的；迫近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
warships
|
|
| 军舰，战舰( warship的名词复数 )； 舰只 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
deviate
|
|
| v.(from)背离，偏离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
impeached
|
|
| v.控告（某人）犯罪( impeach的过去式和过去分词 )；弹劾；对（某事物）怀疑；提出异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
pertained
|
|
| 关于( pertain的过去式和过去分词 )； 有关； 存在； 适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
recital
|
|
| n.朗诵，独奏会，独唱会 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
molestation
|
|
| n.骚扰，干扰，调戏；折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
ply
|
|
| v.(搬运工等)等候顾客，弯曲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
honourable
|
|
| adj.可敬的；荣誉的，光荣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
obdurate
|
|
| adj.固执的，顽固的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
guardianship
|
|
| n. 监护, 保护, 守护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
conjectured
|
|
| 推测，猜测，猜想( conjecture的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
momentous
|
|
| adj.重要的，重大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
embroiled
|
|
| adj.卷入的；纠缠不清的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
engendered
|
|
| v.产生（某形势或状况），造成，引起( engender的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
jealousy
|
|
| n.妒忌，嫉妒，猜忌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
rivalry
|
|
| n.竞争，竞赛，对抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
interfered
|
|
| v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 )；调停；妨碍；干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
isles
|
|
| 岛( isle的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
memorandum
|
|
| n.备忘录，便笺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
discretion
|
|
| n.谨慎；随意处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
pennant
|
|
| n.三角旗；锦标旗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
reluctance
|
|
| n.厌恶，讨厌，勉强，不情愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
comport
|
|
| vi.相称，适合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
imminent
|
|
| adj.即将发生的，临近的，逼近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
construed
|
|
| v.解释（陈述、行为等）( construe的过去式和过去分词 )；翻译，作句法分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
gale
|
|
| n.大风，强风，一阵闹声（尤指笑声等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
saluting
|
|
| v.欢迎，致敬( salute的现在分词 )；赞扬，赞颂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
heed
|
|
| v.注意，留意；n.注意，留心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
cannon
|
|
| n.大炮，火炮；飞机上的机关炮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
westward
|
|
| n.西方，西部；adj.西方的，向西的；adv.向西 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
unnaturally
|
|
| adv.违反习俗地；不自然地；勉强地；不近人情地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
vigilantly
|
|
| adv.警觉地，警惕地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
infraction
|
|
| n.违反；违法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
plight
|
|
| n.困境，境况，誓约，艰难；vt.宣誓，保证，约定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
interval
|
|
| n.间隔，间距；幕间休息，中场休息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
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： |
|
|
|
|
189
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
precipitated
|
|
| v.（突如其来地）使发生( precipitate的过去式和过去分词 )；促成；猛然摔下；使沉淀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
sinister
|
|
| adj.不吉利的，凶恶的，左边的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
usurp
|
|
| vt.篡夺，霸占；vi.篡位 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
bulwarks
|
|
| n.堡垒( bulwark的名词复数 )；保障；支柱；舷墙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
circumspection
|
|
| n.细心，慎重 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
influential
|
|
| adj.有影响的，有权势的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
esteemed
|
|
| adj.受人尊敬的v.尊敬( esteem的过去式和过去分词 )；敬重；认为；以为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
compensate
|
|
| vt.补偿，赔偿；酬报 vi.弥补；补偿；抵消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
intercept
|
|
| vt.拦截，截住，截击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
intercepting
|
|
| 截取（技术），截接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
frigates
|
|
| n.快速军舰( frigate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
frigate
|
|
| n.护航舰，大型驱逐舰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
leniently
|
|
| 温和地，仁慈地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
humane
|
|
| adj.人道的，富有同情心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
detention
|
|
| n.滞留，停留；拘留，扣留；(教育)留下 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
improperly
|
|
| 不正确地，不适当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
dispersed
|
|
| adj. 被驱散的, 被分散的, 散布的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
molested
|
|
| v.骚扰( molest的过去式和过去分词 )；干扰；调戏；猥亵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
monk
|
|
| n.和尚，僧侣，修道士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
gallant
|
|
| adj.英勇的，豪侠的；(向女人)献殷勤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
trump
|
|
| n.王牌，法宝；v.打出王牌，吹喇叭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
discredited
|
|
| 不足信的，不名誉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
ironical
|
|
| adj.讽刺的，冷嘲的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
parody
|
|
| n.打油诗文，诙谐的改编诗文，拙劣的模仿；v.拙劣模仿，作模仿诗文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
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： |
|
|
|
|
224
transcripts
|
|
| n.抄本（ transcript的名词复数 ）；转写本；文字本；副本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
mandate
|
|
| n.托管地；命令，指示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
vindicate
|
|
| v.为…辩护或辩解，辩明；证明…正确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
fulsome
|
|
| adj.可恶的，虚伪的，过分恭维的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
dedication
|
|
| n.奉献，献身，致力，题献，献辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
deserted
|
|
| adj.荒芜的，荒废的，无人的，被遗弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
dedicated
|
|
| adj.一心一意的；献身的；热诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
invective
|
|
| n.痛骂，恶意抨击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
ranting
|
|
| v.夸夸其谈( rant的现在分词 )；大叫大嚷地以…说教；气愤地)大叫大嚷；不停地大声抱怨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
foe
|
|
| n.敌人，仇敌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
concurrence
|
|
| n.同意；并发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
evoked
|
|
| [医]诱发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
shaft
|
|
| n.(工具的)柄，杆状物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
abortive
|
|
| adj.不成功的，发育不全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
guise
|
|
| n.外表，伪装的姿态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
seasoning
|
|
| n.调味；调味料；增添趣味之物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
sarcastic
|
|
| adj.讥讽的，讽刺的，嘲弄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
bantering
|
|
| adj.嘲弄的v.开玩笑，说笑，逗乐( banter的现在分词 )；（善意地）取笑，逗弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
authenticity
|
|
| n.真实性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
stimulated
|
|
| a.刺激的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
dissertation
|
|
| n.（博士学位）论文，学术演讲，专题论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
incompetent
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能胜任的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
vilified
|
|
| v.中伤，诽谤( vilify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
pious
|
|
| adj.虔诚的；道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
intemperate
|
|
| adj.无节制的，放纵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
dearth
|
|
| n.缺乏，粮食不足，饥谨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
alienated
|
|
| adj.感到孤独的，不合群的v.使疏远( alienate的过去式和过去分词 )；使不友好；转让；让渡（财产等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
bungling
|
|
| adj.笨拙的，粗劣的v.搞糟，完不成( bungle的现在分词 )；笨手笨脚地做；失败；完不成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
257
emulation
|
|
| n.竞争；仿效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
258
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
259
fanaticism
|
|
| n.狂热，盲信 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |