CHAPTER XI.
THE PARLIAMENT, THE COMMONWEALTH1, AND THE PROTECTORATE—continued.
THE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS3.
The importance of the questions connected with the claim to the sovereignty of the sea was revealed in the long negotiations with the Dutch which preceded the conclusion of peace. These were begun at a very early stage of the contest. From the first the war had been as distasteful to Cromwell as it was to John de Witt and the leading men in the States of Holland, and so soon as the beginning of August 1652, within three months of Tromp’s encounter with Blake, clandestine5 negotiations were set on foot, with the approval of Cromwell, Vane, Whitelock, and other leaders in England, with the object of bringing about peace; and though nothing came of them at the time, they were resumed early in 1653. The Speaker informed the Parliament on 22nd March that he had received a formal letter from the States of Holland desiring that the negotiations might be resumed, and on 1st April the Parliament replied favourably6, offering to take up the negotiations at the point at which they had been broken off when the special ambassador, Pauw, quitted London in the previous year.748 This implied payment to the Parliament of the expense incurred7 in consequence of the Dutch naval8 preparations and of Tromp’s fight with Blake, and “security” for a close alliance,—conditions unacceptable by the ruling oligarchy9 at The Hague. 415
In order to find some more satisfactory basis for the negotiations, the States-General in June 1653, immediately after the two days’ battle, and when the English fleet was blockading the Dutch ports, sent four deputies to London. One of them, Hieronymus van Beverning, a trusty friend of De Witt’s and a representative of the States of Holland, came on in advance, reaching London on June 17; the others, Nieuport, van de Perre, and Jongestal, following a few days later.749 The deputies arrived at a time when Cromwell, having dissolved the Long Parliament and the old Council of State, was dictator, and the new Council was composed of his own nominees10; and Cromwell, as is well known, had been against the war and was favourable11 to peace.750 Nevertheless, a stiff attitude was adopted towards the envoys12. To their request that negotiations might be resumed on the basis of the thirty-six articles the Council turned a deaf ear, putting forward the demands for reparation and security, and refusing to proceed with the negotiations until they had received a satisfactory answer.751 Cromwell, however, sent a private message to Nieuport, on 30th June, that the Council would not insist on satisfaction and security. He suggested that Tromp should be suspended for a few months; that a binding13 treaty and alliance should be concluded; and that for security two or three Englishmen should sit in the States-General or Council of State in the Netherlands, and the same number of Dutchmen in the English Council. If these conditions were agreed to, little difficulty would be made about the thirty-six articles, the Dutch would be allowed to carry on their herring fishery in the British seas, and a truce14 probably granted.752 But by the next day Cromwell, after discussion with the Council, had changed his mind, and the debate went on about reparation and security. The deputies were told that the 416 Council did not ask for a great sum, but that the “security” meant “uniting both states together in such manner as they may become one people and Commonwealth, for the good of both,”753—a scheme apparently15 much the same as St John had taken with him to The Hague.
This extraordinary proposal for a union, closer even than that which existed among the seven United Provinces themselves, astonished the envoys of the many-headed Government. They pretended at first not to understand it, and went on talking of “alliance” and the Intercursus Magnus; but the Council pointedly16 declared that what they meant was not the mere17 “establishing of a league and union between two sovereign states and neighbours, but the making of two sovereign states one,” under a joint18 Government, all the subjects to possess equal privileges and freedom in either country “in respect of habitations, possessions, trade, ports, fishing, and all other advantages whatsoever19.”754 The deputies considered such a scheme “absurd,”—nothing of the kind had ever been heard of in history; it was opposed to the constitution of the United Provinces and was impossible; and they hinted that if the proposal was pressed they would have to return home. They thought it was far better to take as a basis for the negotiations the treaty of 1496, which was a perfect, true, and sincere alliance, league, and confederation by land and sea. To this the Council replied that they had desired a coalescence20 of the two countries as the best security for the future of both, and especially of the United Provinces; and that the deputies offered nothing more than they did at first, by which they demanded free trade to the English colonies and the suspension of the Navigation Act; “nay,” the Council continued, “they do in effect demand to share with this state in the sovereignty of the narrow seas, and in their right of fishing,” whereas these advantages could only be obtained by such a coalescence as had been proposed.755
The negotiations had now come to such a pass that the Dutch commissioners21 judged it to be necessary to report verbally 417 to the States, and Nieuport and Jongestal left for home with this object on 3rd August. They did not return until the end of October; and while the official conferences with the Council were suspended in the interval22, the two deputies who remained in London carried on important private negotiations with Cromwell, mostly through an intermediary. At first Cromwell descanted on the advantages to the United Provinces of the proposed coalescence, including the complete liberty they would have of fishing on the British coasts. Later he put forward the extraordinary schemes which remind one of the dreams of Napoleon—a confederation of the Protestant states of Europe for the propagation of the Gospel; the partition of the rest of the world, Asia to fall to the share of the Dutch and America to England; a war of conquest against Spain and Portugal, and then there would be complete freedom of commerce and of fishery in all seas, without molestation23 or disturbance24.756 A less extravagant25 alternative offered was an alliance of the Protestant states, without the partition of the globe or the war of conquest; but this smaller scheme was not to carry with it either freedom of commerce or liberty of fishing. And now, for the first time since the negotiations began, a formal stipulation26 was asked that all ships of war of the Dutch Republic, on meeting “on the sea” with the ships of war of the Commonwealth, should show them the same respect and do them the same honour as had been practised in any former time.757
The two deputies in London could do nothing with these proposals until the States-General had decided27 about the original project of coalition28, with reference to which Nieuport and Jongestal had gone to The Hague. But they expressed their own opinion on the twelve articles which had been submitted to them; and with regard to the striking of the flag, they thought the word “respect” conveyed the impression of too great a sovereignty on one side and of submission29 on the 418 other, but they agreed that another word might be chosen and a “good regulation” made. The objection was curious, because during the negotiations of 1673 the envoys of the States—and the same able Beverning was the chief of them—themselves proposed that the striking of the flag should be done “by way of respect”; and when that word, respect, was inserted in the treaty of 1674, it was said in England that the Dutch had scored a great diplomatic victory, since to show respect was not to acknowledge sovereignty.
When the two absent deputies returned to London they brought back with them the old instructions for a “close alliance and strict union,” nothing being said about the proposal to fuse the two nations into one. Their memorandum30 was submitted to the new Council of State, on which Cromwell had a working majority; the only coalition suggested was a “coalition of interests,” and a “brotherhood” of the peoples. Cromwell at once called it a mutilated coalition, and some of the Council are said to have expressed strong opinions as to the “contumelious” tactics of the Dutch. If they refused real coalition, it was our duty, they said, to make them and keep them our inferiors, so that they might never attempt this nation again; they must pay for liberty to fish on our coasts; render the usual submission at sea; give up their own wafters and pay us for convoys32, since we were the proper guardians33 of the British sea; they must not equip many great ships, without explaining their intentions and asking leave to pass through our seas; and they must pay the costs of the war. Such were the opinions attributed to the Council by a well-informed author who wrote a little later,758 and they indicate tolerably well the demands which were subsequently made. The Council then prepared draft articles for a treaty on the lines the Dutch desired, and Cromwell informed them that since they were averse34 to a coalition which would have made the privileges of both countries equal, it would be necessary first of all to define clearly their respective rights, so that disputes might be avoided in future. And in the first place, he said, they must settle their right and dominion35 in the narrow sea and the question of the 419 fishery, remarking that if these points were adjusted the work in hand would be much facilitated.759
In putting the question of the sovereignty of the sea and the fishery in the foreground of the negotiations, Cromwell placed the envoys in a difficulty. In conformity36 with their traditional policy on like occasions, the States-General had expressly instructed their representatives to avoid discussion on these thorny37 subjects,—a circumstance no doubt well known to Cromwell. They therefore fenced with them. With regard to the “honour of the sea,” they had never desired to dispute with the Parliament of the Republic of England any honour or dignity which had been rendered to former Governments, and they declared their willingness to pay the same “honour and respect” to the English flag as had been previously38 shown to it. They thought it would be better to defer39 consideration of the fishery question until the articles of a “strict union” had been adjusted, when the whole business of commerce, fishery, and the immunities40 on both sides might be dealt with. But Cromwell was not to be turned from his purpose. On the following day, after a long and remarkable41 speech on the advantages of coalition—which the Dutch once more put aside,—he again declared that the matter of the sea and the fishery must be first of all settled; and he ended the discussion by handing to the deputies the draft articles which the Council had prepared.760 The articles were twenty-seven in number. Some of them provided for a defensive42 alliance and arranged details of peace. Freedom of trade was to be allowed, provided the laws in force—the Navigation Act—were observed; the rebels of the one were not to be assisted by the other, and so forth43. But the Dutch were to pay a sum to be agreed upon, by way of reparation, and there were several articles dealing44 with the sovereignty of the sea and the fisheries.
The article761 on the fishery was framed on the model of the 420 proclamations of James and Charles relating to unlicensed fishing. It was as follows: “The people and inhabitants of the said United Provinces, of what condition or quality soever they be, shall with their busses and other vessels46 fitted to that purpose, have liberty from time to time, for the term of one and twenty years, next coming, to sail and fish as well for herrings, as all other sort of fish, great and small, upon any of the coasts or seas of Great Britain and Ireland and the rest of the Isles47 adjacent, where and in such manner as they have been formerly48 permitted to fish. In consideration whereof, the States-General of the United Provinces shall during that term pay into the public treasury49 of this Commonwealth at the City of London the sum of ... at two equal payments upon every 24 day of June and 24 day of December; the first payment to begin on the 24 day of June next.” When it is remembered that the Dutch in the reign4 of James, and again in the reign of Charles, were prepared to go to war with England rather than surrender their liberty of fishing, the objectionable nature of this article is apparent. No glimpse is obtained throughout the negotiations of the sum that was to be asked for the liberty of fishing, possibly because it was never definitely fixed50 by the Council. It is, however, stated by Stubbe, who had special sources of information, that it was the intention of the Council to demand ￡100,000, as well as payment for constant wafters or convoys,762—a statement which is credible51 only on the supposition that it was desired utterly52 to ruin the Dutch herring fishery.
Some of the other articles were equally or even more objectionable. That concerning the striking of the flag,763 though not feasible in its original form, was capable of adjustment. It provided “that the ships and vessels of the said United Provinces, as well men-of-war as others, be they single ships or in fleets, meeting at sea with any of the ships of war of the State of England, or in their service, and wearing their flag, shall strike their flag and lower their top-sail, until they be passed by, and shall likewise submit themselves to be visited, if thereto required, and perform all other respects due to the said Commonwealth of England, 421 to whom the dominion and sovereignty of the British sea belong.” By this article the whole of the Dutch fleet would be bound to strike to a single ship in the English service anywhere on the sea, and, what was a far more serious matter, to submit to be visited and searched. A stipulation of that kind was unacceptable. Tromp’s fleet had been fitted out before the war expressly to prevent the visitation and search of merchant vessels; if no conflict had occurred with Blake about the flag, it would almost certainly have happened on this other point.764 And now the States were asked to confirm in a formal treaty the right claimed by England; and above all to make it applicable to their ships of war. Another article with reference to the measures to be taken against pirates embodied53 the old doctrine54 attributed to the Plantagenets. The Commonwealth of England, it stated, had declared their resolution “to put upon these seas a convenient number of armed ships, for the defence and safeguard thereof, and to maintain and preserve all lawful55 navigation, trade, and commerce therein, against pirates and sea-rovers.”765 Another article which raised the strongest objections provided that the Dutch fleet passing through the British seas should be limited to a certain number, to be agreed upon in the treaty, and that if the States had occasion for a larger number to pass than that agreed to, they should first give the Commonwealth three months’ notice and obtain their consent. The article also provided that Dutch merchant vessels should be allowed freely to navigate56 the British seas, as if the right of permitting or forbidding navigation there belonged to England.766 422
Such conditions could only have been imposed on a nation hopelessly vanquished57. They were conditions, the ambassadors declared, which would not be demanded from rebels or slaves. On the English side there was a strong feeling that since coalition had been rejected, the “security” for the future ought to be rigorous and complete. It was still firmly believed by the mass of men, and doubtless by many in the Council, that Tromp had attacked Blake in overwhelming force in order to destroy the English fleet; and that too by the implicit58 or express orders of the States. There was doubtless also a desire to cripple Dutch commerce and power as far as was possible. Commercial jealousy59 had long been simmering, and now that the English thought they had the power they were resolved to use it to their own advantage.767
The Dutch deputies were astonished and indignant at the English demands, which, as they sarcastically60 noted61 in their journal, they could scarcely reconcile with the professions of friendship and the pious62 words of Cromwell. Had they communicated them to the States-General all thoughts of peace would have been at an end, for it had required the most adroit63 diplomacy64 of John de Witt to induce that body to allow the negotiations to be set agoing. They therefore sent home only an imperfect official account of them, pleading that Cromwell had tied them down to the utmost secrecy,768 and then proceeded to consider the articles themselves. Those dealing with reparation, the Prince of Orange, the visitation of ships, and the fishery, they decided absolutely to reject as inadmissible, for reasons to be given later. The one which proposed to limit their naval power in the adjacent seas they resolved indignantly to refuse, and to break off the negotiations rather than to agree even to discuss it, believing that it was a matter in which all Christian65 princes in Europe 423 were also interested, who would condemn66 the English Government for their extravagant claims to special maritime67 rights and to the fishery. Their conclusions were embodied in a paper which was submitted to the Council of State on 22nd November. In this they said that the visiting and searching of merchant vessels and ships of war was contrary to the practice of the United Provinces, was subject to innumerable disorders68 and disputes, and was injurious in point of sovereignty, since it was not reciprocal. As to the fishery, they declared that they had been in immemorial possession of complete liberty of fishing. They denounced the article concerning the limitation of the number of their ships of war, which they said they could hardly persuade themselves had been put forward seriously, since it struck at the root of their existence as an independent sovereign state, and they declined to discuss it.769
Cromwell throughout the whole negotiations, until he became Lord Protector, acted as spokesman for the Council at the conferences; and he now stated that the visitation of Dutch ships was an undoubted right of sovereignty possessed69 by the English Commonwealth. The limitation of their ships of war passing through the British seas was also a consequence of the same right of dominion; and the English had now more than ever reason to maintain it, both on account of their ancient prerogative70 and the recent injuries committed by the Dutch. The right to the fishery was of the same nature. No other nation in Europe had attempted to carry it on without the consent of England; the Dutch were the only people, he said, who sought a separate interest in it—a statement which was quite inaccurate71. But the deputies took their stand on the obnoxious72 article which proposed to clip their naval power and interfere73 with their liberty of navigation, and threatened to return home unless it was withdrawn74. After standing76 firm for a time Cromwell withdrew the article, asserting at the same time that England had jurisdiction77 on both sides of the sea, and that it was perilous78 to allow a fleet of sixty or eighty men-of-war to come into our rivers or ports without our knowledge or consent,—a reference, no doubt, to Tromp’s action before the war. 424
This concession79 facilitated the negotiations. Frequent conferences were held in the following week, Cromwell and his Council strongly asserting the right of the Commonwealth to the fisheries and the dominion of the sea. At this period there were four subjects chiefly in dispute—the arrangements relating to the striking of the flag, the visitation of ships of war, the preliminary part of the sixteenth article as to the guarding of the seas, and the fishery. On none of these was Cromwell inclined as yet to give way. The deputies repeated their offer as to the flag, and requested that a joint commission of old and experienced naval officers should be appointed to draw up regulations for the guidance of both sides in future. To this Cromwell replied that such a commission was unnecessary, their rights and the custom being well understood and clearly expressed in the article. There was, however, uncertainty80 as to the places where the right could be claimed, and the Dutch deputies said they wished to make it clear in what seas and on what coasts the flag ought to be struck, urging that it was better to be guided by a regulation than to compel it by force. But Cromwell was inflexible81. To yield would be to admit that the claim was doubtful in point of right or mode, and it would stultify82 their whole action; he may also have thought it would open a door for some form of reciprocity. The article was therefore postponed83, as was also the sixteenth article, the deputies insisting on the deletion of the introductory sentence as to a fleet to be put forth to guard the sea, which Cromwell refused to do.770
The keenest dispute at this time was about the herring fishery. There were two principles in the article, Cromwell said, which required attention: first, the recognition of England’s right to the fishery; secondly84, compensation for allowing the use of it. Unable to avoid the discussion, the envoys pleaded their immemorial possession and their treaties, and said that their liberty of fishing had never been disputed; besides, they asked, was it a friendly thing to make a proposal of the kind when they were about to conclude a strict and close alliance between the two countries? Cromwell, who had obviously been well posted up in the arguments in Mare85 425 Clausum, then entered upon a lengthy86 disquisition on the subject. He said the English could prove by authentic87 documents that they had had possession of the fishery from all time, and that other nations sought their permission to fish; that the clause in the treaty of 1496 (the Intercursus Magnus) upon which the Dutch relied, was omitted in later treaties; and that the treaties had expired owing to the subsequent wars between Queen Elizabeth and Spain, and had never been since renewed; they were not the same people with whom the treaties had been made, since they were now alienated88 from the House of Burgundy. And they could not establish their right by prescription89, for by the civil law it required a hundred years for a just prescription, and the States had not existed so long as an independent nation. Moreover, long before the treaty of 1496, licenses90 for fishing had been sought and granted. Even King Philip II. in Queen Mary’s time had asked permission to fish for twenty-one years, and had paid ￡1000 a-year for the privilege. King James, too, had issued a proclamation in 1610 (sic) forbidding unlicensed fishing, while King Charles had demanded and received through the Earl of Northumberland an acknowledgment from their herring-busses.
To this long argument the deputies replied with arguments as long. With respect to the treaties, they said that the treaty of 1496 was not between prince and prince, but between states and towns, as specified91 in it; and that the article which provided for mutual92 liberty of fishing had been confirmed in later treaties, notably93 in the treaty of Binche, in 1541, between the Emperor Charles and the King of Scotland; in that of 1550 with Queen Mary of Scotland; and in that between the United Provinces and King James of Scotland in 1594.771 Moreover, in the treaty between England and Spain in 1630, there were certain words which confirmed the ancient treaties of intercourse94 and commerce.772 They expressed the opinion that Cromwell had not been well informed in saying that licenses for fishing had been granted before the Intercursus Magnus was concluded, because it was doubtful if the invention of the 426 salting and casking of herrings was much before that date.773 As to the alleged95 lease of the fishings by King Philip, there was nothing to compel him to take such a lease, and they saw no reason why he should have done so; while the proclamation of James, so far from being an argument against them, was entirely96 in their favour, because, as they could prove from papers in their hands, it was never put into execution, but was suspended on the representations of the States. The action of the Earl of Northumberland they described as simple extortion, since he had compelled a few defenceless fishermen, without the knowledge of the States, to pay him some money. The deputies concluded their arguments by saying they had no further instructions on the matter, and that if the Council pressed the article, they would require to return and report to their Government: there was, they said, a high and mighty97 Lord in heaven who knew the hearts and rights of all, and He would judge. Cromwell assured them that the article had not been inserted in the draft treaty with the object of breaking off the negotiations, but only that they might maintain their just rights. Why, he asked, should the States object to acknowledge the right of the Commonwealth to the fisheries, when other Powers like France and Sweden, who had as much claim to liberty as they, had not scrupled98 to acknowledge it?774
As Cromwell was immovable, and the deputies equally obdurate99, the negotiations came to a stop, and the latter on 5th December formally requested their passports to return to The Hague. In the interval they asked the French ambassador if France had requested permission from England to fish in the sea, as Cromwell averred100. He told them nothing had been said to him on the matter since he came to England, but that his papers showed that the Duke of Guise101 had formerly asked that certain fishermen of Treport should not be molested102 in their fishing.775 They also learned that the Swedish ambassador had sought to obtain from England free commerce in general, 427 free fishery, and freedom of trading to the Barbadoes. It was indeed the case that Sweden had made such proposals. In the negotiations for a treaty with the Commonwealth, the queen expressed her desire to obtain liberty for her subjects to fish for herrings in the British seas,776 and in the preceding August the Council of State, at the request of her ambassador, had actually issued a license45 to four Swedish vessels to fish in the narrow seas and upon the British coasts.777 In a treaty concluded in 1656 between the King of Sweden and the Lord Protector, the privilege, it may be said, was carried much further. The treaty provided that Swedish subjects should be free to fish for herrings and other fish in the seas and on the coasts under the dominion of the Republic, provided the number of ships so employed did not exceed a thousand; and no charges (such as the assize-herring) were to be demanded of the Swedish fishermen, who were to be treated courteously103 and amicably104, allowed to dry their nets on the shore, and to purchase necessaries at a fair price.778
It may be noted as remarkable that, throughout the long discussions with Cromwell about the fishery, the Dutch deputies never made use of the argument, so frequently employed by their predecessors105 at the Court of James, that the English claims were opposed to the law of nations. They probably shrank from using an argument of that kind to the great dictator who had ruthlessly trampled106 on the laws of England; perhaps they were deterred107 by the abrupt108 intimation made earlier, that the Council had not come to listen to scholastic109 subtleties110, but to consider the real legal rights of England. The obstinacy111 of Cromwell in refusing at this stage to modify the fishery article is also noteworthy. No doubt he was 428 moved by a sincere desire to benefit England. The belief was still prevalent that the herring fishery which the Dutch carried on along the British coasts was the foundation of their commerce, wealth, and naval power. It, moreover, provided them with a great “seminary of seamen” to recruit their fleets—a consideration which must have had a special force at a time when we had only the ships in the coal trade between Newcastle and London to draw upon for ours, and when the most rigorous system of pressing failed to provide sufficient men for the navy.779 But Cromwell had other reasons for insisting on the English claims, even to the point of rupture112 of the negotiations. It was by this time obvious that the Barebones or nominated Parliament had only a short life before it, and it was desirable that its dissolution should be free from violence and as far as possible voluntary. The majority of the members were strongly opposed to the Dutch, and to the conclusion of peace except on humiliating terms to the enemy; and it is probable that Cromwell’s insistence113 was partly due to his desire to conciliate them. He was now about to put on the mantle114 of the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England.
When the Dutch envoys wrote to the Council for their passports, they received no answer. On repeating their request two days later, they got a hint of what was impending,—that the Parliament which was against them would soon be dissolved, and the management of affairs placed in the hands of a council of ten or twelve.780 Then on the 9th December they were asked by Viscount Lisle, in the name of the Council, to delay their departure, as commissioners would soon be appointed to treat with them and conclude the treaty. Cromwell took the oath as Lord Protector on the 16th; the new Council of State met on the 19th; and the conferences on the treaty were resumed four days later.781 429
Cromwell did not now attend the conferences, the negotiations being entrusted115 to four members of the Council—Viscount Lisle, Sir Charles Wolseley, Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, and Walter Strickland, who had accompanied St John to The Hague in 1651. The discussions on the questions affecting the claim to the sovereignty of the sea were continued: the striking of the flag, the visitation of ships, and the declaration that the dominion of the sea belonged to England. The former arguments on both sides were repeated, and the Dutch proposed the following article with reference to the flag: “That the ships and vessels of the United Provinces, as well men-of-war as others, meeting with any of the ships of war of the State of England shall honour and dignify116 them with the striking of the flag and lowering the top-sail, in such a manner as ever under any form of government in times past they have been honoured and dignified117; and to prevent all quarrels for the future the particulars thereof shall be regulated by the advice of the generals and commanders.”782 The English commissioners reiterated118 the objections previously made, but now stated that they had been referring only to the narrow seas;783 and it was agreed to refer the points in dispute to the Lord Protector.
Another difficulty arose on the third article, which fixed the dates on which the peace should take effect on the sea, after which dates the capture of prizes would be illegal. The part was as follows: “Excepting such depredations119 as shall be committed in the British Seas (Maria Britannica) after the space of twelve days, and betwixt the British Seas and the Line after the space of ten weeks,” &c. At the first, the phrase “British Seas” had caught the eye of the envoys; but, thinking it was merely an ordinary appellation120 such as might appear on a chart, and that no deep design lurked121 beneath it, they decided that it would not be desirable to raise “the business of the sea” on such a point.784 They now took exception to these words, and suggested that it would be better to begin, “in the narrow sea, which was called the British Sea” after twelve days, from there to Cape122 St Vincent 430 after six weeks, &c. This matter also was referred to the Protector.
Cromwell, who was now settled in his new dignity, gave close attention to the peace negotiations. On 26th December the deputies were handed a paper in his name, in which he gave up the demand for a money payment in reparation for the war; agreed to the stipulation about the exclusion123 of the Prince of Orange—which was the corner-stone of the treaty—being put in a secret article; agreed to some new articles which the Dutch had proposed, after slight modifications124; and at the same time introduced a new element of trouble and debate by formulating125 three additional articles requiring justice to be done for the “murder” of the English at Amboyna in 1623, and concerning the settlement of disputes and wrongs committed in the East Indies, Brazil, and Greenland. Important concessions126 were at the same time made on the maritime question. The article respecting the fishery was dropped. “Concerning the fishing,” wrote the Protector, “the Lords Deputies having by their former papers desired that freedom of fishing in these seas might be declared in this treaty, the 17 article was thereupon propounded127, whereby license is granted to the people of the United Provinces to fish freely in these seas upon the terms therein expressed, notwithstanding as in their Lordships’ power either to accept or refuse, but it cannot be admitted that anything should be inserted in this treaty that may prejudice the right of this state in their fishery.”785 The Dutch thus again scored a diplomatic victory and preserved their liberty of fishing on the British coasts, just as they had done in the reigns128 of James and Charles. They did not succeed in getting the clause in the Intercursus Magnus inserted or confirmed, as they desired, but it still remained in force. Later writers accused Cromwell of having surrendered the rights to the fishery, and much else, as a quid pro2 quo for the stipulation regarding the exclusion of the Orange family in the Netherlands, which was his main object;786 but 431 there is no doubt at all that the States-General would never have agreed to the English proposal.
Concessions were also made as to the striking of the flag. “The 15 article,” said Cromwell, “to be as following: that the ships and vessels of the United Provinces, as well men-of-war as others, meeting at sea with any of the ships of war of the State of England, shall strike their flag and lower their top-sail, and perform the other respects due to this State until they be passed by”; but the request that a naval commission should draw up a “regulation” on the subject was not acceded129 to. On the other hand, the clauses which stipulated130 for a right of visitation of Dutch ships at sea, and the declaration that the dominion and sovereignty of the sea belonged to England, were entirely withdrawn; but the Protector would not yet part with the clause which provided for an English fleet to guard the seas and protect commerce. Surely, he said in effect, since the article limiting the number of warships131 has been withdrawn, you will not contest our dominion of the sea in this?—and at this stage it was retained, with the remark, “this article is insisted on.” One of the new clauses provided that not more than eight men-of-war at a time were to enter any port of the other Power, unless constrained132 by force of tempest, without having obtained consent to do so; and when compelled to enter by danger of the sea, they were immediately to signify to the chief magistrate133 the cause of their coming, and to leave when he required them to depart.787
On the subject of striking the flag, the deputies were not yet satisfied. They still continued to urge that a “regulation” should be prepared; and they now raised a new point. Cromwell had always used the words “at sea,” which might mean any sea or any part of the sea. They now desired that the ceremony should be restricted to the narrow seas, “which,” they said, “are called the British seas.”788 To this proposal Cromwell assented134 in so far that the words “in the British seas” were inserted later. It is curious to notice how the 432 meaning of the term “British Sea” thus became confused even within the compass of a single treaty. In reference to this article, the Protector made the important admission that the narrow seas and the British seas were synonymous.789 In the third article, as we have seen, the same term was used, and it was natural for the Dutch to suppose that it there had the same significance and meant the narrow seas or Channel. Since the clause dealt with a matter of great practical importance, namely, the restitution135 of vessels that might be captured after a specified date, and the term “British seas” appeared to be restricted to the Channel, they wished specifically to include in it the North Sea and the East Sea (or Baltic), both regions of great traffic. The envoys were accordingly instructed later by the States-General to have these words added, so that the clause would read, “excepting such depredations as shall be committed in the British Sea, the East Sea, and the North Sea.”790 By this addition, moreover, the objectionable phrase “the British seas” would be formally restricted to the narrow seas or Channel, with the consent of England. The proposed change was instantly rejected. When Beverning brought it forward, Thurloe resisted it with great warmth,791 and the qualifying words confining the term British seas to the narrow seas, which the Dutch had inserted, were also deleted.792 When it was verbally agreed that the striking of the flag should be restricted to the narrow sea,793 the deputies made a new proposal. It was to the effect that Dutch ships, without any distinction, not only in the narrow seas but throughout the whole world, on meeting English men-of-war should give them the first salute136 by striking the flag and top-sails and firing guns, provided that the English ships immediately returned 433 the salute in precisely137 the same manner. This, doubtless, was the proposition which lurked behind the reiterated suggestion for a “regulation”; but the English commissioners would not agree to any form of reciprocity. The Dutch again raised objections to the part of the sixteenth clause concerning pirates, on the ground that it contained an implication of the claim to the dominion of the seas, which they had constantly opposed, and they cited the treaties with Elizabeth in 1585, and with Charles in 1625, as having assigned to them the protection of the sea off the Flemish coast and neighbouring coasts. They declared they would prefer it to be dropped altogether unless it was amended138 or made reciprocal.794
The differences as to the sovereignty of the sea or the phraseology of the maritime articles were now, however, of little actual importance. The progress of the negotiations, secret and otherwise, had narrowed the real ground of contention139 to two crucial points—the exclusion of the Prince of Orange from office, and the inclusion of Denmark in the treaty. The former had been secretly agreed upon by Cromwell and Beverning, the latter acting140 in conjunction with De Witt;795 but the Protector was obdurate as to the inclusion of Denmark, and the deputies decided to return home to report the state of the negotiations. They left London on 3rd (13th) January, and though a message from Cromwell overtook them at Gravesend conceding the point in dispute as to Denmark, they thought it better to continue their homeward journey. The treaty, so far as it had been officially arranged and made known, was received with approbation141 in Holland, the vital stipulation respecting the exclusion of the Prince of Orange being concealed142. Beverning came back to London on 25th January, but was refused audience by the Protector until he had obtained proper credentials143 recognising the new Government. He was joined by Nieuport and Jongestal a month later, but it was not till 15th March that the conferences were resumed.796
By this time the Protector had in substance conceded almost everything concerning the dominion of the seas that the 434 Dutch had asked for, and the ambassadors—they had returned with the title of extraordinary ambassadors—were anxious to avoid any more discussion about it. For this reason Beverning disapproved144 of the resolution of the States-General, above referred to, for the amendment145 of the third article by specifying146 the North Sea and Baltic, and after his first interview with Cromwell he wrote to them expressing his opinion that it would occasion new disputes about the fisheries and the sovereignty of the sea. We have seen how it was received by Thurloe; and from what followed it would appear that Cromwell had either heard of the rumours147 going about that he had sacrificed the rights of England to the sovereignty of the seas in order to gain the exclusion of the Orange family, or that he was determined148 to keep the matter open until the secret arrangement for that exclusion had been officially accepted in the United Provinces—a task in which De Witt was struggling against enormous difficulties. At all events, after the treaty had been signed by the negotiators and ratified149 by the States-General, and when Cromwell was on the point of ratifying150 it, he suddenly reopened the question as to the extent of the British seas. Thurloe began by asking the ambassadors what was meant by the distinction drawn75 in the third article between the British seas and Cape St Vincent. Such a distinction seemed to prejudice the limits of the British seas, and might besides give rise to disputes later as to the seizure151 of vessels. He then treated the ambassadors to a discourse152 on the extent of the British seas, the particulars of which are, unfortunately, not recorded. They were, however, told that they extended to and along the coast of France, “Xaintonge” (Saintonge, an old French province) and round about there. It had not been thought, he said, to limit or define any seas in stating the districts, and he asked them for a declaration on the subject. They suspected that the design was to extract from them an explicit153 statement as to the southward limit of the British seas, and they said they had now no power either to alter the article or even to interpret it. The treaty had been signed on both sides and ratified by the States-General, and their instructions and commission were at an end. The proposal to alter it, they now alleged, came from themselves alone, without instructions from the 435 States-General, and they had willingly and immediately withdrawn it when objection was made. Cromwell then asked if it had ever been their intention to define in any way the limits of the seas by that article. They replied that they believed not, and added that they had never thought of yielding anything with regard to right or jurisdiction or limits of the seas; and they failed to see what prejudice his Highness could suffer from the extension of the article, unless it was to be maintained that the whole of the French and Portuguese154 coasts to Cape St Vincent were within the narrow seas, as they had defined in the fourteenth article, which was withdrawn.797 Cromwell then angrily told them that he would not exchange the ratification155 of the treaty unless he got the explanation and interpretation156 requested.798 It was only, the ambassadors reported home, by their earnest insistence to the Protector that the articles had been signed with perfect knowledge on both sides of their contents, that he passed from the point. Whatever the object may have been in thus raising a discussion at the last moment as to the extent of the British seas, there is little doubt that the circumstance would prove useful to De Witt in his difficult and manifold man?uvres to get the Act of exclusion of the House of Orange adopted.
The treaty of peace, which had been signed by the plenipotentiaries on 5th April, was ratified by the Protector on 19th April, and proclaimed with due solemnity on the 26th May. It was received with rejoicing both in this country and the Netherlands.799 436
Comparison of the treaty as completed800 with the original draft shows how thoroughly157 the Dutch plenipotentiaries had eviscerated158 the parts dealing with the sovereignty of the sea, and stripped it of almost all the phraseology which might imply such sovereignty. The articles imposing159 tribute for the liberty of fishing; stipulating160 for the visitation and search of vessels; restricting the number of their men-of-war in the British seas; the Plantagenet claim for the guarding of the sea; the declaration that the dominion of the British seas belonged to England,—all had been wiped out. Cromwell indeed succeeded in retaining the term “British seas” in its original ambiguity161; but both he and his commissioners admitted (verbally) that it meant, in reference to the salute, only the narrow sea—a statement which was in contradiction to the instructions issued to the naval officers, and to the practice both before and afterwards. The clause providing for the striking of the flag was saved, but only in a mutilated form. It ran as follows: “That the ships and vessels of the said United Provinces, as well those of war as others which shall meet any of the men-of-war of this Commonwealth in the British Seas, shall strike their flag and lower the top-sail, in such manner as the same has ever been observed at any time heretofore under any other form of government.”801
This, as the States-General took care to point out to their fellow-countrymen, was no more than they had voluntarily agreed to do, and had instructed Tromp to perform, previous to the declaration of war. It was, however, the first time the custom had been recognised in a treaty.
After the conclusion of peace, the English naval commanders took pleasure in vigorously enforcing their right to the “honour of the flag,” and, as above stated, notwithstanding the verbal limitation made by Cromwell and Thurloe, they did not confine the demand to the narrow sea. Within a few weeks of the proclamation of the treaty, and before its details were known 437 to the fleet, Vice-Admiral Lawson encountered the “bellicose” De With off the north coast of Scotland. The Dutch admiral with three men-of-war was convoying seventy sail bound for Greenland, and he at once struck his flag and fired a salute, which the English returned. He also “submitted to a search,” though stating that it was not customary for men-of-war to do so. “De With,” wrote Lawson, “begins to know his duty, being very submissive, acknowledging the sovereignty of England in the seas, and yielding as much as could have been required of any merchant ships.”802
In the south the Dutch were not always so compliant162, and disputes with the English officers sometimes arose as to whether the place where the striking of the flag was demanded was or was not within the British seas. Thus, Captain Cockraine, in the Old Warwick, met a fleet of Holland merchantmen under convoy31 of a man-of-war between the Lizard163 and Ushant. The merchant vessels struck their top-sails, but the man-of-war refused to strike, on the ground that he was not in the British but in the Spanish seas. Cockraine refrained from firing, as the ship was surrounded by others and there was “much wind.” Instead, he wrote to the Admiralty. “I want to know,” he said, “how far is intended by the British Seas, and how far our power reaches, so that we may make no unnecessary broils164.” There is nothing to show what answer he got; but a week later he encountered twenty-six Dutch merchant vessels bound for the Mediterranean165, who refused to strike, and he had to fire thirty guns among them before they submitted.803 About the same time, a States’ man-of-war convoying a fleet of Hollander merchantmen met Captain Heaton, in the Sapphire166, and did not strike until a shot was fired. Heaton sent a message to the commander saying that he had not fulfilled the articles of peace, and that the keeping of his flag and top-sail aloft when within shot of one of the ships of the State of England was a great abuse, and a gross affront167 by the States of Holland to the Commonwealth. To which the Dutch captain replied that if he had shot back at the Sapphire he would have been quite justified168, as, 438 being on his own coast, he was not bound to strike, and had done so not out of duty, but from “brotherly love,” and he then re-hoisted his top-sails and flag. Heaton deliberated whether or not he should fight the Dutchman for doing this, but refrained. He, too, wrote to the Admiralty asking how he should act in similar cases in future.804
The authorities at the Admiralty were always sparing in advice on such matters. They showed the same reticence169 as the Government in defining the extent of the British seas, and for the same reason—that they did not know themselves. This reluctance170 was shown, and a partial glimpse afforded, in a letter to General Montague (afterwards Earl of Sandwich) which Richard, Cromwell’s son, wrote during his brief tenure171 of the Protectorate. Telling him to demand “the flag” of such foreign ships of war as he might encounter in the British seas, he remarked that there had been “some doubt” as to how far the British seas extend. Not unnaturally172, “Tumble-down Dick” shrank from plunging173 into a matter which had puzzled the great Oliver and every one else. “Not being willing,” he said, “to determine that in our instructions, we rather put in general terms the ‘British Seas’ only. We judge there is no question of all the sea on this side the Shagenriffe;805 on the other side [the Baltic] you have need be tender, and to avoid all disputes of this nature, if it be possible, because war and peace depend on it.”806
Disputes about the flag were not the only differences that arose on the sea. At the end of September 1654 complaints came from Yarmouth that the English fishermen were being molested by the Dutch in the herring fishery there. They had come, it was alleged, with a multitude of busses, “far above a thousand sail,” and, contrary to the custom before the war, “and against the laws of this nation,” shot their nets so close to the sands that the English were crowded 439 out and hindered in their usual fishing. The Dutch busses occupied a space of more than forty miles adjacent to the coast, and the English fishermen were afraid to use their nets lest they lost them. When they remonstrated174 with the foreigners for coming so near the shore, they were vilified175, and muskets176 and “great guns” were shot at them.807 By the direction of Cromwell and the Council, the complaints were transmitted to the ambassadors, who were still in London, and they requested the States-General and the commanders of the ships guarding the busses to make every effort to avoid giving cause for complaint. In the inquiry177 which followed, the Dutch fishermen denied the charges against them, and in turn accused some of the Englishmen of shooting at them, cutting their ropes, and calling them dogs, rogues178, and devils. They stated that they had carried on the fishing in the old accustomed way, the English usually fishing peacefully along with them.808
Under the Commonwealth and Protectorate very little was heard of schemes for establishing fishery societies, such as appeared and disappeared so frequently in the preceding reigns and afterwards. That the Puritan spirit was not antagonistic179 to projects of the kind was shown by proposals made in 1649. One of these contemplated180 the employment of Dutchmen to establish “a fishing trade” in England. It was referred by the Council of State to Sir Henry Vane and Alderman Wilson, with what result does not appear. Another, briefly181 described, was to set up a fishing trade for the English nation;809 and about this time the attention of some writers on commercial matters was directed to the same end. The only thing apparently effected was the gift to the Corporation of the Poor in London of some of the Dutch busses captured in the war, to be used in fishing on the English coast. During this period of our history the Government 440 had other things to think about than the launching of fishery schemes. Cromwell, however, at the conclusion of the war, renewed the licenses to the fishermen of Dieppe and Calais to fish in the seas between England and France, at the usual times and places.
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
pro
|
|
| n.赞成，赞成的意见，赞成者 | |
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
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
clandestine
|
|
| adj.秘密的，暗中从事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
favourably
|
|
| adv. 善意地，赞成地 =favorably | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
incurred
|
|
| [医]招致的，遭受的； incur的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
oligarchy
|
|
| n.寡头政治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
nominees
|
|
| n.被提名者，被任命者( nominee的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
envoys
|
|
| 使节( envoy的名词复数 )； 公使； 谈判代表； 使节身份 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
truce
|
|
| n.休战，(争执，烦恼等的)缓和；v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
pointedly
|
|
| adv.尖地，明显地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
coalescence
|
|
| n.合并，联合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
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： |
|
|
|
|
22
interval
|
|
| n.间隔，间距；幕间休息，中场休息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
molestation
|
|
| n.骚扰，干扰，调戏；折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
stipulation
|
|
| n.契约，规定，条文；条款说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
coalition
|
|
| n.结合体，同盟，结合，联合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
memorandum
|
|
| n.备忘录，便笺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
convoy
|
|
| vt.护送，护卫，护航；n.护送；护送队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
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： |
|
|
|
|
33
guardians
|
|
| 监护人( guardian的名词复数 )； 保护者，维护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
averse
|
|
| adj.厌恶的；反对的，不乐意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
dominion
|
|
| n.统治，管辖，支配权；领土，版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
conformity
|
|
| n.一致，遵从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
thorny
|
|
| adj.多刺的，棘手的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
defer
|
|
| vt.推迟，拖延；vi.(to)遵从，听从，服从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
immunities
|
|
| 免除，豁免( immunity的名词复数 )； 免疫力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
defensive
|
|
| adj.防御的；防卫的；防守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
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： |
|
|
|
|
47
isles
|
|
| 岛( isle的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
navigate
|
|
| v.航行，飞行；导航，领航 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
vanquished
|
|
| v.征服( vanquish的过去式和过去分词 )；战胜；克服；抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
implicit
|
|
| a.暗示的，含蓄的，不明晰的，绝对的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
jealousy
|
|
| n.妒忌，嫉妒，猜忌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
sarcastically
|
|
| adv.挖苦地，讽刺地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
pious
|
|
| adj.虔诚的；道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
adroit
|
|
| adj.熟练的，灵巧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
diplomacy
|
|
| n.外交；外交手腕，交际手腕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
maritime
|
|
| adj.海的，海事的，航海的，近海的，沿海的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
disorders
|
|
| n.混乱( disorder的名词复数 )；凌乱；骚乱；（身心、机能）失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
prerogative
|
|
| n.特权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
inaccurate
|
|
| adj.错误的，不正确的，不准确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
obnoxious
|
|
| adj.极恼人的，讨人厌的，可憎的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
perilous
|
|
| adj.危险的，冒险的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
uncertainty
|
|
| n.易变，靠不住，不确知，不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
inflexible
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，不受影响的，不屈服的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
stultify
|
|
| v.愚弄；使呆滞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
postponed
|
|
| vt.& vi.延期，缓办，（使）延迟vt.把…放在次要地位；[语]把…放在后面（或句尾）vi.（疟疾等）延缓发作（或复发） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
mare
|
|
| n.母马，母驴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
lengthy
|
|
| adj.漫长的，冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
authentic
|
|
| a.真的，真正的；可靠的，可信的，有根据的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
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： |
|
|
|
|
89
prescription
|
|
| n.处方，开药；指示，规定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
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： |
|
|
|
|
91
specified
|
|
| adj.特定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
notably
|
|
| adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
scrupled
|
|
| v.感到于心不安，有顾忌( scruple的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
obdurate
|
|
| adj.固执的，顽固的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
averred
|
|
| v.断言( aver的过去式和过去分词 )；证实；证明…属实；作为事实提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
guise
|
|
| n.外表，伪装的姿态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
molested
|
|
| v.骚扰( molest的过去式和过去分词 )；干扰；调戏；猥亵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
courteously
|
|
| adv.有礼貌地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
amicably
|
|
| adv.友善地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
trampled
|
|
| 踩( trample的过去式和过去分词 )； 践踏； 无视； 侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
deterred
|
|
| v.阻止，制止( deter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
abrupt
|
|
| adj.突然的，意外的；唐突的，鲁莽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
scholastic
|
|
| adj.学校的，学院的，学术上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
subtleties
|
|
| 细微( subtlety的名词复数 )； 精细； 巧妙； 细微的差别等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
obstinacy
|
|
| n.顽固；（病痛等）难治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
rupture
|
|
| n.破裂；(关系的)决裂；v.(使)破裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
insistence
|
|
| n.坚持；强调；坚决主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
mantle
|
|
| n.斗篷，覆罩之物，罩子；v.罩住，覆盖，脸红 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
entrusted
|
|
| v.委托，托付( entrust的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
dignify
|
|
| vt.使有尊严；使崇高；给增光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
dignified
|
|
| a.可敬的，高贵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
reiterated
|
|
| 反复地说，重申( reiterate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
depredations
|
|
| n.劫掠，毁坏( depredation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
appellation
|
|
| n.名称，称呼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
lurked
|
|
| vi.潜伏，埋伏（lurk的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
cape
|
|
| n.海角，岬；披肩，短披风 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
modifications
|
|
| n.缓和( modification的名词复数 )；限制；更改；改变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
formulating
|
|
| v.构想出( formulate的现在分词 )；规划；确切地阐述；用公式表示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
concessions
|
|
| n.（尤指由政府或雇主给予的）特许权( concession的名词复数 )；承认；减价；（在某地的）特许经营权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
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： |
|
|
|
|
128
reigns
|
|
| n.君主的统治( reign的名词复数 )；君主统治时期；任期；当政期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
acceded
|
|
| v.（正式）加入( accede的过去式和过去分词 )；答应；（通过财产的添附而）增加；开始任职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
stipulated
|
|
| vt.& vi.规定；约定adj.[法]合同规定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
warships
|
|
| 军舰，战舰( warship的名词复数 )； 舰只 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
assented
|
|
| 同意，赞成( assent的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
restitution
|
|
| n.赔偿；恢复原状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
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： |
|
|
|
|
137
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
Amended
|
|
| adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
approbation
|
|
| n.称赞；认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
credentials
|
|
| n.证明，资格，证明书，证件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
disapproved
|
|
| v.不赞成( disapprove的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
specifying
|
|
| v.指定( specify的现在分词 )；详述；提出…的条件；使具有特性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
rumours
|
|
| n.传闻( rumour的名词复数 )；风闻；谣言；谣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
ratified
|
|
| v.批准，签认（合约等）( ratify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
ratifying
|
|
| v.批准，签认（合约等）( ratify的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
seizure
|
|
| n.没收；占有；抵押 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
Portuguese
|
|
| n.葡萄牙人；葡萄牙语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
ratification
|
|
| n.批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
eviscerated
|
|
| v.切除…的内脏( eviscerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
stipulating
|
|
| v.（尤指在协议或建议中）规定，约定，讲明（条件等）( stipulate的现在分词 )；规定，明确要求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
ambiguity
|
|
| n.模棱两可；意义不明确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
compliant
|
|
| adj.服从的，顺从的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
lizard
|
|
| n.蜥蜴，壁虎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
broils
|
|
| v.（用火）烤（焙、炙等）( broil的第三人称单数 )；使卷入争吵；使混乱；被烤（或炙） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
Mediterranean
|
|
| adj.地中海的；地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
sapphire
|
|
| n.青玉，蓝宝石；adj.天蓝色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
affront
|
|
| n./v.侮辱，触怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
reticence
|
|
| n.沉默，含蓄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
reluctance
|
|
| n.厌恶，讨厌，勉强，不情愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
tenure
|
|
| n.终身职位；任期；(土地)保有权，保有期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
unnaturally
|
|
| adv.违反习俗地；不自然地；勉强地；不近人情地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
plunging
|
|
| adj.跳进的，突进的v.颠簸( plunge的现在分词 )；暴跌；骤降；突降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
remonstrated
|
|
| v.抗议( remonstrate的过去式和过去分词 )；告诫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
vilified
|
|
| v.中伤，诽谤( vilify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
muskets
|
|
| n.火枪，（尤指）滑膛枪( musket的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
rogues
|
|
| n.流氓( rogue的名词复数 )；无赖；调皮捣蛋的人；离群的野兽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
antagonistic
|
|
| adj.敌对的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
contemplated
|
|
| adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |