As in the reign1 of Charles I., it was therefore towards the development of British fisheries that efforts were first directed. The means taken with this view were twofold: the taxation16 of imported fish which had been caught by foreigners, and the creation of great fishery associations like those which had been established earlier in the century. The Navigation Act, which was passed a few months after the Restoration, while more oppressive to Dutch commerce and shipping than the Act of 1651, was less stringent17 in this particular. The measure of the Rump Parliament prohibited the importation or exportation of 442 fish, or its carriage coastways, unless such fish had been caught by subjects. This prohibition18 was ineffective,811 and it was now replaced by the imposition of double customs on all kinds of dried or salted fish imported, if caught or brought by vessels19 other than English.812 Three years later, the importation of fresh herrings, cod21, haddocks, and coal-fish was absolutely prohibited unless they had been taken and imported in vessels certified22 to be English.813 With the view of still further promoting the fisheries, the same prohibition was afterwards extended to cured fish and certain other fresh fish,814 which practically restored the provision of the first Act of 1651. To a large extent these variations were due to the trade rivalries23 that existed in England, the party which was uppermost at the time forcing the measures that were most in its interest.
Besides protective duties and monopolies, more direct means of encouraging the fisheries were tried. The always attractive idea was revived of establishing a great national fishery society, which, on the one hand, would enrich those who supported it with their purse, and on the other hand would increase the prosperity and the power of the country. Simon Smith, who had been the agent of the Royal Fishery Society in the reign of Charles I., lost no time in presenting to the king his two books on the subject, along with a petition in which he dwelt upon the advantages that would accrue24 to the nation from the labours of such an association.815 Smith recommended that all the corporations and county towns in the kingdom should conjointly 443 raise a stock to buy hemp26 and other materials to equip busses, which were to be built at the seaports27 nearest to them and sent to the fishing at Shetland; and he calculated, after the usual fashion, that each buss would maintain twenty families in work, “breed country youths to be mariners29,” and cause many ships to be employed in exporting the herrings and bringing back commodities.
Charles was apparently30 impressed by Smith’s arguments. Within two months of the Restoration he caused a letter to be written to the Lord Mayor of London, referring to the good done by the Society formed in 1632, “as by the book called the Royal Herring Busse Fishing (sic) presented to him, plainly appeared”; requesting particulars to be obtained of all the poor inhabitants within each ward15 who were in want of employment; requesting that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen should raise a stock by a free subscription31 to fit out a buss or fishing vessel20 for each ward; and that storehouses should be built in suitable places about the river Thames, provided with nets, casks, salt, and all things in readiness. The busses were to attend the fishing at Shetland, according to the “prescribed orders in the aforesaid book,” and the king declared he would recommend the same course to all the cities and towns throughout the kingdom, so as to make it a national employment.816
The assistance of Parliament was also called in. On 8th November 1660 the House of Commons remitted32 “the consideration of the fisheries” to the Committee for Trade and Navigation, who were asked to inform the House “what they thought necessary for the regulation and advancement33 of that trade.”817 The Committee’s report does not appear to have been preserved, but on 8th December a “Bill for Encouraging the Fisheries of this Kingdom” was introduced. It was remitted to a large committee, including the members for the seaport28 towns, and 444 being read a third time on 27th December, was sent up to the Lords.818 It was, to a large extent, directed against fishing by foreigners on the British coasts and the use of destructive methods of fishing. One of its clauses prohibited trawling, whether by subjects or foreigners, within eight miles of certain parts of the coast. The fate of this important measure was unfortunate. The Parliament was dissolved two days after it reached the Lords, and nothing further was heard of it.819
In the following year a measure dealing34 with the fisheries was passed by the Scottish Parliament.820 The preamble35 contained the common declarations as to the value of the fisheries to shipping and commerce, to the navy, in the employment of the poor, and as furnishing the materials for a great native export. The Act provided for the formation of societies and companies of free-born Scotsmen, each member to supply at least 500 merks Scots as stock, and they were to receive various 445 privileges and immunities36, including power to erect37 houses for the fishing trade wherever it was most convenient, a “limited allowance” to be paid for the ground. An absolute monopoly of the export of fish, fresh or cured, was granted to the companies; foreigners were prohibited from curing herrings or white fish on land, or erecting38 booths for the purpose,—a provision aimed against the German merchants at Shetland,—but encouragement was given to foreign fishermen to settle and become naturalised in Scotland, and even to become burgesses, and they were to be exempt39 from taxation for seven years. The importation of everything required for the fishery, including “Holland nets,” was to be free of custom dues; the exports were to be similarly exempted40, and the “teind” and “assize” herrings were to be remitted for nine years.
The provisions of this Act differed essentially41 from the scheme proposed by Charles I. in 1630, which aroused so much opposition42, inasmuch as the companies were to be composed solely43 of Scotsmen. The question of the territorial44 or “reserved” waters belonging to Scotland was thus avoided. It appears, indeed, that the Act was due to the representations of the Royal Burghs, for in the preceding autumn they expressed a desire for the “erection of the fishing trade in Scotland,” and resolved to bring the subject before the next Parliament.821 Little was done in Scotland under this Act. A company was formed, which, however, seemed more desirous of misusing45 its privileges than of fostering the fisheries, if we may judge from a petition of the burghs to the Lords of the Exchequer46, praying that the company might be restricted to import nothing but what was necessary for the fishing trade. The town of Musselburgh also was empowered to equip busses, and various towns in Fife applied47 for and received permission to fish in the northern seas. The Scottish society became an incubus48, and in 1690, when its function seems to have shrunk to the mechanical exaction49 of a tax of £6 Scots per last 446 of herrings exported from Scotland, the Act under which it had been formed was repealed51.822
In England the efforts to establish a fishery association met with but little more success, although the king showed an active interest in its promotion52. On 22nd August he issued a commission under the great seal, appointing his brother, the Duke of York, and twenty-nine noblemen, including all the great officers of the Court, with six others, as the “Council of the Royal Fishery of Great Britain and Ireland,” to which he assigned various privileges and monopolies. To encourage the building of busses, the king “requested” that wharfs53, docks, and storehouses should be built on the Thames and in all the ports of the kingdom for their accommodation and use; all the “returns” or commodities brought back from foreign lands for the fish exported were exempted from customs for seven years; all victuallers, inns, alehouses, taverns54, coffee-houses, and the like, were to be bound to take from one to four, or more, barrels of herrings from the society yearly at thirty shillings a-barrel, “until foreign vent55 be attained56 to perfection”; each barrel of pickled herrings or cod-fish brought into the realm by the Flemings, or others, was to be taxed half-a-crown, the tax to be paid into the coffers of the society, and the protection of the State was to be given to their fishing vessels and the vessels employed in exporting fish. It was further provided that the money necessary for the scheme should be obtained by a lottery57, to be set up for three years, and by a collection in every parish in the kingdom.
A few days later, Charles issued letters-patent saying that he had requested a bountiful subscription from London to fit out fishing vessels, which should belong to the wards14, and recommending the same to the whole country, as the Hollanders had so engrossed58 the fisheries that the fishing towns were greatly decayed; the local officers were to see to the collections being made, the monies to be paid to the high-sheriff and by him remitted to the Earl of Pembroke, who was appointed treasurer60. Those who subscribed61 to the stock were to pay their money in three instalments to Mr Thomas King, a London merchant 447 and member of Parliament, who became the moving spirit in the project; and the adventurers were to have the option of withdrawing after three years, on giving six months’ notice.823 Literary puffs62 were not neglected. A highly-coloured account of the value of the Dutch fisheries (founded mainly on the Raleigh tract) and of the rosy63 prospects64 of the society was published “by command.” The cost of a buss, equipped and provisioned for four months, was set down at £835; the herrings caught in that time were calculated to fetch a round £1000, giving an immediate65 profit of £165 after meeting all expenses.824
Notwithstanding the active support of the Court and the energy of many agents, subscriptions66 to the fishery society filtered in but slowly. The sum collected for it in the London churches in the year 1661 amounted to the paltry67 total of £818, 6s. 4?d.—scarcely enough to set forth68 one buss,—and in the autumn of 1664 it was reported that the amount collected throughout England and Ireland was only £1076. The lottery, too, from which a great deal was hoped, gave rise to much corruption69, confusion, and dispute, without notably70 enriching the society.825 In these depressing circumstances recourse was again had to Parliament. On 5th March 1662 a “Bill to confirm his Majesty71’s letters patent concerning the fishing trade” was introduced into the House of Commons and remitted to a committee; but it ultimately became transformed into a mere72 local Act dealing with pilchard-fishing.826 The king was not yet discouraged. The Masters of the Trinity House were consulted in July as to the cost of ten busses he had resolved to build, and the amount required—£9000—was actually handed over to Mr Thomas King. Charles further offered to pay £200 to every person who had a new 448 English-built fishing-buss ready for the fishing before the middle of the following year.827 To facilitate the success of the society on the foreign markets, an Act was passed in 1663, after considerable discussion, to make the use of the Dutch system of curing and packing herrings compulsory73, so as to avoid abuses, and bring the English-cured herrings into repute.828
At a meeting of the Privy74 Council a few months later, Sir William Batten, Sir Richard Chaterton, and Sir William Ryder were appointed to formulate75 proposals for the organisation76 of the Royal Herring Fishery, and, after consultation77 with Simon Smith and Mr Thomas King, it was resolved to adopt the Dutch system and regulations and to go on with the scheme.829 The next step was the issue by the king in the spring of 1664 of another commission under the great seal, by which the Duke of York and thirty-six assistants were incorporated as Governors and Company of the Royal Fishery of Great Britain and Ireland; the Lord Mayor and the Chamberlain of the City of London were appointed treasurers78.830
In spite of all efforts, such as they were, extremely little was done by the society before the outbreak of the second Dutch war. The slovenly79 way in which the business was managed and the corruption in regard to the finances were notorious. Pepys, who was a member of the council of the society, and had grave misgivings80 as to the issue of their labours, gives amusing glimpses of the proceedings81 in his Diary. He examined the accounts, and declared that “the loose and base manner that monies so collected are disposed of in, would make a man never part with a penny in that manner.” The Duke of York and the members did not even meet to read the king’s commission until July, and 449 the later meetings were often futile82 from the want of a quorum83. “A sad thing it is to see,” says Pepys, “so great a work so ill followed, for at this pace it can come to nothing but disgrace to us all.”831
The failure of the attempt to establish a great national fishery to expel the foreigner from the British seas, after five years’ endeavour, was very agreeable to the Dutch, who had watched the proceedings with close attention, and had tried, openly and secretly, to hinder success whenever they had an opportunity. Immediately after the Restoration, the States-General, anxious to come to a good understanding with Charles, sent special ambassadors to London to arrange a treaty of friendship and alliance, and to renew previous treaties.832 The negotiations84 which ensued dealt, among other things, with the fisheries, the flag, and the sovereignty of the sea. The object of De Witt, the great Dutch Minister, was the usual one of his countrymen on similar occasions—viz., to secure as far as possible the commercial and other privileges which had been granted by the Intercursus Magnus. Charles, on the other hand, wished at the very least to retain all the concessions85 that Cromwell had secured by the treaty of 1654.833
When the Dutch ambassadors arrived, or at all events when they began negotiations in London, the House of Commons had already taken up the question of the fisheries. Action of this kind always occasioned the Dutch anxiety. They knew it was directed against their predominance in a vital industry, and that it was usually followed by troublesome claims to the sovereignty of the sea and to an exclusive fishing on the British coasts. Here were all those questions raised in threatening fashion in the Bill passed by the Commons and 450 sent up to the Lords. Moreover, English privateers, sailing under Swedish colours, had lately been seizing Dutch herring-busses, and though protests were made by the ambassadors, no redress87 was obtained.834 The debates and proceedings in the House of Commons attracted immediate attention in Holland.835 De Witt at once took up a firm attitude. He declared that the new pretension of England to the dominion of the seas and for the ruin of the Great Fishery would meet with the most determined88 resistance of the Republic; and, while consoling himself with the thought that reason had always prevailed against it in the past, he urged the ambassadors to use every means in their power with the Peers and the king in order to frustrate89 it. The Marquis of Ormonde, who was an intimate friend of Beverwaert’s and one of Charles’s Ministers, was bribed90 to use his influence to the same end. This nobleman informed the ambassador that when he was asked to favour the fishery project, he had answered that while he desired the advantage of the nation as much as any man, it would be first necessary to prepare for war, as it was in reality an affair of state; and he took credit with his Dutch friend for having induced many members of Parliament to oppose the Bill.836 Whether these intrigues92 had any influence in causing the fishery question to be so frequently “laid aside” in Parliament can only be surmised93.
So much concerned were the States-General about the provisions of the Bill, that they despatched a special letter to be presented to the king, in the hope, as De Witt said, that the resolution of the Commons might be suspended and its execution prevented.837 But when it became known in Holland that 451 the Bill had been shelved by the dissolution of Parliament, and that Charles was unlikely to summon another Parliament for a long time, the ambassadors were told to withhold94 it, but at the same time to make its substance known to the Ministers, so that the king might learn of it indirectly95. They were also warned to say nothing, in the negotiations for the treaty on which they were engaged, that might allow it to be supposed that the right of the Dutch to fish in the seas around the coast of England was derived96 from any treaty or compact, or from any concession86 on the part of England. On the contrary, it arose jure proprio from the law of nature and the law of nations, the stipulation97 in the treaty of 1495 merely expressing this mutual98 right of free fishery with the view of preventing violence on either side.
The negotiations dragged on slowly. The English commissioners99 showed no anxiety to discuss the questions of the fishery, commerce, or navigation, about which the Dutch were most concerned. Taking their stand on the Navigation Act, which Parliament had recently passed, they declined to listen to any proposal for free fishing on the English coast. The Dutch ambassadors grew hopeless of being able to conclude a treaty satisfactory to the States, and this feeling was strengthened by the jealousy and resentment100 which the English began to manifest concerning the simultaneous negotiations that were going on between Paris and The Hague.838 Foreseeing the difficulties likely to arise with England over the fishery question, De Witt had made a dexterous101 move. In the negotiations with France for a treaty between the two countries, he proposed that an article should be inserted reciprocally guaranteeing the right of free fishing in the sea to the subjects of each nation against any that might endeavour to interfere102 with it. A similar proposal had been made to France in 1653, but was rejected owing to the desire of the French Government to avoid irritating Cromwell.839 Even now, when international conditions were more favourable103 for its acceptance, the French looked askance at it, and asked the States to define precisely104 their position as to the right of fishery. They said in reply that 452 they claimed the right of fishing in the open sea by the law of nations; that it was a right independent of any treaties, which merely illustrated105 and explained it, and was like the liberty of commerce and navigation—free and open to all. The two countries should therefore, it was urged, agree mutually to support one another in the free exercise of this common right. In substance this was clearly a demand that France should combine with them to resist the English pretension to the sovereignty of the sea, on the point in which it chiefly affected106 the United Provinces—namely, the fishery. The French met it by suggesting that, as a quid pro5 quo, the States should guarantee them in the same way against the claim of the English to make French ships lower their flag to them in the narrow seas. France, as we have seen, was not troubled by England about the fishery, although many French vessels fished off the English coast. On the other hand, the Dutch had formally agreed to strike to English ships by the treaty of 1654,—a ceremony that France declined to render, and avoided as far as possible. De Witt saw that if the States gave the guarantee desired, it would place in the hands of the French the power to compel them to take up arms against England at any time they chose, and he instructed the Dutch ambassadors, if they could not evade107 the proposal altogether, to request a declaration, in writing, of the precise claims concerning the striking of the flag which the King of France put forward as against the King of England. He said the obligation of the States to strike was indisputable; but it was not a recognition of England’s pretended dominion of the sea, but merely a formal deference108 that republics had always shown to monarchies110. De Witt privately111 expressed the opinion that the French would hesitate to formulate in writing any claim of that kind, and the result proved his foresight112. The French ambassador in London made certain overtures113 to Charles without receiving a satisfactory reply, and the French proposal for a guarantee about the flag was dropped.
A diplomatic tussle114 then took place as to whether the word “fishery” should appear in the treaty. The French were anxious to keep it out, and the Dutch as desirous that it should be expressly included. Later, De Witt seemed disposed to concede the point, provided other words could be found 453 which would “clearly stipulate115, in express terms, that if their subjects were molested117 in their fishery the French would carry out against those who molested them the guarantee promised.” At this stage, however,—March 1662,—the Dutch towns insisted on the fishery guarantee being absolutely explicit118. The states most concerned—Holland and West Friesland—unanimously passed a resolution that if France refused to agree to the word “fishery” being inserted, the negotiations should be broken off and the ambassadors recalled. Louis XIV. then gave way. “I must admit,” he wrote to his ambassador in London, “that I have the same interest in this guarantee as the Dutch, since the right of fishing may just as well be refused by England to my subjects as to those of the States-General.”840 The treaty was signed on 27th April 1662, and in the fourth article the two contracting Powers mutually agreed to assist one another in protecting their fishermen from those who might molest116 them.841
The stipulation in the treaty with France was a notable triumph for De Witt. For the first time in their history the Dutch had succeeded in formally binding119 another Power to help them in resisting the English claims to the sovereignty of the sea, so far as concerned the liberty of fishing. Should Charles II. wish to emulate120 the exploits of his father by sending a fleet to force licenses122 on the Dutch herring-busses, he would now have to reckon on the combined opposition of France and the United Provinces. The triumph was, 454 however, a barren one, and the treaty had no practical effect. Within a few years the Dutch Republic was in the throes of war, first with England, and then with England and France, and other treaties took its place. It had, however, an immediate influence upon the policy of Charles, who feared an alliance of the two Continental123 Powers against England. When he heard of the negotiations about the fishery guarantee he tried, both at Paris and at The Hague, to prevent an agreement being reached, and the obstacles which he interposed delayed the conclusion of the treaty. Sir George Downing, the English ambassador in Holland, who had taken a prominent part in the debates in the Commons on the Fishery Bill, and whose hostile sentiments to the Dutch were notorious, took up an unusual attitude. He assured De Witt that since the United Provinces were a republic and did not seek to encroach on England, they might freely continue their fishery without fearing the least trouble; but England could never allow that France, a monarchy124, and a bold and enterprising nation, should have unrestricted liberty of fishing on the English coasts. It was feared, he said, that by its fishery the abundance of mariners and the increase in shipping which would follow would make it formidable to England, and this the English, in accordance with their political maxims125, would prevent. The French had frequently requested and received licenses for a limited number of vessels to fish in English waters, sometimes for the king’s table. If, therefore, he continued, the proposed guarantee were agreed to, the Republic as well as France would be de facto at war with England, because England would never leave the French fishermen at peace. The same language was used by Downing to many of the deputies of the States-General, in the hope of frightening them, but it made no impression. “I have declared to Downing,” wrote De Witt, “that sooner than acknowledge this imaginary sovereignty over the seas, or even receive from the English, as a concession, that freedom of navigation and fishing which belongs to us by natural right and the law of nations, we would shed our last drop of blood.”842 455
The inflexible126 attitude of De Witt, and the actual conclusion of the treaty with France, extinguished for a time the hope of compelling the Dutch to acknowledge the right of England to the exclusive fishing along her coasts, and the proposal was not pressed upon the ambassadors in London during the dilatory127 negotiations for the Anglo-Dutch treaty. With regard to the striking of the flag, Charles received more satisfaction. The tenth article of the treaty, which was signed at Whitehall on 4/14 September 1662, stipulated128 that Dutch ships, whether men-of-war or others, should strike their flag and lower their top-sails on meeting an English man-of-war on the British seas. It was indeed precisely the same clause as that contained in Cromwell’s treaty of 1654, except that certain verbal alterations129 were made in accordance with the change in the form of the English government.843
In the earlier years of the reign of Charles II., comparatively little was heard of disputes about the flag, which afterwards became so frequent and important. One instance occurred in 1662, when a Dutch vessel that was in Yarmouth Roads without a commission was taken to the Downs for refusing to lower her sails to a king’s ship.844 A case of much greater interest happened in the previous year, when Captain R. Holmes, in command of the Royal Charles, allowed the ship of the Swedish ambassador to pass him on the Thames without compelling it to strike. As the English Admiralty were always punctilious130 in enforcing the salute131 on state occasions, as when a foreign ambassador was concerned, Holmes 456 for his remissness132 was deprived of his command.845 The case of Holmes had some interesting consequences. It revealed once more the want of precise knowledge at the Admiralty as to the rules which should be followed in making foreign ships strike their flag. The Duke of York, who was the Lord High Admiral, was himself ignorant on the point, and he asked the principal officials about it—Sir George Carteret, the treasurer; Coventry, his own secretary; Sir William Batten and Sir William Penn, commissioners of the navy and experienced naval133 officers; and lastly Mr Pepys, who was the clerk to the navy. It appears, however, that though they all “did do as much as they could,” the information they possessed134 was of the scantiest135 kind. Pepys tells us that he knew nothing about it himself, and was forced “to study a lie” by fathering an improbable story on Selden, on the spur of the moment; but on the same evening the genial136 diarist bought a copy of Selden’s Mare137 Clausum and sat up at nights diligently138 studying it, with the view of writing a treatise139 “about the business of striking sail” to present to the Duke. After nearly six weeks’ inquiry140 and cogitation141 the Admiralty officials “agreed upon some things to answer to the Duke about the practice of striking of the flags,” which encouraged Pepys to persevere142 with his treatise, but it was never completed.846
A case of greater international importance occurred in the Mediterranean143 in the following year. Vice-Admiral Sir John Lawson was co-operating with De Ruyter against the Algerine pirates, and when the fleets met, the Dutch admiral saluted144 the English flag with guns and by lowering his own flag. Lawson returned the guns, but he did not strike his flag, as was the custom in distant seas, and De Ruyter, indignant at the slight, resolved not to strike his flag in future either, on 457 the ground that he was not in British waters, and that he had verbal orders which authorised him in refusing. When De Witt heard of his intentions, he immediately sent instructions in the name of the States of Holland strictly145 to observe the treaty, and declaring that the lowering of the flag must not be confined to British waters, since that might be interpreted into subjection to English dominion of the seas. If the English admiral again declined to lower his flag in return, De Ruyter was merely to report the fact to the States.847 The action of De Witt was not designed simply to avoid a quarrel. As will be seen later, it expressed his settled conviction and the fixed146 policy of the Republic on this thorny147 subject.
All such questions as to the flag and the fisheries were soon submerged in the second Dutch war. The causes which brought it about were at root the same as those which had led up to the first. Commercial jealousy was always a smouldering flame, ready to burst into a great conflagration148. The English believed that the Dutch had juggled149 them out of their trade and trading rights in several quarters of the globe, and with some reason. But probably the real motive150 was succinctly151 stated by Monk152, now Duke of Albemarle, when he said that the essential cause of the quarrels between the two nations was that the English wanted a larger share of the trade of the Dutch. Charles himself, like his great Minister, the Chancellor153 Clarendon, seems to have been disinclined to the war, which, however, was advocated strongly by the Duke of York, who supported the contention154 of the merchants that it would benefit English commerce. Accusations155 were levelled against the Dutch of having by fraud and stratagem156 driven English trade almost entirely157 from the East and West Indies, and greatly reduced it in the Mediterranean and in Africa. These complaints were echoed in Parliament, and in April 1664 a resolution was passed by the two Houses declaring that the wrongs and 458 outrages158 committed by the Dutch on our merchants in India, Africa, and elsewhere were “the greatest obstruction159 of our foreign trade,” and that the king should be asked to “take some speedy course for redress.” John de Witt fruitlessly endeavoured by all honourable160 means to avert161 hostilities162. The warlike and marauding expedition of Holmes (now restored to favour) against the Dutch settlements on the west coast of Africa and in America was followed, as it was bound to be, by the retaliatory163 expedition of De Ruyter, which gave the English the pretext164 for declaring war in the spring of 1665.848
The war was exceedingly popular in England, and large sums were willingly voted by the House of Commons. Pepys tells us that the Court were “mad” for it, and another contemporary writer says it was the universal wish of the people.849 Thus no appeal to the national passion of Englishmen about the sovereignty of the sea was required on this occasion, and such references as were made to the subject were of a formal kind. One of the accusations which the Parliament flung at the Dutch was that they had “proclaimed themselves Lords of the South Sea; and, in contempt, shot at and use other indignities165 to our royall flag, thereby166 affronting167 his Majesty and this nation.” Then, in the preamble of the Act granting money for the equipment of a fleet, it was declared to be “for the preservation168 of his Majesty’s ancient and undoubted sovereignty and dominion in the seas”;850 and in his instructions to the Duke of York as Lord High Admiral, the king said the great fleet he had prepared was “to assert his right to the dominion of the Narrow Seas,” and for the mastery of the sea and the security of navigation.851 But these phrases were to be expected. For the same reason, popular literature on England’s dominion of the seas was on this occasion scanty169, 459 though some attempts were made to excite national animosity by the familiar arguments.852
The general course of the war, in which France, and then Denmark, combined with the United Provinces against England, does not concern us here.853 It did not add fresh laurels170 to the brow of Charles II. as Sovereign of the Sea. Three great sea-fights took place—off Lowestoft, on 13th June 1665; in the Straits of Dover, from 11th to 14th June 1666 (the Four Days’ Battle); and off the North Foreland, on 4th August in the same year. In the first and last the English were successful; in the Four Days’ Battle the advantage lay with the Dutch; but the war ended in naval disaster and national humiliation171 for England. In June 1667, when the plenipotentiaries were quietly sitting at Breda leisurely172 engaged in arranging terms of peace, De Ruyter, with Cornelius the brother of John de Witt, suddenly appeared in the mouth of the Thames, and sent up a squadron which seized Sheerness and Chatham, and might have gone to London Bridge for all the king could have done to prevent it. They burned the best ships of the great fleet which was to have “asserted England’s dominion of the sea”; London was paralysed with consternation173 and amazement,—Pepys locked his father and wife in a bedroom to save them from the perils174 of a sack,—and while Monk, the one stout175 heart among them, posted down to Gravesend “in his shirt,” the libertine176 monarch109 was engaged with his mistresses in pursuing “a poor moth” about the supper-room! For many weeks afterwards, until the peace of Breda, De Ruyter rode triumphant177 in the narrow seas, and England was in terror of a French invasion, not knowing of the ignoble178 intrigue91 in which Louis and Charles were now engaged.
Passing from these notorious blots179 on English history, and before considering the relevant business in the negotiations 460 for peace, a word or two must be said of some of the minor180 events and consequences of the war. During its continuance the fisheries of England, and still more those of the United Provinces, suffered severely181. In January 1665, before war was declared, but when it was obvious it might break out at any moment, the States-General laid an embargo182 on the fisheries and on all shipping,—a measure which, it was reported in England, furnished them with 30,000 men for their navy. The stoppage of the fishing was a heavy blow to those dependent on it, and advantage was taken of the fact by the English, who tempted183 the Dutch fishermen by offering licenses, for a nominal184 payment, which would enable them to fish notwithstanding the war. The States of Holland, however, forbade the acceptance of the obnoxious185 licenses, “considering that it might be of very dangerous consequence, as making the inhabitants of these countries indirectly tributary186 to the King of England”; and the treasurer of the herring fishery at Maassluis, who had purchased some of them, was severely censured187 and forbidden to make use of them. Notwithstanding this patriotic188 resolution, it appears that private cupidity189 in some cases prevailed, and a few licenses were accepted in the following year. One of these, dated 21st November 1666, was granted on the petition of one, Gisbert Petersen, of “Scheveling” (Scheveningen), the captain of the “sailing waggons” of the Prince of Orange, who “wafted” the king on board his fleet at the Restoration. It gave him authority, in his vessel, the Young Prince of Orange, “to fish in any part of our seas, not being within ... leagues of land,” and to carry the fish which were caught to Holland; and in certain circumstances he was to have the freedom of English ports. The Scandinavian name of the recipient190, and the circumstances recited, throw doubt on the genuineness of the case. The license121 was renewed on 7th June 1667.854
A much more interesting concession for fishing in all parts of the British seas, irrespective of distance from shore, was granted by Charles in the same year, though not to subjects 461 of the United Provinces. The citizens of Bruges, in Flanders, where the king had received friendly treatment when in exile, petitioned him to allow all the sworn burgers and citizens of that city to fish “freely and frankly” at all times, to the number of fifty busses or other vessels fit for fishing, on the seas and coasts of his kingdoms; to enter the ports and rivers to buy necessaries, for shelter, and to dry their nets, and to depart without molestation191, on giving security not to sell fish to his enemies.855 Charles granted them a charter under the great seals of England and Scotland, giving them liberty to fish with fifty vessels at a time for herrings or any kind of fish in the British seas, up to the coasts or shores, with the privilege of drying their nets on land, and using English or Scottish ports in security. The Duke of Lennox and Richmond, the High Admiral of Scotland, and others concerned were commanded to treat the vessels of Bruges with friendship, “in whatever part of the sea, whether near the shores, in rivers, or ports” they might be.856 The fishermen of Bruges continued to fish near our shores, in terms of this charter, and even from our harbours, until 1850, and the charter was regarded by the English authorities as spurious.857
By granting this charter, it is not unlikely that Charles also hoped to strike a blow at the fisheries of the Dutch Republic. While refusing to allow their subjects to accept any compromising English license or concession for fishing, the States-General tried to bring about a mutual and equitable192 arrangement. Early in 1665 they issued instructions that English fishermen should not be attacked till further orders; and in October of the same year—that is, when, in peaceful times, Dutch fishermen would have been taking part in the profitable fishing at Yarmouth—one of their 462 naval officers delivered an official letter to the Bailiffs of that town, intimating that orders had been given to all their admirals, commanders, and captains at sea that no English fisherman was to be molested, and expressing a hope that a similar Christian193 forbearance (medelijdentheyt) might be shown to Dutch fishermen on the part of England. No answer was returned, but an emphatic194 response was made a week or two later when the Sapphire195 seized several Dutch fishing vessels and brought them into port,—a circumstance which also shows that the embargo had not been strictly observed.858 In the following year the embargo was officially continued, the “small” or fresh-herring fishery carried on along the coast being excepted;859 but after the defeat of the English fleet in the beginning of June, the deep-sea fishing appears to have been partially196 resumed. Early in August reports reached London from Yarmouth and Whitby that the Holland busses and doggers were fishing off the land, and had been seen by our fishermen. They were said to number 400 and to be guarded by eight convoyers, and it was rumoured197 the English fleet had gone in pursuit and sunk eighty busses; and a few doggers were in reality brought in. It was again reported later that a fleet of busses was fishing off the coast of Suffolk, attended by seventeen ships of war.860 If the retaliation198 of the Dutch was less effective, it was because the English fishermen carried on their industry close to their own ports; to which, moreover, they were often confined by fear of the Dutch privateers, which boldly hovered199 about the coast, and the sight of a sail was enough to frighten them back.861 After Van Ghent had burned the English ships in 463 the Thames and the Dutch were supreme200 at sea, the States of Holland withdrew the embargo on the Great Fishery, and when peace was proclaimed the schuyts again took part in the autumn fishing at Yarmouth.862
It has been already mentioned that France, which had bound itself by the recent treaty to aid the United Provinces, declared war against England in January 1666, but Louis showed great reluctance201 to begin actual hostilities; and one of the diplomatic obstacles which served to delay the junction202 of the French and Dutch fleets referred to the striking of the flag. A French squadron of thirty sail had been equipped under the Duke de Beaufort, and Louis required that the Dutch admiral should salute not only the Admiral of France, but the vice- and rear-admirals; and further, that the French admiral should not be required to lower his flag in returning the salute of the Dutch. The States-General were willing that their admiral should strike to De Beaufort first, but they demanded that the latter should return the salute in a similar manner. The French, who were apparently anxious to be placed in the same position as England with respect to this ceremony, argued that the English did not re-salute the Dutch fleet by striking the flag, but only returned the guns, citing the treaty of 1662 and the actual practice; and they proudly boasted that the flag of the Admiral of France had never at any time been lowered to that of any nation. To this De Witt replied that they were willing to give the same respect to the French as they did to the English; that the re-salute was not expressly mentioned in the treaty because it was a well-understood custom on their own coast; and that in point of fact the English did return the salute, as had been done by Admiral Montague (the Earl of Sandwich) in 1661 and by Vice-Admiral Lawson on meeting De Ruyter. If on some occasions it was omitted by the English, it was on the seas they called “British,” and was to be attributed to the claim they pretended to the dominion of the seas—a claim which France and the Republic had solemnly agreed by treaty to resist. If a similar claim was now advanced by France, it would argue a like pretension to maritime203 sovereignty by a nation which had engaged itself to preserve the liberty of the sea. Moreover, the salute at sea between 464 the fleets of two sovereign states was not an act of submission204 of an inferior to a superior, but one of civility, honour, and respect, and should therefore be mutual and equal. They, as a republic, offered to strike first, and to keep their flag lowered until the French admiral had struck and re-hoisted his flag. This discussion about the re-salute was prolonged, extending from June 1666 to July 1667, for De Witt was not a man lightly to agree to diminish the dignity of his country; and after the peace conference met at Breda, and De Ruyter was master of the sea, the Dutch roundly declared they would not strike to the French admiral at all, unless he agreed to return the salute by dipping his flag, but would only salute him with guns.863
At the conferences at Breda Charles had little right to expect that he would gain much, in view of the inglorious events at the end of the war. He retained New Amsterdam (re-named New York), which Holmes had taken in 1664, but he lost Poleroon and Surinam, and relinquished205 the claims which had been put forward to justify207 the war. An important concession was made to the Dutch by a modification208 of the Navigation Act, for a repeal50 of which they pressed, by a stipulation, in separate articles, that they might import into England in Dutch vessels all commodities produced or manufactured in Germany or Flanders, for which, it was claimed, the United Provinces were the natural outlet209 to the sea; and all the essential articles of the commercial treaty of 1662 were confirmed.864 All pretensions210 to exclusive fishing off the British coasts were withdrawn211; the old stipulations of the Burgundy treaties were not, however, renewed.
With regard to the “honour of the flag,” De Witt, in the preliminary negotiations, strove to come to an arrangement with France and Denmark, who were also parties to the treaty, to compel England to relinquish206 her claim to pre-eminence 465 in this matter, especially by insisting that English vessels should return the salute by lowering their flag.865 Charles was saved from this humiliation by the good offices of Louis, and the article in the treaty of 1662 was simply repeated in precisely the same words.866 Another of the maritime articles gave less contentment in England. We have already seen how persistently213 the Dutch had struggled in deliberating on the terms of the treaty of 1654 to restrict the application of the term “British Sea” to the Channel. What they were then unable to accomplish was now conceded to them. In the usual article about the cessation of hostilities on the sea, it was specified214 that restitution215 of prizes should not be made if they were taken “in the Channel or British Sea within the space of twelve days, and the same in the North Sea; and within the space of six weeks from the mouth of the Channel unto the Cape216 of St Vincent.”867 In the treaty with France, signed at Breda on the same day, the French plenipotentiaries took care that the terms English Channel or British Sea in the corresponding clause were omitted, the neutral if indefinite phrase “the neighbouring seas” (maria proxima) being substituted.868 In the similar treaty with Denmark, the phraseology was even less tender to English susceptibilities—namely, “in the Northern Ocean 466 and in the Baltic Sea and the Channel, &c.”869 However trifling217 such points may appear to us now, they had a real importance in the seventeenth century, and the phraseology cited caused some heart-burning in England as being derogatory to our rights to the dominion of the British seas.870
For some years after the conclusion of peace at Breda, and indeed up to the opening of the third Dutch war, the question of the salute was a frequent subject of international discussion. Dutch statesmen had always wished to come to a definite arrangement with England about it, for they saw that to leave it in ambiguity218 while the English looked upon it as touching219 their national honour, was fraught220 with danger. A whole series of points was in doubt, any one of which might furnish occasion for war unless clearly defined and mutually understood. Was a whole fleet or squadron of the States to strike to a single English ship of war? Were they to strike to a frigate221, or to a still smaller ship, such as a ketch, or only to ships carrying the flag of an admiral, vice-admiral, or rear-admiral? Was the salute to be returned by the English in the same way, by dipping the flag and lowering the top-sails as well as by guns? Within what parts of the sea was the salute to be enforced, or differentiated222, or the re-salute given? English statesmen purposely left many of these points undefined, in order to gain as wide a recognition 467 of the ceremony as was possible, and when disputes did arise with other Powers, to enable them to avoid war or to make war as circumstances and policy might determine. They held that England, and England alone, was the rightful interpreter of what was due to her flag by ancient custom. On the other hand, the Dutch Republic looked upon the whole business as a troublesome affair; and as the greatest commercial nation of the time, whose chief interest was peace, they naturally desired that the dubious223 points about the salute should be permanently224 settled.
Immediately after the conclusion of the Triple Alliance against France, at the beginning of 1668,871 De Witt, taking advantage of the good feeling existing between England and the Netherlands, and especially of the presence of Sir William Temple as English ambassador at The Hague, proposed that a formal settlement should be made of the doubtful points concerning the striking of the flag. Temple, who was a staunch friend of the Dutch and was on intimate terms with De Witt, shared this opinion. He thought that by a slight concession, or by a definite agreement, England might count with some confidence on the support of the States-General in any future quarrel with other nations about the flag. The subject was formally raised by De Witt on a proposal for a union of the Dutch and English fleets, in certain contingencies225, against France. He offered to give the same honour to the king’s ships at sea as their ambassadors gave to his Majesty’s person, “to uncover first and cover last”; but stipulated that any agreement about the flag must not be regarded as an acknowledgment of England’s pretension to the sovereignty of the sea, which the Dutch would “die rather than do.” Knowing that it was a “delicate” subject to broach226 with the King of England, he thought the negotiations might be opened by the States-General sending a polite letter to Charles, laying stress on the good relations between the two nations, and intimating that in order to prevent sinister227 encounters which any new sourness might occasion, they had issued orders to all their naval officers to strike their flag with every mark of civility on meeting with the royal flag of England. The king was then (according to the scheme) to inform the States-General 468 that he had received this mark of deference to his royal dignity with singular satisfaction, and that he on his part would order his admirals and commanders to re-salute the States’ flag. Temple thought the matter was so “ticklish,” that it ought to be first broached228 verbally at a fitting opportunity; and De Witt, in advising the Dutch ambassadors in London to this effect, reminded them that the salute was merely a mark of honour and respect, and that if anything was put into writing this should be expressed. He added that he had never been able to understand how it could be conceived that the free element of the sea, or dominion over it, could belong to England or to any nation, and that in Holland the common right of sovereignty of all nations over it was held to be incontestable.
When, about a month afterwards, the ambassadors spoke229 to the king, he said he did not see how the question could be ambiguous, since it was provided for in the treaty. They pointed59 out that the re-salute was not mentioned, and then used the arguments which De Witt had put into their mouths about its being a ceremony of respect which it would be only reasonable and courteous230 to return, just as his Majesty would do, sitting on his throne, in response to the salutations of the ambassadors of the Republic; and they adduced one or two instances in which the English ships had returned the salute. Charles told them they were possibly thinking of the custom in the Mediterranean, which was different from all the other seas (meaning the British seas), and said he claimed nothing but the old practice; but he promised to look into the matter. The ambassadors did not press the subject further, and the important declaration they had been charged to make, that in future the States’ ships would refuse to strike unless the salute was returned in the same way, remained unspoken. Shortly afterwards, when the States were asked to send some of their warships231 to strengthen the squadron of Sir Thomas Allin, who was ordered to enforce the restitution of some English vessels seized by the French, they refused, unless the difficulties about the flag were first settled, and the discussion continued throughout the summer.
It is interesting to note, in view of the antecedents of the next war, that the ambassadors were instructed to say that the 469 States’ fleet would not strike, even in the Channel, to a frigate or ketch, which did not customarily carry the royal flag in the main-top, but only to an admiral’s ship, or one carrying the royal flag. This contention was promptly232 set aside by the Duke of York and Lord Arlington (the Secretary for State); but De Witt, still clinging to the hope that a “regulation” might be arranged, asked the ambassadors to find out the instructions which were actually issued to the English captains serving in the Downs, the Channel, the North Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Ocean, as it was generally believed in Holland that outside the Channel neither side should strike the flag or lower the sails to the other, but that the States’ ships should first salute with guns alone, and the English answer with guns also. In any case, if the principal fleets of the two countries were combined for any purpose, or jointly25 brought into action, it was to be first arranged that they should salute one another with guns only, or at all events in an equal and reciprocal manner, the Dutch always giving the salute first; and the ambassadors were to insist earnestly and finally for a settlement.
The ambassadors informed De Witt that, as was shown in the copy of the instructions found on board the Charity, an English man-of-war taken by the Dutch in the battle of Lowestoft, in 1665, and which was published by Aitzema, the commander of an English man-of-war was to compel every foreign ship, or ships, to strike their flag in the British seas, and that in these seas no English king’s ship was to strike to any foreign ship. In all other seas the English ship was never to strike to a foreigner unless the latter struck first or at the same time. According to this, they said, a single English man-of-war could compel a whole fleet to strike their flags and lower their top-sails in the so-called British seas, and it was forbidden for it to strike in return. In all other seas, if the foreign ship did not strike, the English would not strike, and no salute would be exchanged. They said this was well known to be the regular formula in England, and no distinction was drawn212 between the Channel and other “pretended English seas.” The “British seas,” they said, according to the Admiralty instructions, extended to Cape Finisterre, in Galicia, and westwards, according to Selden, to America. It would be an excellent thing, they thought, if they could succeed in 470 drawing a distinction between the Channel and the other seas, since their fisheries, the main object of solicitude233, were carried on, not in the Channel, but in the North Sea. But as the whole subject was very delicate, they advised De Witt to pass from it for the time and to allow things to remain on their old footing; and to show the spirit in which the matter was regarded in England, they sent him specimens234 of the coin issued by Charles a few years before, which bore the king’s effigy235 on one side with the inscription236 Carolus a Carolo, and on the obverse the figure of Britannia, with the proud words, Quatuor Maria Vindico.872 De Witt, who had just arranged with Temple that the matter should be brought to the notice of the king, acquiesced237, but with reluctance. He expressed satisfaction that they now at least knew more about the English pretension, so that fresh hostility238 and war could be avoided on that point; but that an English frigate or ketch should claim to compel a whole fleet to strike was, he said, intolerable. And it was this very thing that Charles selected to force war upon the United Provinces a few years later.873
It was not only with the Dutch that discussions arose at this time as to the rights of the English to demand the salute. The astute Dutch statesman, as was his wont239, began to pull diplomatic wires at other Courts in order to have the subject raised by them. The King of Denmark in the following year 471 proposed to Charles that new regulations should be arranged with respect to the “salutes240 and civilities” at sea between the men-of-war of the two nations. Charles declined the invitation. He did not think it fit, he said, to make any new regulation on the salutes at sea, “since there has never been any question made of the constant practice in that matter, which we shall always observe.”874
A renewed attempt to convince the French that it was to their interest to curtail241 the English claim to the sovereignty of the sea had consequences little dreamt of by De Witt. The Dutch Minister, clinging to his principle, urged at Paris that Charles, who wished to be the supreme ruler of the sea, ought to be forced to modify his pretension and to give the salute in return. It had indeed been rumoured in London that the French king had decided242 to forbid his naval commanders to strike to the English, and even to compel both English and Dutch to strike to his own flag.875 Louis certainly raised the question at the Court of St James’s, but in a different way. Colbert, his ambassador there, secretly revealed to Charles the confidential243 negotiations which the States-General had opened at Paris, in the hope that this mark of confidence would make more easy his policy of detaching the King of England from the Triple Alliance.876 By this time Charles and Louis were drawing closer together, and in order to prevent chance disputes about the flag, a verbal arrangement was made through Colbert, in the summer of 1669, that no salutes should be exchanged between English and French men-of-war in the Mediterranean, nor should the ship of one be expected to go to leeward244 of the other. Instructions of this tenour were given to Sir Thomas Allin, who was on the point of leaving with a squadron to chastise245 the Barbary pirates.877
About this time the Duke of York and the officials of the 472 navy began to devote close attention to the rules regulating the salute and the striking of the flag, and a number of memoranda246 were prepared which described recent precedents247, and dealt with other points. With reference to recent practice, it was stated that the Earl of Sandwich had struck in return to De Ruyter in 1661 or 1662; that Sir John Lawson declared he would strike to none, and kept his flag aloft in Toulon harbour; while Sir William Berkeley, serving under Lawson, refused even to fire a gun on meeting De Beaufort, the Admiral of France, until he was assured that the report attributed to him that he would force the English to strike was unfounded. A statement was compiled of the number of guns fired in salute to English vessels arriving in various foreign ports, and rules were formulated248 with respect to the salutation of forts and on other points. The general custom was that “the sea should salute the land”—that is, the vessel first saluted the forts, except on extraordinary occasions, as when a prince or an important foreign embassy arrived. No foreign man-of-war was to be allowed to pass above the ports at Gravesend and Sheerness, or at any other harbour, without special permission from the Lord High Admiral or the governor of the fort; all vessels were to keep in their flag as long as they were in sight of the fort, and if they refused they were to be forced to comply; salutes of foreign flagships were to be answered gun for gun, and of other foreign ships with two guns less. As for the striking of the flag, the Earl of Sandwich and other naval authorities who were consulted intimated that the matter was too important for them to decide upon, and should be left to the king—a plain acknowledgment of its political character. The Duke of York, however, the Lord High Admiral, stated that the rule was that English ships were everywhere to be saluted first, and were not to strike in return, but only to answer with guns; but if a single English ship met a foreign fleet out of the British seas, it was to salute first with guns, but neither was to strike the flag.878
This activity at the English Admiralty may not have been wholly unconnected with the circumstances which ushered249 in the next war, but it was more probably due to the general revival250 of punctiliousness251 regarding the salute and similar 473 naval ceremonies which took place at this time throughout Europe. Even the petty states in the Mediterranean became infected with the spirit of their powerful neighbours, and followed their example. At Genoa and Leghorn frequent disputes, and sometimes sanguinary encounters, occurred between the authorities and Dutch and English men-of-war as to the number of guns that should be fired, or the striking of the flag. French and Dutch men-of-war lying in the Tagus were only prevented by the governor of the castle from putting to the arbitrament of force the question whether the latter should strike to the former. At Civita Vecchia, at Glückstadt, at Dover, at Dieppe, at Kronberg, similar incidents took place. The Earl of Essex, going on a special embassy to the King of Denmark, and on board the king’s yacht, had a sharp dispute with the Governor of Kronberg, in the Sound, as to lowering his flag, which the Danish officer requested him to do. But Essex was well primed with precedents before he left England, and was able to maintain his refusal.879 Though Dutch men-of-war engaged with spirit in such quarrels about the salute in foreign ports, their action was not countenanced252 by the policy of the States-General. On 16th May 1670 they instructed that the fort of Kronberg should be saluted by Dutch vessels in such manner as the King of Denmark might require; and on 3rd February next year the States of Holland issued a general order that their men-of-war should salute those of other sovereigns on their coasts, within the reach of the guns of batteries or forts, in the precise manner that the Government of the country might demand, leaving it entirely to the discretion253 of that Government to return the salute or not, just as they pleased. Every foreign Government, they added, was sovereign within its own jurisdiction254, and every foreigner was a subject there.
点击收听单词发音
1 reign | |
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 pretension | |
n.要求;自命,自称;自负 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 zeal | |
n.热心,热情,热忱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 commonwealth | |
n.共和国,联邦,共同体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 pro | |
n.赞成,赞成的意见,赞成者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 astute | |
adj.机敏的,精明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 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: |
|
|
8 pretence | |
n.假装,作假;借口,口实;虚伪;虚饰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 dominion | |
n.统治,管辖,支配权;领土,版图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 treacherous | |
adj.不可靠的,有暗藏的危险的;adj.背叛的,背信弃义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 jealousy | |
n.妒忌,嫉妒,猜忌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 shipping | |
n.船运(发货,运输,乘船) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 seamen | |
n.海员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 wards | |
区( ward的名词复数 ); 病房; 受监护的未成年者; 被人照顾或控制的状态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 ward | |
n.守卫,监护,病房,行政区,由监护人或法院保护的人(尤指儿童);vt.守护,躲开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 taxation | |
n.征税,税收,税金 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 stringent | |
adj.严厉的;令人信服的;银根紧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 prohibition | |
n.禁止;禁令,禁律 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 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: |
|
|
20 vessel | |
n.船舶;容器,器皿;管,导管,血管 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 cod | |
n.鳕鱼;v.愚弄;哄骗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 certified | |
a.经证明合格的;具有证明文件的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 rivalries | |
n.敌对,竞争,对抗( rivalry的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 accrue | |
v.(利息等)增大,增多 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 jointly | |
ad.联合地,共同地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 hemp | |
n.大麻;纤维 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 seaports | |
n.海港( seaport的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 seaport | |
n.海港,港口,港市 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 mariners | |
海员,水手(mariner的复数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 subscription | |
n.预订,预订费,亲笔签名,调配法,下标(处方) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 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: |
|
|
33 advancement | |
n.前进,促进,提升 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 preamble | |
n.前言;序文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 immunities | |
免除,豁免( immunity的名词复数 ); 免疫力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 erect | |
n./v.树立,建立,使竖立;adj.直立的,垂直的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 erecting | |
v.使直立,竖起( erect的现在分词 );建立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 exempt | |
adj.免除的;v.使免除;n.免税者,被免除义务者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 exempted | |
使免除[豁免]( exempt的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 solely | |
adv.仅仅,唯一地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 territorial | |
adj.领土的,领地的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 misusing | |
v.使用…不当( misuse的现在分词 );把…派作不正当的用途;虐待;滥用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 exchequer | |
n.财政部;国库 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 incubus | |
n.负担;恶梦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 exaction | |
n.强求,强征;杂税 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 repeal | |
n.废止,撤消;v.废止,撤消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 repealed | |
撤销,废除( repeal的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 promotion | |
n.提升,晋级;促销,宣传 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 wharfs | |
码头,停泊处 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 taverns | |
n.小旅馆,客栈,酒馆( tavern的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 vent | |
n.通风口,排放口;开衩;vt.表达,发泄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 lottery | |
n.抽彩;碰运气的事,难于算计的事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 engrossed | |
adj.全神贯注的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 treasurer | |
n.司库,财务主管 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 subscribed | |
v.捐助( subscribe的过去式和过去分词 );签署,题词;订阅;同意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 puffs | |
n.吸( puff的名词复数 );(烟斗或香烟的)一吸;一缕(烟、蒸汽等);(呼吸或风的)呼v.使喷出( puff的第三人称单数 );喷着汽(或烟)移动;吹嘘;吹捧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 rosy | |
adj.美好的,乐观的,玫瑰色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 prospects | |
n.希望,前途(恒为复数) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 subscriptions | |
n.(报刊等的)订阅费( subscription的名词复数 );捐款;(俱乐部的)会员费;捐助 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 paltry | |
adj.无价值的,微不足道的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 corruption | |
n.腐败,堕落,贪污 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 notably | |
adv.值得注意地,显著地,尤其地,特别地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 majesty | |
n.雄伟,壮丽,庄严,威严;最高权威,王权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 compulsory | |
n.强制的,必修的;规定的,义务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 privy | |
adj.私用的;隐密的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 formulate | |
v.用公式表示;规划;设计;系统地阐述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 organisation | |
n.组织,安排,团体,有机休 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 consultation | |
n.咨询;商量;商议;会议 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 treasurers | |
(团体等的)司库,财务主管( treasurer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 slovenly | |
adj.懒散的,不整齐的,邋遢的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 misgivings | |
n.疑虑,担忧,害怕;疑虑,担心,恐惧( misgiving的名词复数 );疑惧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 proceedings | |
n.进程,过程,议程;诉讼(程序);公报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 futile | |
adj.无效的,无用的,无希望的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 quorum | |
n.法定人数 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 negotiations | |
协商( negotiation的名词复数 ); 谈判; 完成(难事); 通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 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: |
|
|
86 concession | |
n.让步,妥协;特许(权) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 redress | |
n.赔偿,救济,矫正;v.纠正,匡正,革除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 frustrate | |
v.使失望;使沮丧;使厌烦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 bribed | |
v.贿赂( bribe的过去式和过去分词 );向(某人)行贿,贿赂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 intrigue | |
vt.激起兴趣,迷住;vi.耍阴谋;n.阴谋,密谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 intrigues | |
n.密谋策划( intrigue的名词复数 );神秘气氛;引人入胜的复杂情节v.搞阴谋诡计( intrigue的第三人称单数 );激起…的好奇心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 surmised | |
v.臆测,推断( surmise的过去式和过去分词 );揣测;猜想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 withhold | |
v.拒绝,不给;使停止,阻挡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 indirectly | |
adv.间接地,不直接了当地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 derived | |
vi.起源;由来;衍生;导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 stipulation | |
n.契约,规定,条文;条款说明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 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: |
|
|
100 resentment | |
n.怨愤,忿恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 dexterous | |
adj.灵敏的;灵巧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 favourable | |
adj.赞成的,称赞的,有利的,良好的,顺利的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 illustrated | |
adj. 有插图的,列举的 动词illustrate的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 affected | |
adj.不自然的,假装的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 evade | |
vt.逃避,回避;避开,躲避 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 deference | |
n.尊重,顺从;敬意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 monarch | |
n.帝王,君主,最高统治者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 monarchies | |
n. 君主政体, 君主国, 君主政治 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 privately | |
adv.以私人的身份,悄悄地,私下地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 foresight | |
n.先见之明,深谋远虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 overtures | |
n.主动的表示,提议;(向某人做出的)友好表示、姿态或提议( overture的名词复数 );(歌剧、芭蕾舞、音乐剧等的)序曲,前奏曲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 tussle | |
n.&v.扭打,搏斗,争辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 stipulate | |
vt.规定,(作为条件)讲定,保证 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 molest | |
vt.骚扰,干扰,调戏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 molested | |
v.骚扰( molest的过去式和过去分词 );干扰;调戏;猥亵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 explicit | |
adj.详述的,明确的;坦率的;显然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 binding | |
有约束力的,有效的,应遵守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 emulate | |
v.努力赶上或超越,与…竞争;效仿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 license | |
n.执照,许可证,特许;v.许可,特许 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 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: |
|
|
123 continental | |
adj.大陆的,大陆性的,欧洲大陆的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 monarchy | |
n.君主,最高统治者;君主政体,君主国 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 maxims | |
n.格言,座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 inflexible | |
adj.不可改变的,不受影响的,不屈服的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 dilatory | |
adj.迟缓的,不慌不忙的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 stipulated | |
vt.& vi.规定;约定adj.[法]合同规定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 alterations | |
n.改动( alteration的名词复数 );更改;变化;改变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 punctilious | |
adj.谨慎的,谨小慎微的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 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: |
|
|
132 remissness | |
n.玩忽职守;马虎;怠慢;不小心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 naval | |
adj.海军的,军舰的,船的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 scantiest | |
adj.(大小或数量)不足的,勉强够的( scanty的最高级 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 genial | |
adj.亲切的,和蔼的,愉快的,脾气好的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 mare | |
n.母马,母驴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 diligently | |
ad.industriously;carefully | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 treatise | |
n.专著;(专题)论文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 cogitation | |
n.仔细思考,计划,设计 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 persevere | |
v.坚持,坚忍,不屈不挠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 Mediterranean | |
adj.地中海的;地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 saluted | |
v.欢迎,致敬( salute的过去式和过去分词 );赞扬,赞颂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 thorny | |
adj.多刺的,棘手的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 conflagration | |
n.建筑物或森林大火 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 juggled | |
v.歪曲( juggle的过去式和过去分词 );耍弄;有效地组织;尽力同时应付(两个或两个以上的重要工作或活动) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 motive | |
n.动机,目的;adv.发动的,运动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 succinctly | |
adv.简洁地;简洁地,简便地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 monk | |
n.和尚,僧侣,修道士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 chancellor | |
n.(英)大臣;法官;(德、奥)总理;大学校长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 contention | |
n.争论,争辩,论战;论点,主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 accusations | |
n.指责( accusation的名词复数 );指控;控告;(被告发、控告的)罪名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 stratagem | |
n.诡计,计谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 outrages | |
引起…的义愤,激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 obstruction | |
n.阻塞,堵塞;障碍物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 honourable | |
adj.可敬的;荣誉的,光荣的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 avert | |
v.防止,避免;转移(目光、注意力等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 hostilities | |
n.战争;敌意(hostility的复数);敌对状态;战事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 retaliatory | |
adj.报复的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 pretext | |
n.借口,托词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 indignities | |
n.侮辱,轻蔑( indignity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 thereby | |
adv.因此,从而 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 affronting | |
v.勇敢地面对( affront的现在分词 );相遇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 preservation | |
n.保护,维护,保存,保留,保持 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 scanty | |
adj.缺乏的,仅有的,节省的,狭小的,不够的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 laurels | |
n.桂冠,荣誉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 humiliation | |
n.羞辱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 leisurely | |
adj.悠闲的;从容的,慢慢的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 consternation | |
n.大为吃惊,惊骇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 perils | |
极大危险( peril的名词复数 ); 危险的事(或环境) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 libertine | |
n.淫荡者;adj.放荡的,自由思想的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 triumphant | |
adj.胜利的,成功的;狂欢的,喜悦的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 ignoble | |
adj.不光彩的,卑鄙的;可耻的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 blots | |
污渍( blot的名词复数 ); 墨水渍; 错事; 污点 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 minor | |
adj.较小(少)的,较次要的;n.辅修学科;vi.辅修 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 severely | |
adv.严格地;严厉地;非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 embargo | |
n.禁运(令);vt.对...实行禁运,禁止(通商) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 tempted | |
v.怂恿(某人)干不正当的事;冒…的险(tempt的过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 nominal | |
adj.名义上的;(金额、租金)微不足道的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 obnoxious | |
adj.极恼人的,讨人厌的,可憎的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 tributary | |
n.支流;纳贡国;adj.附庸的;辅助的;支流的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 censured | |
v.指责,非难,谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 patriotic | |
adj.爱国的,有爱国心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 cupidity | |
n.贪心,贪财 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 recipient | |
a.接受的,感受性强的 n.接受者,感受者,容器 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 molestation | |
n.骚扰,干扰,调戏;折磨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 equitable | |
adj.公平的;公正的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 emphatic | |
adj.强调的,着重的;无可置疑的,明显的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 sapphire | |
n.青玉,蓝宝石;adj.天蓝色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 partially | |
adv.部分地,从某些方面讲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 rumoured | |
adj.谣传的;传说的;风 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 retaliation | |
n.报复,反击 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 hovered | |
鸟( hover的过去式和过去分词 ); 靠近(某事物); (人)徘徊; 犹豫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 reluctance | |
n.厌恶,讨厌,勉强,不情愿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 junction | |
n.连接,接合;交叉点,接合处,枢纽站 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 maritime | |
adj.海的,海事的,航海的,近海的,沿海的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 submission | |
n.服从,投降;温顺,谦虚;提出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 relinquished | |
交出,让给( relinquish的过去式和过去分词 ); 放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 relinquish | |
v.放弃,撤回,让与,放手 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 justify | |
vt.证明…正当(或有理),为…辩护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 modification | |
n.修改,改进,缓和,减轻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 outlet | |
n.出口/路;销路;批发商店;通风口;发泄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 pretensions | |
自称( pretension的名词复数 ); 自命不凡; 要求; 权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 withdrawn | |
vt.收回;使退出;vi.撤退,退出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 persistently | |
ad.坚持地;固执地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 specified | |
adj.特定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 restitution | |
n.赔偿;恢复原状 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 cape | |
n.海角,岬;披肩,短披风 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 trifling | |
adj.微不足道的;没什么价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 ambiguity | |
n.模棱两可;意义不明确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 touching | |
adj.动人的,使人感伤的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 fraught | |
adj.充满…的,伴有(危险等)的;忧虑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 frigate | |
n.护航舰,大型驱逐舰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 differentiated | |
区分,区别,辨别( differentiate的过去式和过去分词 ); 区别对待; 表明…间的差别,构成…间差别的特征 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 dubious | |
adj.怀疑的,无把握的;有问题的,靠不住的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 permanently | |
adv.永恒地,永久地,固定不变地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 contingencies | |
n.偶然发生的事故,意外事故( contingency的名词复数 );以备万一 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 broach | |
v.开瓶,提出(题目) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 sinister | |
adj.不吉利的,凶恶的,左边的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 broached | |
v.谈起( broach的过去式和过去分词 );打开并开始用;用凿子扩大(或修光);(在桶上)钻孔取液体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 courteous | |
adj.彬彬有礼的,客气的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 warships | |
军舰,战舰( warship的名词复数 ); 舰只 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 promptly | |
adv.及时地,敏捷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 solicitude | |
n.焦虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 specimens | |
n.样品( specimen的名词复数 );范例;(化验的)抽样;某种类型的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 effigy | |
n.肖像 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 inscription | |
n.(尤指石块上的)刻印文字,铭文,碑文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 acquiesced | |
v.默认,默许( acquiesce的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 hostility | |
n.敌对,敌意;抵制[pl.]交战,战争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 wont | |
adj.习惯于;v.习惯;n.习惯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 salutes | |
n.致敬,欢迎,敬礼( salute的名词复数 )v.欢迎,致敬( salute的第三人称单数 );赞扬,赞颂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 curtail | |
vt.截短,缩短;削减 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 confidential | |
adj.秘(机)密的,表示信任的,担任机密工作的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 leeward | |
adj.背风的;下风的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 chastise | |
vt.责骂,严惩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 memoranda | |
n. 备忘录, 便条 名词memorandum的复数形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 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: |
|
|
248 formulated | |
v.构想出( formulate的过去式和过去分词 );规划;确切地阐述;用公式表示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 ushered | |
v.引,领,陪同( usher的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 revival | |
n.复兴,复苏,(精力、活力等的)重振 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 punctiliousness | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 countenanced | |
v.支持,赞同,批准( countenance的过去式 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 discretion | |
n.谨慎;随意处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 jurisdiction | |
n.司法权,审判权,管辖权,控制权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |