It is true that in the treaty which was concluded between England and the Dutch Republic in 1689, the article on the flag in the treaty of Westminster was repeated and confirmed. This, however, was very much a matter of routine and formality, though it must be said the Dutch ambassadors in London complained that William was as obstinate7 and punctilious8 about the question of the flag as any purely9 English sovereign could have been.939 But from this time until well on in the next century England and the United Provinces were united as 518 allies in the great wars with France. There was thus little room for serious disputes with them about the flag, the right to the herring fishery, or the sovereignty of the sea, even if the desire had existed. Against France, however, William made use of the customary language as to the English sovereignty of the sea. In the spring of 1689, after William had been proclaimed King of England, Louis XIV. foresaw the formidable coalition10 that would be formed against him, and he boldly issued what was virtually a challenge to England on the subject. He published an ordinance11 on 15th April in which he not only prohibited his officers from giving the first salute12 to ships of other nations carrying flags of equal rank to their own, but ordered them to demand the salute from foreign vessels13 on whatever seas or coasts they might encounter them, and to compel them by force if they refused.940 That this challenge of Louis to dispute the sovereignty of the sea was not too presumptuous14 was shown in the following year, when the combined fleets of England and Holland were defeated by the French off Beachy Head. In the declaration of war against France, in May 1689, the ordinance of Louis was made one of the reasons for hostilities15. “The right of the flag,” said William, “inherent in the crown of England, has been disputed by his orders, in violation16 of our sovereignty of the Narrow Seas, which in all ages has been asserted by our predecessors17, and which we are resolved to maintain, for the honour of our crown and of the English nation.”941 They were strange words to come from the mouth of one who was Prince of Orange as well as King of England, but the times were changing and such phrases were soon to become merely empty forms.
With respect to this ceremony of the flag, which the English professed19 to regard as an acknowledgment of their sovereignty on the sea, it may be said that from this time on it ceased to have much importance in international affairs. The instructions issued by the Admiralty to the naval officers continued to be explicit20 enough, and they indeed suffered but little change for another century. The commander of one of his Majesty’s ships, on meeting with any ship or ships belonging to any foreign prince or state within his Majesty’s seas (which, it was explained, 519 extended to Cape21 Finisterre, Van Staten not being mentioned), was to “expect” such ship or ships to strike their top-sail and take in their flag, “in acknowledgment of his Majesty’s sovereignty of those seas,” and if they refused or offered to resist, they were to be compelled to do so. Within his Majesty’s seas his Majesty’s ships were in no wise to strike to any; and in other parts only if the foreign ship struck first or at the same time, except in a foreign harbour or in a road within gunshot of a fort or castle, in which case a salute with guns was to be given if the commander of the fort agreed to answer gun for gun. If any British ship was so far forgetful of its duty as not to salute the king’s ship by striking the top-sail as it passed by, when it might be done without loss of the voyage, they were to be “brought to the Flag” to answer their contempt, or reported to the Admiralty for proceedings22 to be taken.942 Similar 520 instructions were issued in succeeding reigns24, the injunction to compel by force those who refused to strike being limited to flag officers and commanders.943
Disputes as to striking appear to have been much less common in the latter part of the seventeenth and in the eighteenth century than they were previously25, but they sometimes occurred; and the ceremony seems to have been enforced on Dutch ships, though they were allied26 with the English fleet at the time. At all events, the Lords of the Admiralty in 1694 wrote to the Duke of Shrewsbury saying that the instructions required the respect of the flag from all nations whatsoever27, without any distinction, and that Sir Cloudesley Shovel28 had been advised to that effect.944 At this period, as indeed always, the Danes were very punctilious as to Kronberg Castle on the Sound being saluted29 with proper respect by foreign ships, and in 1694 Shrewsbury advised the Admiralty that the king had signified his pleasure that all ships of war sent to the Sound should salute Kronberg with three guns only, upon assurance that their salute would be returned by the castle with a like number of guns.945
Early in the reign of Anne, in 1704, a sanguinary encounter took place with reference to the striking of the flag that equalled if it did not surpass in brutality30 any case that happened under Charles. An English squadron under the command of Admiral Whestone fell in with a Swedish man-of-war convoying some merchant vessels. The Swedish commander refused to strike to the English admiral, on the ground that he had received strict injunctions not to do so to any flag whatever, even in the Channel, and thereupon the English proceeded to compel him by force. After about 150 Swedes had been killed or wounded, as well as many English, the unlucky man-of-war, with all the merchantmen, was brought into Yarmouth Roads.946 Another case of a different kind happened in 1728, early in the reign of George II. A French man-of-war, the Gironde, under the command of Mons. de Joyeux, on going 521 into Plymouth Sound on 23rd November, was hailed by an English frigate32, which demanded that he should salute the fortress33 and the frigate. The Frenchman replied that the bad weather had prevented his sending an officer to the governor to agree about a salute, but that he owed none to the frigate, which carried a pennant34 only, it being usual to salute none but flags; and he passed quickly into the port, where the captain of another frigate sent to ask him if he would not salute the commodore, who carried a bare pendant, and he returned the same answer. On coming out again on the 29th the frigate called upon him to strike his pennant, and on his refusal threatened to fire upon him. M. de Joyeux, feeling that it was by no means proper to hazard his ship under the cannon35 of the castle and the batteries, then complied, and also saluted the fort with eleven guns, as previously arranged. This “insult” was made the subject of complaint by France, and when all the papers had been submitted to the king he instructed that the officer responsible, Lieutenant36 Thomas Smith of the Gosport, should be forthwith dismissed the service as having in this particular exceeded his instructions.947
In the writings of the naval historians of last century one may find expressed the views which were then prevalent in naval circles as to the striking of the flag and the sovereignty of the sea generally. They claimed for the crown of England an exclusive propriety38 and dominion39 in the British seas, both as to the right of passage and the right of fishing, and the widest limits were assigned to those seas. Thus Burchett, who was Secretary to the Admiralty, defined them as follows in 1720: On the east they extended to the shores of Norway, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, so as to include the North Sea; on the south they were bounded by the shores of France and Spain to Cape Finisterre, and by a line from that Cape westwards to meet the western boundary, thus comprising the Channel, the Bay of Biscay, and part of the Atlantic Ocean; on the west they extended to an imaginary line in the Atlantic in longitude40 23 degrees west from London, 522 passing from the southern boundary to latitude41 63 degrees north; and on the north they were bounded by this parallel to the middle point of Van Staten. These were declared to be the British seas proper, in which the crown had the most absolute dominion and the right to the honour of the flag from all other nations; but in addition, it was stated that on the north and west as far as America and Greenland the crown had also “most ample rights” in virtue42 of first discovery and occupation.948
No doubt much of the claim put forward by these writers on behalf of the maritime43 dominion of England was stereotyped44, and had more form than substance. Entick, indeed, in 1757, although asserting the right of Great Britain to an absolute sovereignty of the sea, and to the striking of the flag as an acknowledgment of it, himself described this duty as “but an indifferent honorary ceremony.” The changed point of view in which the matter was regarded was shown also in the declaration of war by Great Britain against the United Provinces in 1780, because they had joined the Armed Neutrality. It contained nothing referring either to the flag or to the sovereignty of the sea; and it was doubtless as a mere18 matter of form and precedent45 that a brief article relating to the striking of the flag was inserted among the preliminary articles of peace, drawn46 up at Paris in 1783, and in the definitive47 treaty of peace concluded with the United Provinces in the next year.949 The time was approaching when this ceremony was to pass away altogether as a symbol of our maritime sovereignty, even in the eyes of Englishmen. There was little need of 523 claiming it as an acknowledgment of our actual naval supremacy48 during the greater part of the eighteenth century, for it was obvious to all the world that British sea-power was supreme49. From the reign of Anne onwards the naval force of Great Britain was overwhelming, and formed a determining factor in the history of Europe. This country was undisputed mistress of the seas,—or tyrant50 of the seas, as our enemies preferred to put it,—and our old rival, the Netherlands, was left far behind in the race for naval power as well as in commerce.950 Nor was it longer necessary to insist on the honour of the flag in order to stimulate51 the valour of our seamen52, to keep alive the spirit of maritime glory in the nation, or to evoke53 the reverence54 of foreign peoples. The forcing of all foreign ships to strike in the British seas became a political encumbrance55 unsuited to the times. It was allowed to fall into disuse when its inconvenience had long outgrown56 any utility it had possessed57, and the battle of Trafalgar, in 1805, gave the opportunity of departing from the ancient claim. The naval power of France and Spain having been humbled58, it was thought a convenient time spontaneously to abandon a pretension which “could not probably have been maintained much longer except at the cannon’s mouth.”951 The Admiralty, with the approbation59 of the Government, accordingly omitted the arbitrary article from their instructions for the fleet.952
In the closing years of the seventeenth century and the earlier part of the next there were many signs that the era of claiming an exclusive sovereignty over extensive regions of the sea was passing away; and that, on the other hand, the policy of fixing exact boundaries for special purposes, either by international treaties or national laws, was taking its place. Such signs may be observed in the writings of public men, as in the letter of recantation which Evelyn indited60 to Pepys in 524 1682 (see p. 514), which included a long reasoned argument against the English pretensions61. Still more to the point was the appearance of an extremely able work by Sir Philip Meadows in 1689, immediately after the Revolution, in which these pretensions were subjected to the most destructive criticism.953 Meadows had considerable experience of public affairs. As Latin Secretary to Cromwell’s Council—an office to which he was appointed in 1653 in order to relieve the poet Milton, whose blindness interfered63 with his duties—he was conversant64 with the negotiations65 then proceeding23 with the Dutch; and later, as ambassador to Denmark and then to Sweden, he had opportunities of acquainting himself with the claims to maritime sovereignty put forward by those countries. The keynote of Meadows’ work was, that as the dominion of the seas was apt to become a specious66 pretence67 to a war between England and Holland, while the real causes of such a war were hidden and remote, nothing would conduce more effectually to preserve a lasting68 peace than a true knowledge and right understanding of the matter. If the claim of England as expounded69 by Selden was to be considered the proper standard of right and wrong between us and other nations, “if what was well written must be fought for too, not being to be gained but by a longer tool than a pen,” then the King of England would be cast upon this hard dilemma—either of being involved in endless and dangerous quarrels with all his neighbours abroad, or of having his honour and reputation prostituted at home, as tamely suffering “the best jewel of his crown to be ravished from it.” The English pretension, he pointed62 out, differed from that of Venice, inasmuch as it related not to a bay or gulf70, but to a sea open on both sides which formed the passage of communication 525 for the northern and southern nations of Europe. Persistence71 in the pretension would therefore result in war between the island and the Continent, as to whether the island should have the sea to herself, or whether the Continent should have a share of it with her. No nation had ever acknowledged the claim of England, which, moreover, was not enforced, because if one foreigner did violence to another, outside the King’s Chambers72, but in the Channel or any part of the so-called British sea, he did not come under the jurisdiction73 of the King of England but under that of his own state.
While strenuously74 opposing the pretensions to the sovereignty of the sea, Meadows agreed with all other authors in holding that every country had an exclusive right to certain parts of the sea adjoining its coasts: the difficulty was to fix the bounds. “If there is no certain standard in nature,” he says, “whereby to ascertain75 the precise boundaries of that peculiar76 Marine77 Territory I am now speaking to, which belongs to every prince in right of his land, yet, by treaty and agreement, they may easily be reduced to certainty. For, as to the judgment78 and opinion of private persons, we cannot fetch from thence any true measure; for though they all agree unanimously that there is something due of right, yet they vary in the quantum, or how much. Therefore the surest way is to prescribe the limits of fishing betwixt neighbouring nations by contract, and not by the less certain measure of territory. For, if no bounds be fixed79, how many inconveniencies, and what a licentious80 extravagance, may such a liberty run into?” The Dutch, he said, unless boundaries were fixed, might dredge for oysters81 on the coast of Essex, as they did formerly82; or fish within the mouth of the Thames, or in our creeks83, havens84, and rivers; and it was unreasonable85 not to draw a distinction as to fishing between natives and aliens. Meadows therefore, foreshadowing modern practice, urged that the boundaries of exclusive fishing should be determined86 by treaty, and he prepared a draft article for the consideration of those concerned.954 526 In a later unpublished treatise87 he advocated much the same method of mutual88 agreement with France, with respect to the striking of the flag, as had been formerly proposed by Richelieu—that in our half of the Channel they should strike to us, and that in the half next France we should strike to them.955
Whether or not the writings of Meadows had any influence upon the practice, or, what is more likely, merely reflected the change in opinion that had begun, it is from about this time that we find instances of definite boundaries being fixed, usually in connection with the rights of fishery, instead of the vague claims that commonly prevailed. The first case of the kind happened indeed a few years earlier. In a treaty between James II. and Louis XIV., which was concluded in 1686, concerning the rights of trading and fishing in the British and French possessions in America, it was agreed that the subjects of each were to abstain89 from fishing or trading “in the havens, bays, creeks, roads, shoals or places” belonging to the other, and the liberty of innocent navigation was not to be disturbed.956 Though no definite limit was laid down in this treaty, the meaning of the terms used was well understood; they were practically the same as those used in the proclamations as to neutral waters in 1668 and 1683. 527 They are interesting as being the first definitions of the kind which apply to the coasts of America, and they do not materially differ from the terms used in the treaty of 1818, the interpretation90 of which has given rise to so much dispute. Another example for a different purpose is to be found in a convention between France and Algeria in 1689, which established a limit of ten leagues along the Mediterranean91 coasts of France in connection with the operations of the Barbary corsairs.957
In the treaty above referred to, between Great Britain and France, the rights of trading and fishing went together. This was a very common thing in those times, particularly in remote seas, where the two pursuits were often combined, and it was especially the case in the northern seas which were supposed to be under the sway of the King of Denmark. The disputes which occurred between Denmark and the United Provinces of the Netherlands are of interest in this regard, since they reveal the methods and the stages by which a defined boundary was eventually substituted for a general claim to maritime dominion. They show, moreover, that at the end of the disputes Great Britain stood by the side of Holland in opposing the Danish pretension to mare92 clausum, and was altogether in favour of the free sea. It was apparently93 the assertion of James I. to a monopoly of the whale-fishing at Spitzbergen (see p. 181) that induced Denmark to put forward a similar pretension with regard to Greenland. As early as 1615 a Danish man-of-war demanded a contribution from Dutch whalers for liberty to fish there, and the King of Denmark complained to the States-General that their subjects were carrying on the fishery without his license94 and contrary to his rights. The Dutch opposed this claim and sent armed ships to the scene, which kept the Danes from active interference. A little later, in 1623, Denmark raised fresh complaints in connection with the fishing at Jan Mayen, an island discovered by the Dutch, and which, therefore, according to the charter of the Dutch Arctic Company, belonged to them. In 1639 Danish men-of-war again interfered with Dutch whalers, this time at Spitzbergen, in virtue of a decree prohibiting fishing without a license from the King 528 of Denmark; but the firm attitude of the States-General, whose fleets were then all-powerful, cooled the ardour of the Danes. Denmark also raised difficulties in connection with the cod-fishing in the northern seas. In 1616 foreigners were prohibited from fishing either at F?r?e, Iceland, or on the coast of Norway, an injunction renewed in 1636 and 1639, and various limits were assigned with respect to the cod-fishing at Iceland. In 1636 the Norwegian Government declared that the exclusive right of fishing pertained95 to subjects within a distance of four to six Scandinavian leagues from the coast, which is equal to from sixteen to twenty-four geographical96 miles. The Danish claim to mare clausum also included a monopoly of trade in those remote regions, and the Hanseatic towns as well as the Dutch were forbidden to carry on traffic with the natives. But the efforts of Denmark to preserve a monopoly of fishing and trading in the Arctic seas were intermittent97 and ineffectual. The great Dutch Arctic Company (Noordsche Compagnie), by their charter granted in 1614, were entitled not only to the exclusive right, so far as concerned Dutchmen, “to trade and fish from the United Provinces on or to the coasts of the lands between Nova Zembla and Davis’ Strait,” including Spitzbergen, Barent’s Island, and Greenland, but also to the possession and fishery of any islands they might discover in those seas. The rights granted to this powerful company were thus directly opposed to the Danish claim to mare clausum, and owing to the preponderating98 naval force of the United Provinces, which was behind them, they eventually prevailed. In February 1691, after the defeat by the French of the allied British and Dutch fleets off Beachy Head and the suspension of the Dutch whale-fishing by reason of the war, King Christian99 V. issued another decree prohibiting whale-fishing at Greenland to all but Danish subjects; and in the following year Hamburg was forced to conclude a treaty with Denmark to enable her citizens to carry on fishing and navigation in Davis’ Strait.
It was at this time, nevertheless, that Denmark substituted a fixed limit at other parts of her dominions100 for her previous vague and general claim to maritime sovereignty. By a decree of 26th June 1691, the sea between the south coast 529 of Norway and the coast of Jutland, within a straight line drawn from Cape Lindesn?s to Harboore in Rinkjobing, a distance of over a hundred geographical miles, was declared to belong to Denmark; and it was further ordained101 that in places where the king possessed only one of the coasts, the sea was under his dominion up to the distance at which the land was lost sight of—i.e., within the range of vision. At the end of the following year (3rd December 1692) another edict was issued declaring that no one without royal authority would be allowed to carry on whale-fishing within ten Norwegian leagues, or forty geographical miles, of the coast.958 This tendency of Denmark to formulate102 defined boundaries in the seas along her coasts was carried further, as we shall see, in the eighteenth century.
Within the areas above mentioned, Denmark enforced her authority with considerable vigour103. In 1698 a Dutch ship was seized and confiscated104 for fishing at the F?r?es; and in the period 1738-1740 great energy was displayed in repressing violations105 of the Danish decrees. Several Dutch ships were fired on by Danish men-of-war for trading at Greenland; the crews were turned adrift in open boats, and the vessels taken to Copenhagen, where they were condemned106 as prize in the Admiralty Court. In retaliation107, a Danish ship was seized at Amsterdam, and then Danish men-of-war fell upon the Dutch doggers fishing around Iceland, about a hundred in number, captured four, and dispersed108 the others without, it was alleged109, offering to molest110 the British and French smacks111 fishing along with them. While bringing the captured doggers to Denmark, one of them managed to escape, and carried off to Holland the prize crew on board, consisting of a Danish midshipman and three seamen—an episode that recalls John Brown’s experience in 1617. These occurrences were naturally followed by diplomatic controversies112. Denmark at first based her action in seizing the doggers on a decree of 1733, reserving to her own subjects the exclusive right 530 of fishing and navigating113 within four leagues of the coast of all Danish possessions in the Arctic seas; and the Dutch were accused of carrying on an extensive illicit114 trade at Iceland, under cover of fishing. The States-General used the familiar arguments about the freedom of the seas for fishing and navigation, urged long-continued possession, and cited an old treaty of 1447 which gave the Dutch the right to navigate115 “usque ad Bore? oras.” Then Denmark placed her case on its ancient basis, declaring that the kings of Denmark and Norway had enjoyed from time immemorial the dominion of the northern seas, and were therefore entitled, even according to the teaching of Grotius, to the exclusive fishing. They denied that the Dutch had ever possessed the right of fishery in these seas, alleging116 that clandestine117 acts, punished as soon as discovered, could not be construed118 into possession. This revival119 of dominium maris called forth37 an energetic protest from the States-General, and affairs took a bellicose120 turn. Denmark sent a squadron north to maintain her claims, and Holland provided an armed convoy31 for her whalers and Iceland cod-smacks, “to defend themselves against the pretensions of the Danes.” Hostilities were averted121 by the intercession of Sweden, and of the British and French Ministers at Copenhagen, in favour of the Dutch Republic and the freedom of the seas.
Occasional disputes of the same kind occurred between Denmark and the United Provinces later in the century. In 1757 a Dutch ship was arrested—it was said in the open sea—on the ground that it had been trading in Davis’ Strait, and the matter was adjusted a few years later by an undertaking123 that the Dutch vessels would refrain from trading within the precincts of the Danish possessions. The States-General in 1762 issued a placard to this effect, and they also sent a ship of war to enforce it. In 1776 an English brigantine and two Dutch vessels were seized for trading at Greenland, and condemned by the Danish Admiralty Court, and although on the protests of the British and Dutch Governments the vessels were released, compensation for detention124 was refused.959 531
Other and later examples of the tendency alluded125 to, of fixing definite limits for the rights of the state in the seas washing its territories, may be found in the international treaties, which were concluded during the eighteenth century, concerning the rights of fishery on the coasts and islands of the British possessions in North America, a region of the world which has furnished numerous examples of agreements of the kind. One of these, in 1686, has been already mentioned. By the great treaty of Utrecht in 1713, following Marlborough’s successful campaigns on the Continent, France ceded126 Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to Great Britain; but certain concessions127 were made to French fishermen, who, of course, previously enjoyed the right of fishing there, which subsequently for a long period formed a fertile source of trouble and dispute. In addition to certain privileges as to landing and drying fish, French subjects were to be free to fish in the seas, bays, and other places to thirty leagues from the south-east coast of Nova Scotia.960 Half a century later, by the treaty of Paris in 1763, at the conclusion of the seven years’ war, Canada was ceded to Great Britain, and the concessions to French fishermen at Newfoundland were confirmed, with some modifications129. Liberty of fishing was also granted to them in the Gulf of St Lawrence, subject to the condition that they did “not exercise the said fishery, except at a distance of three leagues from all the coasts belonging to Great Britain, as well those of the continent as those of the islands situated130 in the said Gulf of St Lawrence.” On the coasts of the island of Cape Breton, outwith the Gulf, they were not to fish within fifteen leagues of the shore.961 These provisions concerning the fishery in the Gulf of St Lawrence and at Cape Breton were confirmed twenty years 532 later by the treaty of Versailles in 1783, the article regarding Newfoundland being at the same time modified.962
In these various treaties the fisheries were dealt with in a special and exceptional manner, in connection with the cession122 of the adjacent territories by France to Great Britain. The French fishermen had always enjoyed the right of fishing in these seas in virtue of the ownership of the land; and though full sovereignty over the latter was acquired by Great Britain, the liberty of fishing, under certain restrictions131, was continued notwithstanding the transference of territory. The fisheries of Newfoundland and Canada were of great importance. They were highly valued by France as forming nurseries of seamen for her navy, and for this reason the preliminary treaty of 1762 was severely132 criticised by the Opposition133 in the British Parliament, and especially by Pitt, who perceived that the concessions with respect to the fisheries would enable France to revive her naval power.963
A concession128 still more extensive, on the same principle, was granted by Great Britain to the newly-established United States of America in the treaty of 1783, by which their independence was recognised. The question of the rights of fishery was very fully134 discussed in the negotiations which preceded the treaty; and though Great Britain did not deny the right of American citizens to fish on the Great Banks of Newfoundland, or in the Gulf of St Lawrence, or elsewhere in the open sea, she denied their right to fish in British waters, or to land on British territory for the purpose of drying or curing their fish. A compromise was arrived at, and the treaty provided that the people of the United States should continue to enjoy, unmolested, the right to take fish of all kinds on the Newfoundland Banks, in the Gulf of St Lawrence, and at “all other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish”; also on such parts of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen should use, and “on the coasts, bays, and creeks” of all other parts of the British-American dominions. They were further permitted to dry and cure their fish on 533 unsettled parts of the coast of Nova Scotia, the Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as these parts remained unsettled.964 It will be observed that by this treaty the liberty of fishing in the territorial135 waters of the British possessions in America was conceded to the citizens of the United States, who had exercised the fishery before their independence was declared. They continued to enjoy the right which they had had as British subjects after they had ceased to be British subjects, and they did so until the war of 1812.
With regard to the fisheries at home, in whose interest James I. had originally raised the question of the sovereignty of the sea, the clamour against the Dutch gradually died out, or was only heard at intervals136 and received but scant137 attention. Pamphleteers continued to denounce the liberty allowed to foreigners to fish along the British coasts, and drew the usual picture of the great national advantage that would flow from the creation of native fisheries to rival those of the Dutch.965 Under James II., William, Anne, and the Georges, the policy of fostering the fisheries by protective legislation and by means of organised societies or associations was continued, with but little good result. The most serious attempt was made in the middle of the eighteenth century, when an Act was passed966 for the incorporation138 of “The Society of the Free British Fishery,” giving power to raise a stock of ￡500,000, and guaranteeing 3 per cent interest on the sum raised within eighteen months,—which amounted to ￡104,509,—as well as conferring various privileges and immunities139, including a tonnage bounty140 to encourage the equipment of busses. This society, which was incorporated in the autumn of 1750, with the Prince of Wales as Governor, had a chequered career. Its headquarters were pitched at Southwold, Suffolk, where docks were built and 534 buildings erected141. In 1756 it possessed thirty busses and six “yagers” to carry the pickled herrings to Hamburg and Bremen, the masters of the busses being Dutch or Danish, and the crews chiefly from Orkney, the fishing being carried on at the Shetlands and down the coast to Yarmouth. Financial and other difficulties were encountered, some of the vessels being taken by French privateers, and all the remaining busses and effects were sold in 1772 for ￡6391. Half a century later, the relics142 of some of the discarded busses were dug out of the mud at Southwold.
The Act above referred to was the parent of many others designed to encourage the fisheries, chiefly by providing bounties143; but probably more effective than such measures in stimulating144 the native industry was the decay which overtook the fisheries of the Dutch. This decay was no doubt due to several causes, but among the chief must be reckoned the frequent maritime wars of the eighteenth century in which the United Provinces were engaged. Their herring-busses were often captured or destroyed, sometimes in large numbers at a time, as in 1703, when a French squadron fell upon them at Shetland and burned many of them—variously stated at from 150 to 400.967 Not infrequently their herring fishery was entirely145 suspended, it might be for a series of years, owing to the inability of the States-General to protect the fishing vessels from the French or the British cruisers; and such interruptions told seriously upon a business which depended so largely on the export trade of the cured herrings. From these repeated blows the Dutch fisheries never recovered, and the fleets of busses gradually dwindled146. In 1703, 500 of them fished at the Shetlands and southwards along the coast; half a century afterwards there were but little over 200; and in the later years of the century the number sank as low as 120, which scarcely exceeded the vessels from Denmark, Prussia (Emden), and Belgium. Thus the part of the pretension to the sovereignty of the sea which related to the fisheries along the British coasts was gradually solved, the British fisheries, now the greatest in the world, rising on the ruins of the Dutch.
点击
收听单词发音
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
graphic
|
|
| adj.生动的，形象的，绘画的，文字的，图表的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
pretension
|
|
| n.要求；自命，自称；自负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
obstinate
|
|
| adj.顽固的，倔强的，不易屈服的，较难治愈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
punctilious
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，谨小慎微的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
coalition
|
|
| n.结合体，同盟，结合，联合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
ordinance
|
|
| n.法令；条令；条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
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： |
|
|
|
|
13
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： |
|
|
|
|
14
presumptuous
|
|
| adj.胆大妄为的，放肆的，冒昧的，冒失的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
hostilities
|
|
| n.战争；敌意(hostility的复数)；敌对状态；战事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
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： |
|
|
|
|
18
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
cape
|
|
| n.海角，岬；披肩，短披风 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
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： |
|
|
|
|
25
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
shovel
|
|
| n.铁锨，铲子，一铲之量；v.铲，铲出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
saluted
|
|
| v.欢迎，致敬( salute的过去式和过去分词 )；赞扬，赞颂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
brutality
|
|
| n.野蛮的行为，残忍，野蛮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
convoy
|
|
| vt.护送，护卫，护航；n.护送；护送队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
frigate
|
|
| n.护航舰，大型驱逐舰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
fortress
|
|
| n.堡垒，防御工事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
pennant
|
|
| n.三角旗；锦标旗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
cannon
|
|
| n.大炮，火炮；飞机上的机关炮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
lieutenant
|
|
| n.陆军中尉，海军上尉；代理官员，副职官员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
propriety
|
|
| n.正当行为；正当；适当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
dominion
|
|
| n.统治，管辖，支配权；领土，版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
longitude
|
|
| n.经线，经度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
latitude
|
|
| n.纬度，行动或言论的自由(范围)，(pl.)地区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
maritime
|
|
| adj.海的，海事的，航海的，近海的，沿海的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
stereotyped
|
|
| adj.(指形象、思想、人物等)模式化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
precedent
|
|
| n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
definitive
|
|
| adj.确切的，权威性的；最后的，决定性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
tyrant
|
|
| n.暴君，专制的君主，残暴的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
stimulate
|
|
| vt.刺激，使兴奋；激励，使…振奋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
seamen
|
|
| n.海员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
evoke
|
|
| vt.唤起，引起，使人想起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
encumbrance
|
|
| n.妨碍物，累赘 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
outgrown
|
|
| 长[发展] 得超过（某物）的范围( outgrow的过去分词 )； 长[发展]得不能再要（某物）； 长得比…快； 生长速度超过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
humbled
|
|
| adj. 卑下的，谦逊的，粗陋的 vt. 使 ... 卑下，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
approbation
|
|
| n.称赞；认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
indited
|
|
| v.写（文章，信等）创作，赋诗，创作( indite的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
61
pretensions
|
|
| 自称( pretension的名词复数 )； 自命不凡； 要求； 权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
interfered
|
|
| v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 )；调停；妨碍；干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
conversant
|
|
| adj.亲近的，有交情的，熟悉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
negotiations
|
|
| 协商( negotiation的名词复数 )； 谈判； 完成（难事）； 通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
lasting
|
|
| adj.永久的，永恒的；vbl.持续，维持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
expounded
|
|
| 论述，详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
gulf
|
|
| n.海湾；深渊，鸿沟；分歧，隔阂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
persistence
|
|
| n.坚持，持续，存留 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
strenuously
|
|
| adv.奋发地，费力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
marine
|
|
| adj.海的；海生的；航海的；海事的；n.水兵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
licentious
|
|
| adj.放纵的，淫乱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
oysters
|
|
| 牡蛎( oyster的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
creeks
|
|
| n.小湾( creek的名词复数 )；小港；小河；小溪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
havens
|
|
| n.港口，安全地方( haven的名词复数 )v.港口，安全地方( haven的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
unreasonable
|
|
| adj.不讲道理的，不合情理的，过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
abstain
|
|
| v.自制，戒绝，弃权，避免 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
Mediterranean
|
|
| adj.地中海的；地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
mare
|
|
| n.母马，母驴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
pertained
|
|
| 关于( pertain的过去式和过去分词 )； 有关； 存在； 适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
geographical
|
|
| adj.地理的；地区(性)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
intermittent
|
|
| adj.间歇的，断断续续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
preponderating
|
|
| v.超过，胜过( preponderate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
99
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
dominions
|
|
| 统治权( dominion的名词复数 )； 领土； 疆土； 版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
ordained
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
formulate
|
|
| v.用公式表示；规划；设计；系统地阐述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
vigour
|
|
| （=vigor）n.智力，体力，精力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
confiscated
|
|
| 没收，充公( confiscate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
violations
|
|
| 违反( violation的名词复数 )； 冒犯； 违反（行为、事例）； 强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
retaliation
|
|
| n.报复，反击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
dispersed
|
|
| adj. 被驱散的, 被分散的, 散布的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
molest
|
|
| vt.骚扰，干扰，调戏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
smacks
|
|
| 掌掴（声）( smack的名词复数 )； 海洛因； （打的）一拳； 打巴掌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
controversies
|
|
| 争论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
navigating
|
|
| v.给（船舶、飞机等）引航，导航( navigate的现在分词 )；（从海上、空中等）横越；横渡；飞跃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
illicit
|
|
| adj.非法的，禁止的，不正当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
navigate
|
|
| v.航行，飞行；导航，领航 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
alleging
|
|
| 断言，宣称，辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
clandestine
|
|
| adj.秘密的，暗中从事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
construed
|
|
| v.解释（陈述、行为等）( construe的过去式和过去分词 )；翻译，作句法分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
revival
|
|
| n.复兴，复苏，（精力、活力等的）重振 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
bellicose
|
|
| adj.好战的；好争吵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
averted
|
|
| 防止，避免( avert的过去式和过去分词 )； 转移 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
cession
|
|
| n.割让，转让 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
undertaking
|
|
| n.保证，许诺，事业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
detention
|
|
| n.滞留，停留；拘留，扣留；(教育)留下 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
ceded
|
|
| v.让给，割让，放弃( cede的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
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： |
|
|
|
|
128
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
modifications
|
|
| n.缓和( modification的名词复数 )；限制；更改；改变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
situated
|
|
| adj.坐落在...的，处于某种境地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
intervals
|
|
| n.[军事]间隔( interval的名词复数 )；间隔时间；[数学]区间；（戏剧、电影或音乐会的）幕间休息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
scant
|
|
| adj.不充分的，不足的；v.减缩，限制，忽略 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
incorporation
|
|
| n.设立，合并，法人组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
immunities
|
|
| 免除，豁免( immunity的名词复数 )； 免疫力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
bounty
|
|
| n.慷慨的赠予物，奖金；慷慨，大方；施与 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
ERECTED
|
|
| adj. 直立的，竖立的，笔直的 vt. 使 ... 直立，建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
relics
|
|
| [pl.］n.遗物，遗迹，遗产；遗体，尸骸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
bounties
|
|
| （由政府提供的）奖金( bounty的名词复数 )； 赏金； 慷慨； 大方 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
stimulating
|
|
| adj.有启发性的，能激发人思考的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
dwindled
|
|
| v.逐渐变少或变小( dwindle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |