ile nature; but as to sovereignty of protection and jurisdiction, whereby tributes are imposed for the defraying of convoys, provi ding of sea-marks, &c. and fishing: This may be assumed, and is lawful, as to particular seas and gulfs; but as to the vast ocean, whose bounds are unknown, and whose extent makes the sovereignty to be indefeasible, this is denied. Thus Jo. Isaac. Pontanus, and others, do decide the controversy. And this decision establisheth the King of England's right, whose seas are not bound. less, nor incapable of the aforesaid dominion of jurisdiction. Such a dominion the Dutch professor saith is practicable, and necessary for the Hollanders; thereby to secure their vast trade into all parts of the world, and exclude others from merchandising into the richest parts. From whence we may gather what we are to expect from the prevalence of the Dutch, viz. to be prohibited trading through the seas, but to what places, and on what conditions they please: And whilst our king shall be decried as an usurper of the divine right, by challenging the dominion of the sea: These Hollanders shall affect and assume (without any such usurpation) the dominion over the seas. Which is all one in effect, the discrepancy is but verbal, and such as any one may see into, who is not infatu ated with the specious and pious harangues of the peace-loving christians in Holland.

Another argument, enforced by them here against his majesty's lawful dominion over the British seas, is this: That since the subjects of their state do only subsist by commerce, and consequently by the liberty of the seas, should they acknowledge the said sovereignty of his majesty, and the effects and consequences thereof be reduced into practice upon them, they should be brought to such a condition, as to expect no less than an apparent and inevitable ruin after some time. And that, since the King of England challengeth not only the channel, but also the North sca, and a great part of the ocean, as the British sea; they should not be able to set sail out of their ports any whither, but by the grace and favour of the King of England.--To this I reply, That the king of England, by pursuing his own rights, doth them no wrong: But the Dutch, by intrenching thereupon, do his majesty apparent inju ry, and violate all divine and human laws, whereby propriety is established and secured to particular princes and persons, and that community, of all things by nature, is, by a subsequent and intervenient right, limited and restrained. And that this may be done according to the law of nations, and the general equity, no divine or civilian can deny or disprove: and there is, as to this case, no difference betwixt sea and land. There is not any inhability in the nature of the sea, as is granted by their writers (except as to the vast ocean, and that too in reference to its utmost and unknown extent, not as to determinate parts of it) and is evident from the several kings and republicks which have heretofore, and do now engross the dominion of it. There is not any divine precept against it; no dictates of nature repugn thereunto: for whatsoever is common by nature, may be impropriated by occupancy; neither

can there be a better title to such things than occupancy, prescription, and custom. And that his majesty hath this title intirely, I have evinced, and Mr. Selden before me. Whereas, they say, that should any such right be acknowledged to reside in his majesty, they should not be able to fish in the North sea, or to drive on their necessary commerce by navigation. This is no argument for their unjust actings, any more than it would justify upon land, that one prince, or private person, should usurp upon another's territories or free-hold, because it was most opportune for his trading, or requisite to his subsistence in a flourishing condition. I do not read that this pretext was ever any cause of war betwixt England and the House of Burgundy: The Turk, Pope, Emperor, and King of Spain, might urge the same reason against the Venetian sovereignty in the Adriatick sea, there not being the least part of a passage for their adjacent subjects, which is not, in respect of their pretended sovereignty, belonging to the republick. But these princes understand the difference betwixt right and wrong; whereas the Dutch comprehend nothing but what is advantageous and disadvantageous. They detain Renneburg, and other strong towns belonging to the Duke of Brandenburgh, the Bishops of Cologne and Munster, because their provinces cannot be safe without them. They would usurp our seas, because they cannot manage their trade without them. And they will seize hereafter upon our principal ports, because their navigation cannot be secure without them. Certainly, it is not a sufficient ground for them to deny his majesty the proper rights of the British crown, because They do not know how he will use them. They have no reason to imagine that he would treat them worse than his royal predecessors have done, who never made the utmost advantage of their just rights against the Netherlanders, nor ever practised such a sovereignty as the Venetians exercise in their seas. It is true, that the case is much altered, by their questioning his royalty, which was never before disputed by them, or any else: And it is but quitable that they should be in some manner frank in their acknowledgments, who have been so arrogant in the contest. They that begin a precedent, are more criminal than they which follow it; and since they, by an ungrateful insolence, have instructed others to imitate their demeanor, it is but just that they should.contribute to the necessary charges whereupon they put his majesty to ensure that royalty, which they, above all others (being supported by Queen Elisabeth, and owned for a free state, by the interposition of King James, and strengthened by the surrendry of the cautionary towns upon most easy terms) should not have controverted; at least, not in so barbarous a manner, as to say, That all the world holds the King of England's claim to be impertinent. Whereas it may be with more truth said, That all the world, in all ages, hath and doth justify his right in general, or in Thesi; and it is manifest by the concessions of all princes concerned, and of the House of Burgundy, and of the Hollanders themselves, as to the British seas; or in Hypothesi.

Whereas they deny that ever they fished in our seas with license and permission of the Kings of England. It is a lye; for since they hold their privilege of fishing, by means of a general license or league, contracted betwixt the Crown of England and the House of Burgundy; it is manifest, that whosoever fished in the English seas, before, fished with a particular license, from which they were then excepted, and that, from thenceforward, they did fish all by the general license or indult of the Kings of England in that league. I have already shewed his majesty's right unto the fishery, and how it hath been exerted: And there is equivocation in what they say concerning the tribute of fishing, That they never paid it to the King of England's father. The fishing-busses did pay tonnage. money for their liberty to fish, unto the Earl of Northumberland, as admiral under the present King of England's father. They, knowing the legality of the thing, paid it with satisfaction, not regretting, or protesting against it. The Dutch admiral, Dorpe, did not except against the actions, much less oppose the said honourable person: Nor do I find that the States-general did remonstrate against that tonnage.money, as an exorbitant and illegal demand: But, according to the usual demeanor of these Hollanders, they gave it out all over Europe, that they would not pay any more, and that they refused it in 1637. To shew that this was but a scattered report, not any publick complaint, or refusal of the Statesgeneral at that time; behold this extract of a letter from Mr. Secretary Windebank, to Captain Fogge, who at that time commanded five or six ships under the Earl of Northumberland.

HERE hath been a report raised here, that the Hollanders have refused his majesty's license to fish in his seas, pretended to have been offered them by Captain Fielding. But it is utterly mistaken, seeing Captain Fielding was sent to the busses to offer them protection; his majesty having understood that the Dunkirkers had prepared great strength to intercept them in their return from the fishing, which his majesty, in love to them, sent Captain Fielding to give them notice of, and to offer them safe conduct. This you are publickly to avow wheresoever there shall be occasion; and to cry down the other discourse as scandalous and derogatory to his majesty's honour.

6 August 10, 1637.'

Thus you see (to return upon them their own language) it is a Iye that the said tonnage-money was protested against: it is a lye, that it was no more demanded: for Captain Fielding did demand it (I am sure by letters in the paper-office) though I have not had leisure to examine what he received. And it is a foolish report, to say, that the single attempt of the Earl of Northumberland, being violent, could not create any right: whereas we do not claim it in right, because it was then paid, but because, as an immemorial royalty, it was always due, and acknowledged by them to be so.

I cannot allow of that parenthesis of the Considerer; That violence can create no right, no not by continuance. For, if prescription of an hundred years, or less time, according to particular

Countries, does create a right, how violent and unjust soever the first occupancy be, according to the law of nations, which formally approves thereof, even betwixt prince and prince; and fundamen tally, according to the law of nature, which disposeth us to mutual peace, and amicable society, and to the means conducing thereto, in the number whereof are prescription, occupancy, and custom; How then can he say, that violence can never create a right? How do they hold their freedom, but by violence? Are these the principles of the peace-loving Hollanders? Do not these suggestions tend to the involving of all the world in blood?

6

As to the meeting of the yatcht with the fleet under Van Ghent in the North Sea, and their not striking sail or flag: The Considerer yields it to be a ship of war, by reason of its equipage, commission, and standard; and so it was, according to the precedents of our law, which stiles barges and ballingers, if armed for war, to be ships of war; but neither he, nor any man else can say, that the refusal to lower the top-sail, and, strike the flag, was not a breach of the treaty at Breda. It is alledged, that, This happened in the North Sea, which is not the British sca, being distinguished therefrom; in all sea-plats, yea, in the English map, and, which in this case is an invincible argument, by reason that, in the seventh article of the treaty at Breda, the same are distinctly mentioned one from the other; where it is expresly said, that all ships and merchandises, which within twelve days after the peace are taken in the British Sea, and the North Sea, shall continue in propriety to the seizer. Out of which it plainly ap< pears, that even, according to the king of England's sense, the "North Sea differs in reality from the British Sea.' These reasons are so far from being invincible, that they are null and altogether invalid. For the argument from popular maps, and vulgar seaplats, imports nothing at all: Those being made for common in struction in such cases, as they are usually made for; but not to decide cases at law. There are several counties in England, which are not specified in the maps, which yet the laws do exempt from those in which the maps do include them. The distinction in the article at Breda, betwixt the British and North Sea, is popular, and mentioned, only to prevent future quarrels, about prizes taken, not to decide the king's rights unto that sea, as one of the four seas; and, that taking place, it is not an invincible argument, but an affected ignorance in this Hollander to urge it here. In the treaty at Torstrop, betwixt the Dane and Swede, I read that Schonen and Wien were distinctly named, and consented unto, by the Dane, to be transferred unto the Swede; and in a subsequent agreement at Roskild, the Swede hath only Schonen transferred by name; hereupon he claims also Wien; the Danes deny the rendition, and evade it as the Dutch do now; The king of Sweden rejoins thus, and any man may accommodate the passage to

our case:

6 Though the Danes do grant there hath ever been a joint aliena❝tion of the said isle with Schonen; nevertheless, they would fain

< wave this by an odd exception, pretending that Wien could not really be alienated, as a member of Schonen, because, in the treaty, Wien is expresly named, as well as Schonen, which, they 'alledge, need not have been, had it been inclusive in Schonen."But this poor plea is of little importance, if it be observed, that in the Charter of Alienation, where Wien is separately named with Schonen, there also Lister is separately named with the province of Blekingen, which, however, the Danes do unanimously acknowledge to be a part of Blekingen; it being distinctly na. med, rather for prevention of further disputes, than out of ne cessity: Nam clausula abundans non nocet, ut nec ejus ab'sentia obest.'

I shall conclude, with two brief observations upon the remain. ing part of this paragraph, not yet replied unto.

1. The Considerer saith, That the striking of the flag is but a civility to his majesty's ships, and consequently not to be enforced, but must proceed from a free willingness, and an unconstrained mind, in those that shew such respect. They, that will not learn manners, must be taught them; yet it is a difficult task to teach the boors of Holland. But where did he learn, that the striking of the flag in the British seas was merely an act of respect? Or, `how can he say, that the Dutch, or others, might not be constrained to strike, considering the instructions of our admiral, and the usage of England? Whosoever refuseth to strike, is to be prosecuted as a rebel, not as an uncivil person. And I find, that the crown of France, where it pretends to any sovereignty of the sea, doth enforce the striking of the sail and flag in an uncivil manner, since those that refuse to do it are to be attacked with cannon-shot, and, if taken, their ships confiscated. The same is done by the State of Venice, and universally. The world is coming to a fine pass, when these butter-boxes presume to teach all Europe civility.

2. The Considerer saith, That since the yatcht did not meet with any single ships, or vessels of the states, but run in amongst a fleet riding at anchor: It cannot be maintained with any fundamental reasons, that the Lord Van Ghent, by vertue of the said article, was obliged to strike.-I answer, That the article doth make it fundamental to the peace; and the admiral's instructions, and the usage of England do expound the same sufficiently, to the prejudice of Van Ghent. Is this the sincerity, the bona fides, with which they observe the treaty? Our laws and customs of the Admiralty know no distinction betwixt a ship or flect found riding at anchor, or met under sail: Nor do they distinguish betwixt a casual meeting, and a voluntary seeking of foreign ships, or fleets; nor whether our ships be at anchor, and the foreigner under sail, or both be navigating: And it is the duty of our men of war, in case they discover, or hear of any foreign ships or fleets upon our seas, to make up to them, and to see whether they come in a peaceable, or hostile manner, by demanding them to strike their sails and flags. I need not add any thing to this point, every one may sufficiently comprehend the case, but these Hollanders, that will not understand it.