CHAPTER V.

JAMES I.--_continued_. DISPUTES WITH THE DUTCH.

It would probably be too flattering to James to suppose that he had

any well-considered plan for extending his authority over the foreign

fishermen frequenting his coasts, or for extracting from them a tribute

for their liberty of fishing. But the existence of the tax of the

assize-herrings in Scotland clearly offered the best means for bringing

that about if it was to be brought about at all. It has been explained

that in the negotiations which followed the issue of the proclamation

of 1609, Sir Noel Caron laid his finger on a weak spot in the English

case, by pointing out that the assize-herring had never been levied on

the native fishermen who fished where the Dutch fished at the North

Isles. The special ambassadors in 1610 also mentioned that their

fishermen had never been asked to pay it, though they naturally did not

lay stress on the point. James resolved that those omissions should be

remedied. In 1610 he granted the assize-herrings to Captain John Mason,

who was employed with two ships of war in that and in the following

year on the coast of Scotland. Mason accordingly made strenuous efforts

to collect the tribute. The fishermen of Fifeshire, who carried on a

herring fishery at Orkney and Shetland, resisted the unaccustomed tax,

and in 1612 raised an action of _absolvitor_ before the Lords of the

Privy Council and gained their case.[308] The Lords of the Council

decided that the “adventure” of the fishermen at the Northern Isles

was of the nature of a merchant voyage, and that the fishermen had

no right to pay any such assize, which had never been craved of them

before.[309]

Notwithstanding this decision of the Privy Council of Scotland, James

in 1614 again granted the assize-herrings of the North Isles, on this

occasion to the Duke of Lennox, who was his Admiral in Scotland and

one of the chief noblemen of the time. In ordinary course the grant

came before the Privy Council for confirmation, and the Council at once

informed the Convention of Burghs, requesting them to make it known to

the burghs that the Duke of Lennox had obtained a gift from the king of

“ane excyse to be tayne of all heyring to be tayne be north of Buqhan

Nes” (Buchan Ness, Aberdeenshire), so that they might lodge their

defences. The commissioners for Dundee, St Andrews, Dunbar, and the

burghs on the coast of Fife, were accordingly appointed to proceed to

Edinburgh to give reasons to the Council against the “gift.”[310] After

hearing the representatives of the burghs and the agents of the Duke

(one of whom was “Maister Johnne Browne,” the central figure in the

dramatic episode in 1617, referred to later), the Lords of the Council

indited a long letter to the king. They cited the decision in Mason’s

case two years before, and the reasons for it. They expatiated on the

great decay which had occurred in all trades and commerce in Scotland,

and stated that the fishings would also decay if the duty was levied.

In plain words they told the king that the fisheries should rather be

encouraged--for the general welfare of the country, the increase of

customs, the inbringing of bullion, and providing work for the poor. In

face of the decree in Mason’s case, the Duke’s agents had to admit that

they could not levy the tax from the burghs, but they craved leave to

exact them from the native fishermen of Orkney and Shetland, and from

the foreign fishermen who fished there. On the former point the opinion

of the Council was clear. They upheld the contention of the burghs that

the native fishermen were only their servants, since they paid wages to

them for their labour, and that the herrings, being cured and barrelled

on the sea, were exempt from assize duty, which could be exacted only

on herrings brought fresh and “green” to land.[311] The Council evaded

giving an opinion on the point of chief importance, the proposal to

levy the tax on the foreign fishermen, all of whom cured their fish on

board their vessels. There were, they said, according to information

supplied by the burghs, “some strangers, especially of Holland,” who

claimed the liberty and privilege of fishing “by his Majesty’s patent

granted in their favour to fish in his Majesty’s waters”; but the

tenour of this patent was obscure and not known to them, and they had

no record of it. They suggested that the king should ask his ambassador

at The Hague to procure an authentic copy of it, to be sent to Scotland

for inspection and consideration.[312]

Evidently the Council in Scotland were at this time as cautious as the

Council in England in doing anything contrary to the treaties with the

Netherlands. Had they sanctioned offhand the request of the Duke to

exact the assize-herrings from the Hollanders, they would have taken

the responsibility, without direct authority from the king, of an act

which they knew might have serious consequences. They had no sympathy

with the foreign fishermen, for complaints regarding them from the

burghs were frequent. In 1611 the city of Edinburgh represented to them

the “inconvenience” which was sustained by the whole realm and by the

merchants in particular through the non-observance of the Act of 1581,

“anent the comming of schippis to burrowis in the west and north Isles

be Flemings and uther nations”; and in the following year the “mater

of the fischeing of the Flemins in the West and North Isles” was again

brought up, and it was remitted to the burghs of Edinburgh and Dundee

to draw up a supplication to the Privy Council to have the fishing by

the Flemings in those places repressed.[313]

In view of the decision of the Privy Council, the Duke of Lennox did

not at this time attempt to collect the tribute from the foreign

fishermen at the North Isles. But two years later the political

relations between this country and the Netherlands having become

strained, the opportunity was seized to raise once more the question of

the fishery and the exaction of the assize-herrings. Serious disputes

involving retaliatory measures had broken out respecting the trade in

cloth. In England strong resentment was aroused by an edict of the

States prohibiting the importation of English dyed cloth. Winwood, now

Secretary of State, wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton, who had taken his

place at The Hague, that it was the opinion of “every true-hearted

Englishman” that the king “ought to forbid all manner of intercourse

between the Kingdoms and the United Provinces, and forbid the

Hollanders, by a fresh reviving of former proclamations, to continue

their yearly fishing upon our coasts.”[314] The influence of this

feeling was soon apparent. The Duke of Lennox was now instructed by the

king to levy the assize-herrings from foreigners fishing at the North

Isles, the grant, under the great seal of Scotland, being dated in June

1616; and to render his task more easy he obtained from Sir Noel Caron

in the same month a letter of recommendation (“aanbevelingsbrief”) to

the captains of the Dutch convoying-ships. This letter was innocently

given by Caron in the belief that it concerned the payment of dues on

land at Shetland, which the busses had been accustomed to pay, and

which were then payable to the Duke,[315] but it was made use of by the

Duke’s agent to cover the collection of the assize-herrings. The duty

of collecting the tax was assigned to Mr John Brown, one of the Duke’s

deputies. The detailed instructions he received in 1616 do not appear

to have been preserved, but they were probably similar to those issued

a year or two later (see Appendix G). He was to proceed to the North

Isles in one of the king’s pinnaces and there to demand the assize duty

from the foreign fishermen.

At the end of July 1616 Brown, in one of the king’s vessels, appeared

among the Dutch busses at work off the Scottish coast, and began to

carry out his instructions, offering a “quittance or receipt” for the

tax claimed. Probably to his surprise, it was peaceably paid by the

busses, amounting for each to one angel or a barrel of herrings and

twelve cod-fish. The fishermen were told that if they did not pay it

the amount would be doubled in the following year; and that the king

had a right to levy this tax for a distance of 100 miles from the coast

in virtue of the agreement made with the States at the baptism of

Prince Henry.[316] Although the toll was paid by most of the busses, it

was without the consent of the captains of the convoying men-of-war.

They came to Brown and demanded to see his commission; and it is said

that he showed them the letter which the Duke of Lennox had obtained

from Sir Noel Caron. Since no force had been used in collecting the

tax, the States’ officers contented themselves with forbidding any

further proceedings, and Brown then departed.[317]

The success of the mission was gratifying to James, and the payment

willingly made on this occasion by the Dutch fishermen was often

afterwards cited as an argument that they had acknowledged the king’s

rights in the fishery. In the United Provinces the matter was naturally

viewed in another light. The Dutch officers promptly reported the

occurrence to the directors of the Enkhuisen branch of the fishery; the

authorities of the town complained to Barnevelt in energetic terms,

and the matter was brought before a meeting of the States-General, who

characterised the proceeding of Brown as an “unheard of and intolerable

innovation, contrary to the existing treaties,” and instructed their

ambassador in London to make a strong protest against it. Orders were,

moreover, issued to the commanders of the convoying ships of war to

put a stop to any further payments, and even to refuse to give their

names. Caron, who was indignant at the use to which his friendly letter

had been put, complained to the king and to the Duke of Lennox. James

explained that it was merely a small tribute or tax which was levied

in Scotland on all foreign fishermen, and even on his own subjects,

and had been leased to the Duke of Lennox, who paid an annual rent for

it into the Exchequer. He had, he said, arranged that one of his ships

of war should be stationed on the fishing-ground for the security of

the fishermen and to protect them from pirates. Caron declared that

their High Mightinesses were exempt from all imposts or taxes for their

fishery, both by the treaties “and otherwise,” and he begged the king

to give other instructions, as the matter had occasioned great disquiet

and alarm in Holland. Lennox also tried to minimise the importance of

the measure. It was, he said, a small matter; a mere “acknowledgment”

of a barrel of herrings or ten shillings from each buss, which had to

be paid thrice a year by all the king’s subjects who fished at the

North Isles, and was willingly paid by the English, French, German,

and all other foreign fishermen. The ambassador says he was shown a

printed book in which it was stated that the Scottish Parliament had

decreed that the assize-herrings should be paid not only by the native

fishermen but by foreigners who came to fish on their coasts.[318] The

latter were furthermore prohibited from approaching the coast nearer

than they could see the land from the top of their masts, whereas of

late they came within ten, eight, six, and even four miles of the

shore, which had caused much murmuring in the country, particularly as

in that year between 1500 and 1000 of their busses were there in June.

Sir Noel Caron, however, continued to protest against what he said was

an unjust innovation, and he closed the interview with the important

declaration that, be the consequences what they might, the States

would not allow a single herring to be paid in future, as it might be

regarded as a precedent for further demands.[319]

Notwithstanding this strong protest from the Dutch ambassador, and a

request he made to the king to forbear the right he claimed pending

the appointment of a special embassy to treat of the matter, Brown was

again sent to the North Isles in the next year to collect the king’s

dues from the herring fishers. This he attempted to do as quietly

and inoffensively as possible, but his mission had an abrupt and

dramatic termination. Immediately on his arrival among the busses,

Captain Andrees Tlieff, the commander of one of the convoying ships

from Rotterdam, formally refused the payment in the name of all the

Netherland fishermen, handing to Brown a declaration to that effect

in writing. Brown professed himself satisfied, and was about to leave

Tlieff’s vessel to proceed, as he said, among the fishermen of other

countries, when the captain of the convoyer from Enkhuisen, Jan

Albertsz by name, who had spoken to Brown in the previous year, came on

board. He asked Brown if he was the person who had levied the tax in

the year before, and on receiving a reply in the affirmative he at once

arrested him, saying he had orders to that effect; and notwithstanding

Brown’s warning as to the consequences, and the exhibition of his

commission, he was made prisoner by the irate Dutchman and carried off

to Holland. Whether the king’s pinnace had on this occasion, as two

years later, more than “two small guns and ten muscattis” to represent

the power and majesty of the British navy, does not appear. But Brown,

meek and peaceful, was seemingly quite contented with his position. He

wrote from the Dutch ship to Captain Murray, in charge of the king’s

pinnace, telling him of his arrest and advising him to make no attempt

at rescue, but to return to Scotland and report the matter to the

king.[320]

James received the news of the capture of Brown at Dumfries while on a

visit to Scotland. He felt that the arrest of an officer of the state,

discharging business of the state and with his Admiral’s commission in

his pocket, was an “insolent” personal affront to himself. The members

of the Privy Council who were with him--and the Duke of Lennox was

one of them--immediately wrote to the Council in London requesting

them in the name of the king to arrest the masters of two or three

Dutch ships in the Thames by way of reprisal, and to retain them as

hostages; to inform Sir Noel Caron that reparation must be made by the

States; and to instruct the British ambassador at The Hague to “demand

satisfaction from them for this insolence offered to his Majesty.”

Winwood at once sent for Caron, and informed him of the “disgraceful

affront” which had been put upon the king while his Majesty himself was

in Scotland. The king, he said, was very sensible of their “injurious

and scornful carriage,” and immediate satisfaction and redress were

demanded. Sir Dudley Carleton used even stronger language in addressing

the States-General at The Hague. What, he asked, would the world say

when they knew that a public officer and Minister of the King of

England had been seized by them in Scotland, in sight of the ships of

other nations and while the king himself was in that country? That the

outrage was committed by the orders of the States he did not believe;

but the captains pretended they had a commission for what they did, and

produced certain letters patent containing, as they said, an express

commission from their masters. The ambassador concluded by requiring

instant reparation and satisfaction.[321]

Meanwhile Brown himself had, perhaps, little cause for regret. He

spent two days on board the Dutch man-of-war, and was then landed

at Enkhuisen. The authorities of the town at once perceived the

rashness of the step that had been taken by Captain Albertsz. Brown

was immediately liberated, treated with the greatest courtesy, and

conducted by one of the chief magistrates, with profuse apologies, to

the British ambassador at The Hague. All his expenses were defrayed; he

was presented with seventy “double Jacobus pieces” as a personal gift,

and he left for home on 13th September. Count Maurice and Barnevelt

promptly disavowed the act of Albertsz, and when the matter was brought

before the States-General by Carleton, it fell to the lot of Grotius,

in the absence of Barnevelt, to express the regret of the assembly for

the “accident,” and to request the British ambassador to put the case

in writing for inquiry. In their reply later, the States-General threw

the whole blame on the captains, Albertsz and Tlieff, who had, they

said, acted without authority, and would be punished on their return

from the fishing. They renewed their regrets, said that Brown had been

immediately released, and begged that the Dutch merchant captains

who had been thrown into prison in England and Scotland might be set

free, and their “ancient accustomed liberty of fishing maintained.” In

preferring this request the States relied on their treaty with James in

1594, and the gracious answer he had given to their ambassadors in 1610

concerning the proclamation of the year before.[322]

If the States-General thought they were to get so easily out of the

awkward position in which the precipitate action of their officers had

placed them, they were disappointed. James not only refused to release

the Dutch ships, but said their masters would be detained in prison

until the offending commanders had been sent as prisoners to England,

there to receive such justice as their case merited. This request was

most unpalatable to the States, and they raised various objections to

it, founded both on law and privilege; and although they were assured

by Carleton that the only punishment the offenders would receive would

be “the crossing and re-crossing the seas,” they begged that some

other means might be found of settling the matter. James, however, who

had submitted the case to counsel as to the legality of his demand,

remained obdurate.[323] Finally, after much negotiation and debate, the

States, in February 1618, resolved to send over the two captains to

receive the personal rebuke of the king. Albertsz, the chief offender,

fell ill and died, but Tlieff did actually come to England in April.

Notwithstanding letters of recommendation from the States-General, Sir

Noel Caron, and Sir Dudley Carleton (with whom Grotius had interceded),

he was “very wrathfully” received by James, who scolded and rebuked

him severely for the enormity of his offence, and then dismissed

him without further punishment.[324] Thus ended an incident in the

claims to _mare clausum_ which almost led to a rupture between the two

countries.

It would appear that James, though thus foiled in his attempt to

levy the assize-herrings from the Hollander fishermen in 1617,

did not intend to let the matter rest in the following season,

and circumstances occurred which brought up the question of the

“land-kenning” in another quarter. Early in 1618 the King of Denmark

complained to him that Scottish fishermen were in the habit of fishing

“within the waters of Faeröe,” which was part of the dominions of

Denmark, and that the native fishermen had been so much injured by

their encroachments that they were unable to pay their dues and taxes.

Here was a complaint against Scottish fishermen like that which they

so commonly made against the Dutch. The complaint was brought before

the Privy Council of Scotland, who summoned the burghs concerned[325]

to appear and explain their conduct. They admitted that for some

years they had gone to the Faeröe Isles to fish, but they said that

they had been “driven thereto upon necessity, and by the violence

and oppression of the Hollanders, who came yearly with two thousand

sail and above within his Majesty’s waters, and within a mile of the

‘continent’ of Orkney and Shetland, and not contented with the benefit

that the liberty of their fishing within the said bounds affords

yearly unto them, they do very heavily oppress his Majesty’s poor

subjects and fishers.” They said that the Hollanders “stoppis thame,

houndis and chaisis thame frome thair fischeing, cuttis thair nettis,

threatnis thair lyveis, and thairby compellis thame, who ar a nomber

of poore people haveing no other trade quhairby to manteene thair

families, to seeke thair fischeing elsquhair and far frome thair awne

coist, with grite tormoyll, travell, trouble, and chargeis.”[326] The

Lords of the Council, however, held that the oppression committed

by the Hollanders on them was no warrant for their oppressing the

subjects of other princes, and “that they ought not to have fished in

the said waters without some license and oversight.” A proclamation

was thereupon issued by the king and Council forbidding Scottish

fishermen “to fish within sight of the land of the Isle of Faeröe,

but to reserve the [fishings there[327]] to the inhabitants of the

said Isle, and to other” subjects of the King of Denmark, “conform

to the law of nations,” under a penalty of confiscation of the

ships, vessels, and goods of the persons offending. At the same time

the Council wrote to the king acquainting him with the oppressions

committed by the Hollanders on the Scottish fishermen, and suggesting

that his ambassador at The Hague should demand reparation and “instant

prohibition” by the States to their people, “that they fish not within

sight of his Majesty’s land, but reserve these bounds to his Majesty’s

own subjects, conform to the law of nations.”[328]

Sir Dudley Carleton accordingly made a strong representation to the

States-General on the subject in April. They asked for particulars as

to the persons who were alleged to have been ill-treated in Scotland,

and the nature of the wrongs done to them; while with respect to the

limit proposed to be set them in their fishery--namely, not to come

within sight of land--they said they had never heard of any such

custom, and did not understand how it could be put into practice.[329]

On reporting this home, Carleton was told by the king to raise the

question of the fishing again before he came away, and he explained to

him that the custom of the land-kenning was that no stranger should

fish either within the creeks of the land or within a kenning of the

land, “as seamen do take a kenning.” He asked Carleton to ascertain

whether the Dutch claimed to fish wherever they liked, or were willing

to accept reasonable bounds, adding that the resolution that might be

taken on the subject would depend largely on this.[330] A few months

before this Carleton had brought similar complaints to the notice of

the States-General, declaring that the Hollanders were daily guilty of

“great outrages and insolencies on the Scottish fishermen.” It was even

said to be the opinion in London that the prosecution of the herring

fishery by the Dutch under the protection of ships of war was a direct

challenge to and defiance of the king.[331]

The authorities in Scotland lost no time in preparing statements

recounting in detail the outrages and insolences committed by the

Dutch fishermen; but an impartial perusal of the complaints leaves

little doubt that they were greatly exaggerated. The Dutch fishermen

were accused of going ashore in large numbers and chasing, taking, and

slaying sheep; they “intromitted” with growing timber, trod down all

the corn they could find, induced the best and ablest of the native

fishermen to join them, or even took them by force; entered the kirks,

where they broke down the seats and polluted the pulpits; carved their

names on the green pastures; took uninvited rides on the horses in

the fields, “to the great hurt of the owners”; and made free with the

eggs and young of seafowl on the uninhabited isles, to the hurt of

the proprietors. In the long catalogue of their supposed outrages on

land, two were more important. It was alleged that they gave refuge to

thieves and malefactors, so that justice could not reach them; and that

some years before they seized an honest young woman who was selling

stockings among them and held her head-downwards on an eminence in

sight of the whole fleet, owing to which she died later. Among their

offences at sea they were charged with shooting at native fishermen,

“catching of their small netts and lynes within those huge long netts”

that they used, and which they laid hard by the shore, “whereas before

they approached not nearer the coasts than fourty (_sic_) myles.”

By fishing near the shore they had impoverished the whole trade of

fishing; before they began to do so the herrings came close in, so that

the poorest fisherman could enrich himself, while the shoals were now

broken up and dispersed. So near did the busses come in stormy weather

that they fished “hard by gentlemen’s doors,” where the fishing was

“appropriate to the owners of the land nearest adjacent for their own

fishing in the time of storms when they could not go to sea for the

entertaining of their houses.”[332]

Since the States-General appeared to be tardy in admitting the offences

with which their fishermen were charged, the king wished strong

measures to be taken by the Council in Scotland, and he instructed

Lord Binning, his Secretary there, to take steps “for interrupting and

staying the Hollanders to fish in his seas within sight of the land.”

The Council, however, pointed out in a very humble tone that inasmuch

as it was a matter which concerned not only “thir Hollanders, who ar

your Maiesties confederatis, pretending thair awne interes thairin,

ather be right or lang possessioun,” but also the whole of the kingdom,

it would be better if the king’s proposals were first imparted to the

Privy Council in England. They requested, further, that the ambassador

in Holland should again expostulate with the States as to the injuries

caused to the king’s subjects by their “unjust usurpation to fish

within sight of his Majesty’s land,” and to urge them to issue a

proclamation to prohibit, under heavy penalties, their people from all

further fishing within his Majesty’s seas, which, they said, ought by

the Law of Nations to be exclusively reserved for his own subjects.

They advised the king to make the States clearly understand that if

they continued any longer in their “oppression,” he would so provide

for the maintenance of his right and the freeing of his people as his

honour and justice required; and if the answer was not satisfactory he

might then resolve upon the “next expedient,” and the Council would be

ready to obey whatever he should command.[333]

The States-General, while they did not go so far as the Council

desired in prohibiting their fishermen from approaching near to the

land, did all that they reasonably could do to prevent injuries being

committed on the Scottish people. After an inquiry was made among those

taking part in the great herring fishery, without any evidence being

forthcoming in support of the Scottish complaints, they published

an edict forbidding their subjects, under pain of severe punishment

“as pirates and malefactors,” from interfering with the Scottish

fishermen, with whom they were enjoined to maintain “true friendship,

neighbourliness, and good correspondence.”[334] In forwarding a copy

of this proclamation to the king, the States said that they had issued

it for his satisfaction, and had given strict orders to their captains

to apprehend any one who acted contrary to it. But they expressed the

hope that he would not permit the fishermen of the United Provinces to

be disturbed or troubled in the liberty and freedom of taking herrings

throughout the whole sea, of which liberty they were in immemorial

possession, and it had been confirmed to them by several treaties, in

particular by that made in 1551 between the king’s predecessor and

Charles V. The prosperity of their country, it was added, depended on

navigation, traffic, and fisheries, and the freedom of these had been

provided for in treaties.[335] James, however, was far from satisfied.

He sent on the missive to the Privy Council in Scotland, with the

request that the rolls and registers should be searched to see if any

record existed of any such treaty, whether “with the said Emperor or

any other potentate of the Low Countries.” The States, he said, had

promised to send a copy of it, but they had not done so, and in the

meantime he would cause the rolls in London to be searched.[336]

The negotiations with the States-General dragged on throughout the

summer without much result, and in August James took the sudden

resolution again to demand from the Dutch fishermen the payment of the

assize-herrings. This was doubtless caused by the receipt of a letter

from Sir Dudley Carleton, informing him that the herring-fishers had

gone that year to the coast of Scotland with extraordinary convoy, the

number of their men-of-war having been doubled, and expressing the

hope that notwithstanding this the king would send some one to make

the usual demand in a peaceable manner; otherwise, said Carleton, the

Hollanders “will think his Majesty has laid aside his pretension.”[337]

James accordingly wrote hurriedly to the Council at Edinburgh, saying

it was necessary to make requisition of his duties from the Hollanders

fishing on the coasts of Orkney and Shetland, in order both to keep

possession of the fishing and to foil any plea from the States-General

that no such duties had been demanded of them. He had intended, he

said, to send a ship of war, but those which were ready were otherwise

engaged, and there would not be time to equip a vessel in England

before the Hollanders returned from the fishing. The Council were

therefore instructed to fit out with all expedition either his own

pinnace or any other ship which could conveniently be procured, and to

send it to the North Isles with such person as the deputy of the Duke

of Lennox should choose, who was to be instructed “in fair tearmes and

calme and peciable maner to crave oure said dewties, and accept of any

suche answer as they sall gif him, without making any furder questioun

or dispute in the mater.”[338] Here was another Brown mission over

again; but James forgot, if indeed he ever knew, that at that time of

year the Dutch herring fishermen would be very far from the North

Isles, and fishing along the English coast.[339] The fact was well

known at Edinburgh, but, for whatever reason, it was not pointed out

to the king; and the Council, urged to use “exceeding great haste,”

chartered a Leith vessel, the _Restore_, put Mr Patrick Bruce on board

to demand the tax from the Hollanders, along with a notary “to give

instruments thereupon,” and despatched it on its bootless errand to the

Shetlands. No Hollanders could be discovered, and the _Restore_ came

back to Leith.

The reason of the king’s action, as well as of Carleton’s advice, is

doubtless to be sought in the desire to strengthen the case against

the Dutch in view of an expected special embassy from The Hague, whose

appointment was now mooted, and which was designed to settle various

differences between the two countries that had become acute. Besides

the herring fishery, which was a never-failing subject of dispute,

there was the trade in cloth, the East Indies, and the “Greenland”

whale fishery, about which it is necessary to say something here.

Allusion has already been made to this phase of the controversy

respecting _mare clausum_ which sprang up in the Arctic seas, and was

now mixed up with the question of the liberty of fishing on the British

coasts. Towards the end of the previous century English whalers,

for the most part in the service of the Russia or Muscovy Company,

frequented the coasts of Greenland, and the northern seas which had

been opened up to English enterprise by the voyages of Willoughby and

Chancellor;[340] and early in the next century they also began to catch

whales at Spitzbergen, where they were found in enormous numbers.[341]

The whalers of other nations followed in their wake, and in 1612 two

Dutch vessels arrived at Spitzbergen to take part in the fishery, and

although from their ignorance of the methods they failed of success

that year, a company (_Noordsche Compagnie_) was formed at Amsterdam

to continue the venture under better conditions.[342] The Muscovy

Company, whose whalers in 1612 got within nine degrees of the North

Pole, sighting 700 whales and bringing back 17,[343] became jealous

of competitors. In 1613 they procured from King James a charter by

which they were entitled to exclude all others, foreigners as well as

subjects, from sailing to Spitzbergen; and in that year they dispatched

thither a fleet of seven armed vessels to defend their rights by force

as well as to catch whales.[344] In the seas at Spitzbergen they

found a number of other whalers from Spain and France, as well as two

Dutch ships which had returned to the fishery. The English vessels

immediately attacked them, and drove most of the intruders away.[345]

The Englishmen then set up a cross on the shore with the king’s arms on

it, and they called the land “King James’s Newland.” It is noteworthy

as indicating the attitude and practice towards France throughout

almost the whole of the disputes about _mare clausum_, that the French

whalers were allowed to continue their operations, subject, however, to

the payment of a tribute of whales or train-oil, while the two Dutch

ships were despoiled of their catches and fishing-gear and were sent

home empty. On their arrival at Amsterdam the ill-treatment to which

they had been subjected was naturally resented, and representations

to King James were made through the ordinary channels, but without

success. The Dutch founded their case partly on the general principle

“that according to the practice of all times and peoples, navigation,

fishery, and the use of the shore were free and common to all,” and

partly on the claim of prior discovery. Spitzbergen, they said, was

discovered by Jakob van Heemskerk, a Dutchman, in 1596; they had

therefore at least as good a right as the English or any other nation

to the fisheries there. On the other hand, the powerful Muscovy

Company argued that Spitzbergen was discovered by Willoughby in 1553,

and accordingly belonged to England; and the king adopted this view,

notwithstanding the elaborate case drawn up by the famous cosmographer,

Plancius, on the other side, which was submitted to him.[346] The seas

around Spitzbergen were held to pertain to the British seas, and to

be under the maritime dominion of the King of England,--a claim which

Selden attempted to vindicate later.

[Illustration: Fig. 8.--_Dutch Whalers at Spitzbergen_. After Van der

Meulen.]

Having failed by diplomacy to obtain recognition of what they believed

to be their plain rights, the States resolved to oppose force by

force. Early in 1614 a new Dutch company was formed, and exclusive

privileges were conferred on it “to navigate, trade, and fish, from the

Netherlands on or to the coasts of the lands between Nova Zembla and

Davis’ Straits,” including therefore Greenland and Spitzbergen.[347]

A tax of “last-money” was established, and in the same year eighteen

Dutch whalers, armed, and convoyed by three States’ men-of-war, left

Holland for the Arctic seas, prepared to maintain their right to

freedom of fishery by fighting for it if necessary. The English whalers

did not venture to attack so powerful a squadron, and as the Hollanders

came in 1615 and 1616 in even greater force, they were for these three

years enabled to carry on their whale-fishing without molestation.

In 1617, however, their convoyers having been reduced in numbers,

they were again assailed by the English; one of the Dutch vessels was

despoiled, and their “cookeries,” or the buildings on shore in which

the oil was made, were destroyed. Then in 1618 the Dutch reappeared,

and in strength sufficient not only to maintain the right they claimed,

but to make reprisals. They attacked, despoiled, and drove off thirteen

English ships, most of which returned to England empty, and the Muscovy

Company were loud in their complaints to the king. They put their loss

at £66,436, 15s., besides the spoiling of the ships and the killing of

the men.[348]

At this time, as we have seen, James was pressing more than ever for

the recognition of his claims to the herring fishery in the British

seas, and it may be easily imagined how he was moved by the news of

this fresh “outrage” at Spitzbergen. At a meeting of the States-General

in October, the British ambassador used strong language in

animadverting on these “violencies, robberies, and murders” committed

by the Dutch on the king’s subjects in the Arctic seas, on the injuries

inflicted on the English in the East Indies, and on other matters in

dispute; and he demanded that the embassy so repeatedly promised by

the States should be sent to England without any further delay. The

embassy in question had been originally proposed by the Dutch with the

view of arranging the differences as to the trade in cloth and the

herring fishery. Their diplomacy through the ordinary channels had,

however, been so successful in preserving their freedom of fishing,

notwithstanding the harassing efforts of the king, whom they invariably

foiled, that they preferred to procrastinate, and the proposed embassy

had from time to time been put off. But now the minatory demands of

Sir Dudley Carleton were reinforced by the insistence of the Dutch

East India Company, for it had been proposed in England to arrest the

vessels of that company in the Channel in reprisal for the wrongs done

to the English in the East Indies, and one of their ships had just

narrowly escaped capture.[349]

The Dutch ambassadors arrived in England on 27th November;[350]

but notwithstanding the earnest exhortations of Carleton, their

instructions were confined to the “Greenland” (Spitzbergen) and East

Indian questions, and did not contain what the king most desired--full

powers to treat on the herring fishery.

James had been looking forward to this embassy as providing an

opportunity for the final settlement of the fishery dispute. Sir

Dudley Carleton had informed the States-General that the king wished

to go into the matter of the treaties on which their claim to liberty

of fishing was in great measure based, adding jesuitically that it

was probably with the view of confirming them. The king in reality

felt that owing to the dissensions in the Low Countries and the

general political state of Europe, the time was specially opportune

for negotiating a treaty in his favour.[351] He had accordingly made

considerable preparations to meet their arguments both with reference

to the treaties and the Law of Nations. Early in November he wrote

to the Council at Edinburgh, saying that the wrongs suffered by his

Scottish subjects from the fishing of the Hollanders in the seas of

Scotland had caused him to bring the matter before the States, and

to acquaint them of his “resolution to have them duly repaired.” The

States had signified their desire to have their rights and the actions

of their subjects “orderly tried and determined,” and they were

therefore about to send over commissioners “sufficiently authorised”

for that purpose. As commissioners to meet them, he had chosen the

Duke of Lennox, the Marquis of Hamilton, Lord Binning (Secretary),

and Sir George Hay (Clerk of Register), and he asked the Council to

expedite the issue of their commission under the great seal. He also

desired them to send him, in writing, the most perfect information

they could procure as to his right to exclude the States from their

pretended right or alleged possession of the herring-fishing, with

full particulars of the wrongs committed by the Dutch on the Scottish

people, either by scattering the shoals of herrings or by “usurpation

of farder libertie to themselves nor hes bene formerlie granted or

tolerated be us or our prediceesoris to them.”[352]

The commissioners named were accordingly authorised to treat with

the Dutch commissioners “anent the trial and verification of the

rights, immunities, and privileges alleged to have been granted by

his Majesty or any of his most noble progenitors, Kings of Scotland,

to the said States-General of the United Provinces, or any others

from whom they deduce and derive their claim to fish in the seas of

the said kingdom of Scotland, or any part or place thereof.” They

were further instructed to treat as to the redress required for the

injuries committed by the Dutch fishermen, and for preventing in

future any unlawful proceeding by the States, “either by fishing in

his Majesty’s Scottish seas” or by doing wrong to the inhabitants.

They were, moreover, “to concur” with the English commissioners to be

appointed as to the “friendly behaviour” of British subjects and the

subjects of the United Provinces in all other seas, fishings, voyages,

and other foreign intercourse, necessary for the continuance of peace

and amity.[353] The business of the herring fishery was thus placed in

charge of the Scottish commissioners, while the English had specially

to deal with the other subjects in dispute--the East Indian trade, the

whale fishery, the coinage, and the trade in cloth. Towards the end of

November Lord Binning informed the king that the Council had sent off

the commission, together with a statement of the injury sustained by

the whole kingdom by the daily increase of the Dutch usurpation in his

seas.[354]

With regard to the other matter about which James had desired “the most

perfect information,”--his right to exclude foreigners from fishing on

his coasts,--the Council had the greatest difficulty in discovering

anything whatever pertaining to it. It was the most important part of

the question to come before the commissioners, because the States had

already issued a strongly-worded edict forbidding their people from

committing any wrongs upon the Scottish people (p. 179), and the king

could scarcely make out a just case for prohibiting the Hollanders from

fishing on this ground alone. He desired to show, what he no doubt

fully believed, that his claims were supported by historical precedents

and the laws of Scotland, and that none of the treaties on which the

Dutch always relied in such negotiations were contrary to his claims.

In his letter to the Council he therefore repeated the request that the

public records should be searched, and desired that Lords Lauderdale

and Balmerino, the Laird of Lundy, and others into whose hands

such documents might have come, “from their ancestors, Chancellors,

secretaries, clerks of register, ambassadors, or councillors of state,”

should try to find any which bore upon the matter, and to have them

forwarded to him without delay. The terms of the king’s letter show

plainly enough the confusion and imperfection of the Scottish state

records at that time; and the Lords of the Council sought high and

low to discover copies of the treaties or any other official papers

relating to the subject, but for a long time without any success.

Copies of some of the treaties were afterwards found, but nothing

to establish the king’s right to exclude the Hollanders from the

fishery. In these circumstances the Council advised the commissioners

“to proceed warily,” and to make the Dutch ambassadors produce what

they had to show for their claim to the fishing, and then to answer

that.[355]

But as things turned out, it was of no immediate importance whether

or not the Scottish commissioners were armed with documentary proofs

of the king’s claims to the fishery. The Dutch ambassadors, as has

been said, came without any powers to treat on that subject. In their

private instructions, indeed, they were enjoined to avoid carefully any

discussion about the herring fishery. If it was forced upon them, they

were to point out that the States had already issued a proclamation

to prevent wrongs being done to Scottish fishermen, which would be

strictly enforced. If this was not sufficient, they were to fall back

on general arguments as to the natural freedom of the sea, their

immemorial possession of the fishery and its paramount importance to

their country, and to plead for delay on account of the confusion and

difficulties of their home affairs.

On their arrival in London they were met by two high Scottish

personages, who had been awaiting their coming for some weeks. They

took this for a bad sign, concluding from it that the king was resolved

to raise the fishery question. They had several interviews with the

Council and the king. On finding that their instructions limited

them to the discussion of the two points on which there was least

anxiety in England, the East India business and the whale-fishing, the

Council received them coldly, Bacon indeed rating them soundly for

coming without adequate powers. James himself was very angry, and made

no effort to conceal his disappointment. He expressed astonishment

that after all the complaints that had been made, and after all the

negotiations that had gone on through the ambassadors at London and The

Hague, they had ventured to come unprepared to deal with the principal

matter in dispute. “The fishing,” he told them, “on the coasts of

England, Scotland, and Ireland, as a regality and point of sovereignty,

was possessed by him alone, to the exclusion of all others.” Spain,

he said, had asked leave to negotiate about freedom of fishing, while

France enjoyed the privilege only under great limitations, a few small

vessels being allowed to fish for the use of the Court and the king’s

family.[356] How little becoming was it therefore, continued James

with heat, that a Republic which had only been recognised for a few

years should be the first to contest his sovereign rights! It was

useless for them to plead unprofitable years and immemorial possession.

He was king of the greatest islands in the world, and he knew very

well the rights he had on the coasts of his three kingdoms.[357] He

further informed them that he was bound by oath at his coronation to

maintain the rights, liberties, and privileges of his crown, and that

he would rather lose all that he had than give up his right to the

fishings.[358] Declarations equally strong were expressed in despatches

to the British ambassador at The Hague. The king, it was said, would

not be taught the laws of nations “by them nor their Grotius.”[2] It

would be to their advantage to ask the king’s leave for the fishing

and to acknowledge his right as other princes had done, or it might

well come to pass “that they that will needs bear all the world before

them with their _Mare Liberum_, may soon come to have neither _Terram

et solum_ nor _Rempublicam Liberam_,”--phrases which lead one to think

that James penned the missive himself.[359] The Council intimated to

the ambassadors that the king declined to discuss only the two points

mentioned in their instructions, and that they must get powers from the

States-General to deal with the question of the herring fishery.

Language of this kind from the king and Council disturbed and perplexed

the envoys. They were anxious that the friendly relations between the

two countries should be strengthened, and yet it appeared not unlikely

that they would have to return home without having been heard on any

of the matters in dispute. They began to think that after all it would

be better if the fishery question were taken up and settled, and they

advised the States-General in that sense. The British ambassador at The

Hague was using pressure with the same object. But the Prince of Orange

told him that in his opinion the States of Holland would refuse to

give authority for the fishery question to be opened, “for fear of the

people,” because the livelihood of 50,000 of the inhabitants of that

province depended on the herring-fishing, and they feared that the same

thing would happen with the tribute the king claimed as had happened

with the dues at the Sound, which had been gradually raised until they

had become an intolerable burden. He threw out the suggestion at the

same time that perhaps the freedom of fishing might be purchased by a

lump sum. A little later Carleton proposed to the States-General that

the three subjects omitted from the ambassadors’ instructions should

also be brought into the negotiations--viz., the trade in cloth, the

coinage, and especially the herring fishery. In a minatory speech he

declared that the king, who had “a legitimate title and the exclusive

sovereign right and propriety to the fishery on the coasts of his

three kingdoms,” would not any longer permit the subjects of the

United Provinces to encroach on his rights, which were recognised by

all other princes and states. The condition of affairs, he said, had

been brought to extremities by the extravagant discourses of one of

their politicians and the violent conduct of the commanders of their

ships.[360] Sweeping aside the treaties and the claim to immemorial

possession, and using much the same language as the king had done as

to the hardihood of a young republic flouting the sovereign rights of

princes, he ended a long harangue by declaring that if there was any

further delay in dealing with the fishery question, England would take

measures to provide for her rights by force of arms, “for such,” he

said, “was the demand of the people, the advice of the Council, and the

resolution of the king.”

But all those strong speeches and brave words came to nothing. The

leaders in the States knew the character and difficulties of James,

and felt that the warlike threats of a monarch whose greatest desire

was that he should be known as _Rex pacificus_[361] were not likely to

be carried to the extremity of the sword. A little more delay brought

about a change in the English attitude. In the Privy Council there were

signs of wavering and evident hesitation to recommend extreme measures

against an allied and Protestant state. In the political condition

of Europe--troubles in Bohemia, the King of Spain threatening the

overthrow of Venice, &c.--it was urged that harsh measures might drive

the Dutch to have recourse to France, which supported Barnevelt, the

king’s enemy. Above all, it was feared that the Protestants throughout

the world would be unable to understand how the king could attack the

Dutch at that critical time over so small a matter. On the whole, “for

the sake of the peace of Christendom,” it might be better to “continue”

the question to another time, and thus avoid an immediate rupture. The

faltering in the Council coincided with a humbler tone on the part of

the Dutch ambassadors. They strove to convince James that it was by

no means the desire of the States to refuse to treat of the fishery,

or absolutely to deny his right to regulate it on his own coasts. All

they asked was that the matter might be delayed a little owing to the

religious troubles which were raging in the Netherlands, and because

as all the provinces were concerned and the records and treaties would

have to be searched, it would take some time before they would be in a

position to deal with it in an equitable way. The States-General used

language equally conciliatory to Sir Dudley Carleton, and promised to

send other ambassadors later, fully empowered to treat of the herring

fishery and the trade in cloth. James was appeased and agreed to the

delay, but he told the ambassadors that unless the States gave an

undertaking in writing to send commissioners sufficiently authorised

to settle the matter before a year had expired, he would take it as “a

plain and perpetual declining of the treaty.”[362]

Thus James was again baffled in his endeavour to force the United

Provinces to acknowledge his rights in the fishery. But scarcely

had the arrangement been completed when he brought forward another

proposal. Pending the conclusion of the final treaty, he wished the

States to issue a provisional edict forbidding their fishermen from

approaching within fourteen miles of the British coasts, to which

they had been coming closer and closer in recent years, a proceeding

which was the principal cause of the complaints from Scotland.[363]

The distance mentioned was that embodied in the Draft Treaty of Union

in 1604, and was supposed to be equivalent to a “land-kenning.”[364]

Carleton, however, thought the States would not immediately agree

to this,--their cumbersome system of government would alone cause

great delay,--and he counselled the king “to begin with the fishers

themselves,” by publishing a proclamation fixing the distance at which

they would be permitted to fish.[365] But the States were disposed to

go so far to meet the wishes of the king. They objected, indeed, that

fourteen miles was a greater distance than that at which a person could

see the coast from the sea, and thus exceeded a “land-kenning” or the

range of vision, but they promised to issue orders to their fishermen

to keep so far from the land as to be out of sight of people on the

shore, and to strongly prohibit them from going nearer.[366]

The business of the herring fishery having thus been shelved, the

negotiators took up the other matters in dispute. The East Indian

question was settled by a treaty,[367] but the differences as to the

whale fishery were not so easily adjusted. The English case was founded

on the contention that Spitzbergen belonged to King James, on their

prior fishing in those seas, and on the depredations committed by the

Dutch in 1618 on English vessels. The Dutch claimed a right to the

fishery from their discovery of the island, and they proposed three

alternatives: (1) that both nations should fish at Spitzbergen with an

equal number of ships, the bays to be divided by drawing lots;[368]

(2) that fishing should be carried on by both parties everywhere with

an equal number of ships of equal size, disputes to be settled by

regulations; (3) that the island should be divided by an imaginary line

into two equal parts, the Dutch to have one part and the English the

other. The English declined all these proposals, and James informed

the ambassadors that even if the island had been discovered by their

nation the English had the right to the fishery because they were

the first to practise it,--an argument which, it may be remarked, if

applied to the herring fishery, would have been unfortunate for the

king’s claim to it. But while maintaining his abstract right to the sea

at Spitzbergen, James gave way on the immediately practical point,

consenting that the Dutch should continue their fishery at the island

for three years longer.[369]

We have mentioned that late in 1618 James caused the Scottish Council

to send a vessel (the _Restore_) to the Shetlands to demand the

assize-herrings from the Dutchmen, and that it arrived on the scene

too late. Next year he resolved to be in time, and while the Dutch

ambassadors were still in London he wrote to the Council saying it was

necessary “for divers imperative reasons” that the duties should still

be craved, and requesting them to send a ship that summer with some

discreet person on board, “who in fair terms may require our duties

of the said Hollanders and report their answer”; and the Council were

desired to take special care that the business should not fail through

negligence.[370] At a meeting of the Council at Holyrood House on

29th June, arrangements were made to carry out the king’s wishes. Mr

John Fenton was appointed “his Majesty’s commissioner” for “craving

his Majesty’s rent of assize and teind from the Hollanders and other

strangers fishing in his Majesty’s seas,” and a Mr James Brown was

instructed to accompany him as notary.[371] Fenton’s commission, under

the great seal, commanded him to repair to the north seas, and there

“in his Majesty’s name to ask, crave, receive, intromit with, and

uplift from those of Holland, Zealand, Hamburg, Embden, and Rostock,

and from all other strangers following the trade of fishing in his

Majesty’s said seas this present year, his Majesty’s rent of assize

and teind of the whole fishes taken, or to be taken by them in his

Majesty’s said seas and waters this present year.” The tribute levied

by John Brown, in 1616, on behalf of the Duke of Lennox, amounted to

only one angel (about ten shillings) or a barrel of herrings from

each buss, or twelve cod from a line-boat. But that claimed by the

king was now considerably greater. The “assize” was to be computed at

ten thousand herrings (which would be fully ten barrels) for every

buss that fished for herrings, and a last of white fish for every

buss that fished for white fish, that is to say, cod and ling; or,

if the fishermen preferred to pay in money, they were to pay at the

rate of £6, 13s. 4d. Scots for every thousand of the assize-herrings,

and at the rate of £50 Scots for every last of the assize white fish;

and the same equivalents were to be asked for each thousand “teind

herrings,” and for each last of “teind white fish,”--a new duty now

first mentioned, “teinds” being the Scottish term for ecclesiastical

tithes. The value of the assize-herrings to be levied from each buss

was thus about £5, 11s. 1d. sterling, and the value of the assize white

fish from each dogger about £4, 3s. 4d. On the basis of two thousand

Dutch herring vessels the total duty would amount to the respectable

sum of about £11,000, while the dogger-boats would yield some £1500

additional. On receiving payment Fenton was to give an “aquittance

and discharge,” which would be as valid and sufficient as if given

by his Majesty’s comptrollers or ordinary receivers of his Majesty’s

rents.[372]

In the particular instructions given to Fenton,[373] and which, there

are reasons for thinking, were essentially the same as those previously

given to Brown, he was enjoined to proceed to the north seas in H.M.S.

_Charles_, under the command of Captain David Murray, and in the first

place to inquire the names of the admirals and vice-admirals of the

Dutch fleet, the names of their ships, to what towns and provinces they

belonged, and also the number of the convoys and busses sent out to

the fishing by every town, province, and state. This having been done,

he was “in fair and gentle terms and with modesty and discretion” to

demand from the admirals or vice-admirals, and from two or three of the

convoyers and busses of each state, “his Majesty’s rent of assize and

teind” as specified. He was not to dispute with them as to the amount

of the duty. If they offered a smaller amount, “although it were only

an angel for every buss,” he was to accept it, but not less; so also if

he were offered fish instead of money. It was left to his discretion to

make a differential duty according to the size of the busses, if that

point was raised, and also to compound with the admiral for the whole

of the busses of a town, state, or province. If payment of the duties

were refused, Fenton was merely “to take instruments upon the said

refusal without further contestation,” and to report the result. He was

also to inform the Dutch of the oppressions made by those landing from

the fleet at Shetland, and to demand redress and a promise that such

conduct would not be repeated.[374]

A short time before this the Council, for the sake of economy, had

ordered the _Charles_ to be disfurnished, but now, in view of her

important mission, they judged it to be “no ways meet or expedient”

that she should be made altogether empty of her furniture and munitions

of war, so that she might be able to resist any sudden or secret

onslaught by the Hollanders or others. They therefore instructed that

there should be left on board “twa of the smallest pecceis of hir

ordinance and ten muscattis, with some few bullets ansuerable thairto,

and a litill quantitie of poulder, yf ony be within the schip.”[375]

Orders were given for the manning of the vessel, which was to be

ready to sail before 1st July. It was with this scrimp and penurious

armament, and in this attorney-like manner, that James prepared to

obtain an acknowledgment from the Dutch of his rights in his seas,

whereas Charles I., as we shall see, employed his great ship-money

fleet for the same purpose. But apparently the king would be almost

as satisfied with a refusal as with the payment of the tribute,

either of which he would be able to make use of in the negotiations

for the “final treaty” on which he had set his heart. It is therefore

unfortunate that we can discover no further information as to the

expedition of Fenton. That the _Charles_ left on its mission we

know,[376] but the records are silent as to the result. It may perhaps

be inferred from this circumstance alone that the Charles was no more

successful than the _Restore_ in the year before.

Early in 1620 the States, which had taken no steps to redeem their

promise to send another embassy to deal with the question of the

herring fishery, were reminded of it, and Carleton urged this course as

a point both of policy and honour. But they were as reluctant as ever

to handle the matter. The increased duty which Fenton was commanded

to ask--of which very probably they had heard--was not likely to make

them more willing, and they continued to procrastinate, alleging the

unsettled state of their affairs at home and the troubles in Bohemia

and Germany as reasons for further delay. Some prominent men in Holland

indeed began now to assume a firmer tone. Hints were thrown out to the

British ambassador that there was really little difference between

forcing on the matter and declaring war, since freedom of fishing was

of fundamental importance to the people of the United Provinces. The

Prince of Orange gave it as his opinion that the seaport towns of

Holland would never be brought to consent to “any innovation” in the

herring fishery, even if it were urged at the cannon’s mouth. Still

more significant was the action of the States in now voting large

additional sums for the equipment of a greater number of men-of-war to

guard the herring-busses from molestation.[377]

To all appearance, therefore, the Dutch had now stiffened their

backs and were prepared to fight for their liberty to fish on the

British coasts, as they had done at Spitzbergen, instead of sending

commissioners to London to haggle over it. But their uncompromising

attitude was soon modified owing to certain political events, which

taught them the need of caution in flouting the wishes of the King of

England. In the autumn of 1619, Frederick, the Elector Palatine, who

had married Elizabeth, the daughter of James, was offered and accepted

the crown of Bohemia under circumstances pregnant with troubles. In

consequence of this, Spain, in alliance with the Emperor, attacked and

took possession of the Palatinate. The strengthening of the Spanish

power in Germany was by itself inimical to the United Provinces,

and the sense of danger was intensified when it was found that the

occupation of the Lower Palatinate was part of a plan for marching the

Catholic troops overland from Lombardy to the Spanish Netherlands.

In view of an impending conflict with their hereditary enemies, it

became a matter of grave anxiety to the States to retain the goodwill

of England. Accordingly, after many discussions, the States-General

at the end of 1620 appointed another embassy to go to London; but it

was rather with the view of meeting the political dangers with which

they were threatened than of dealing effectually with the subjects

in dispute. The ambassadors’ official instructions, which were most

carefully considered, referred in general terms to the affairs of

Germany and the approaching expiry of the truce with Spain, and more

particularly to the cloth trade, the coinage, and the East Indies.

On the all-important subject of the herring fishery they were mute.

In their private instructions the envoys were enjoined to avoid all

discussion about it; if pressed, they were to assure the king that the

States would be glad to consider it “later”; and in any discussion

that did arise, they were to bear in mind that they always had been

in undisturbed possession of it, and that the profit they derived

from it had been greatly exaggerated and was far less than the king

supposed--so little indeed that they would be quite unable to carry it

on if any “innovation” were made.[378]

The embassy of six persons arrived in London towards the end of January

1621. At their first audience with the king they spoke only of the

affairs in Germany and the seizure of the Palatinate, desiring it to

be understood that this was the principal matter to be considered;

and when they met the Council they raised the question of a warlike

alliance between the two countries against Spain. But the herring

fishery had not been forgotten by the English, and when the subject was

mooted the Dutch begged that it might be allowed to rest for a time,

pleading in particular that the expiry of the truce with Spain would

leave them face to face with a powerful foe. The Council reminded them

of the promise given, and James bluntly expressed the hope that they

had come on this occasion fully empowered to treat of the business of

the fishery, which had been suspended at the conferences two years

before. While disclaiming any wish to diminish their legitimate profits

from the fishery, he warned them that the question touched his honour

and sovereignty so closely that it could not be always left undecided

and in dispute; and that he would only agree to further delay when

he was informed at what time it would suit the States to conclude an

agreement both about the fishing on the coasts of Great Britain and at

“Greenland.”[379] After many conferences and much negotiation it was

arranged that another embassy should be sent by the States before the

lapse of a year, and the Dutch commissioners quitted London on 16th

April.

In accordance with this understanding, still another embassy came

to London, in November 1621. On this occasion the ambassadors were

provided with full powers to settle the East Indian disputes, and with

less ample authority to deal with the Spitzbergen fishery question.

But, astonishing as it appears, they were again sent without any power

to negotiate any treaty about the herring fishery. That the States,

after so many delays and evasions, in the face of so many protests

from the king, should again break their promise, shows both the great

importance they attached to the matter and their belief that James

would not force on a quarrel about it. In their secret instructions

the old injunctions were repeated. They were to beg that as a year

had not yet elapsed a little further delay might be granted; laying

stress on the danger to the Protestant cause, in view of the relations

with Spain, if anything were done to lessen the sea-power of the

Netherlands, which depended so much on their fisheries. At this time

the East Indian question had become important and pressing in England,

and the early conferences were confined to it. But later the king

broached the subject of the herring-fishing; and after listening to

the ambassadors for a while, he peevishly asked them to make an end

of their long harangue, called them leeches and blood-suckers, who

sucked the blood from his subjects and tried to ruin him,[380] and then

treated them to the same sort of disquisition as on former occasions.

To the king’s railing and reproaches the ambassadors made such answer

as they could, and the upshot was that they were allowed to go on with

the conferences on the East Indian question. This embassy, at the head

of which was François Van Aerssen, Lord of Sommelsdijck, remained

in England until the spring of 1623, engaged in negotiations, often

interrupted, on political affairs, and on the East Indian and Greenland

fishery questions. James did not harass them further about the herring

fishery. At the farewell audience he spoke of it in a good-natured

way. He must, he said, resume his old song, _veterem cantilenam_, but

not at that time. But whenever the condition of the Netherlands was

favourable, he would, he said, be glad to resume the negotiations.[381]

During their long stay in England the ambassadors had an opportunity of

learning what was thought about the fishery question. On their return

to the Netherlands they earnestly counselled the States-General to

come to some agreement with England both on the herring fishery on the

British coasts and the whale-fishing at Spitzbergen. These matters,

they said, were close to the king’s heart, and many people whom they

had met had shown much irritation in speaking of them, and had even

advised forcible measures against the Dutch. By this time the Republic

was again at war with Spain, while Prince Charles and Buckingham had

gone to Madrid to woo the Infanta: it would be prudent to do all that

could reasonably be done to cultivate good relations with England.

The States therefore wrote to Sir Noel Caron telling him they had

resolved to take the fishery matter into serious consideration, and

their efforts were directed to the removal of all cause of complaint in

Scotland. Two edicts had already been issued--one, in 1618, prohibiting

any wrong from being committed on Scottish subjects; the other, in

1620, ordering their fishermen to refrain from taking herrings within

the rocks and reefs of Shetland, Ireland, and Norway, on the ground

that such herrings were inferior in quality and unfit for curing.[382]

The technical reason given in the latter for keeping away from the

coast had some foundation, but the real motive was probably to redeem

the pledge which the States had given in the year before (see p.

193). What the States now did was to renew the edict of 1618, and,

after a conference between the ambassadors who had returned from

England and the College or Board of Fisheries, to issue orders that

the herring-busses were not to go too near the coast of Scotland,

which had, indeed, been agreed upon some years earlier, so as to avoid

causing inconvenience to the native fishermen.[383]

There is evidence that the warning which the ambassadors gave to the

States-General as to the feeling in England was well founded, and

there occurred at this time, both in England and Scotland, a revival

of proposals aimed against the Hollanders. The Scottish burghs

complained of the “heavie hurt” they sustained owing to the English

and the “Fleymings,” who had lately taken up the “trade of fishing”

in the North and West Isles, by which was probably meant the curing

of herrings and other fish. The Council accordingly ordained that the

Islesmen should “suffer no strangers to come within their bounds to

the fishing,” and that none of the country people should sell fish

to them; and they issued a proclamation forbidding “all and sundry

strangers” to “slay or take any fish within the Isles, lochs and bays

of the kingdom, and that they buy no fish but salted and barrelled, and

at free burghs.”[384]

In England fresh attempts were made to establish a great national

herring fishery which might rival that of the Dutch. Within a month

of the departure of the ambassadors, Lord George Carew, Master of the

Ordnance, was busy with a project. Along with Lord Hervey and Sir

William Monson--who was perhaps the prime mover in the matter--he had

several conferences with “skilful fishermen,” and then he sent for the

city merchants to consider how the scheme might be floated. To them he

proposed that six busses and four doggers should be bought or built

at a cost not exceeding £10,000, explaining, after the usual manner,

how the return from the first year’s fishing would repay the whole of

that sum and encourage “all men” to adventure. The city merchants, one

of whom was Sir William Cockaine, were loud in their praises of the

scheme,--“it was the best work for the public and the most profitable

that the wit of man could imagine,”--but as for the money required,

they were afraid that it could not be raised. Then the promoters asked

the Lord Mayor to propound the plan to the Court of Aldermen. But the

Lord Mayor curtly replied that the Aldermen were engaged in other

adventures, and were “utterly unwilling” to enter into the project of

building busses, while the Merchant Companies were too much in debt to

undertake it. On a second appeal being made to him, he said the Court

of Aldermen “absolutely declined” to entertain either the general

project for fishing-busses or the lesser scheme of building six busses

and four doggers. They would have nothing to do with it;[385] and this

scheme was therefore nipped in the bud.

Fresh proposals were now brought forward by others, based on

Government support, and a plan was propounded similar to the old one

of Hitchcock and Dee in the reign of Elizabeth, but to be carried out

under an Act of Parliament. Each city, county, and seaport town was to

be encouraged to equip fishing-busses at their common charge and for

their common benefit, with power to employ their idle inhabitants in

manning them. For the security of the fishing fleet the king was to

provide twenty ships of war, five of which were to belong to the royal

navy, and they were to continue at sea from the beginning of April till

the end of September. To meet the cost of this guard the king was to

receive the tenth fish taken both by English and foreign fishermen, the

promoters thinking that the latter would be quite willing to be taxed

when the tax was demanded by an “Act of the King and Kingdom,” and when

they knew they would be protected by a squadron of men-of-war.[386] It

was a pretty scheme, well-intentioned, but innocent of information as

to the actual state of affairs.

Scarcely anything more was heard about the herring fishery or the

taxation of Dutch fishermen during the brief remainder of James’s

reign. Another embassy came from the Netherlands in 1624, but it was

to conclude a defensive alliance against Spain, and in the shadow of

this new alliance the Dutch fishermen quietly reaped the harvest of

the sea without fear of English interference. James’s policy of the

assize-herring had thus completely failed. All his efforts to induce

or to force the Netherlands’ fishermen to acknowledge his right were

baffled by the superior diplomacy of the States,--their “artificial

delays, pretences, shifts, dilatory addresses, and evasive answers.”

The only immediately practical result of the king’s policy was that the

herring-busses kept for a time farther from the coast of Scotland. But

a new weapon had been forged for the contest with the United Provinces

for supremacy at sea, and one which was to be used by his successors

with much more skill, if with little greater ultimate success.

Of one symbol of this sovereignty of the sea comparatively little

was heard during James’s reign--namely, the salute or homage to his

flag. This traditional custom of the narrow seas, while maintained on

important occasions, was not enforced with the vigour and arrogance

which characterised it later, perhaps less rigorously than under the

Great Queen. “I myself remember,” said Raleigh a few years before

his execution, “when one ship of her Majesty’s would have made forty

Hollanders strike sail and come to anchor. They did not then dispute

_de mari libero_, but readily acknowledged the English to be _domini

mavis Britannici_.”[387] Sir William Monson, too, who was Admiral of

the Narrow Seas in the earlier part of James’s reign, tells us that

the Hollanders were very “stubborn” about striking their top-sails and

performing the duty due to the king’s prerogative, and that he earned

their lasting ill-will by compelling them to do it.[388]

But the English commanders were punctilious in enforcing the salute

in the narrow seas on state occasions. A notable instance occurred

in 1603, when King Henry IV. of France sent over the famous Sieur

de Rosny, afterwards Duke of Sully, to congratulate James on his

accession to the throne of England. With a numerous retinue he went on

board an English man-of-war at Calais, which then made sail for Dover

accompanied by a French warship under the command of M. de Vic, the

Vice-Admiral of France. The English captain observed with displeasure

that the French vessel bore the arms of France at his top, “contrary

to the custom of the narrow seas”; but on account of the important

personage on board and the nature of his mission, he restrained himself

from challenging the “indignity” until they approached Dover Road.

Unable to brook the affront any longer, he fired at the French ship,

and so “constrained her to strike her flag.” The shot did no harm,

but M. de Vic at once turned round his vessel and went back to France

in high dudgeon. Cecil thought it necessary to send a despatch to the

English ambassador at Paris explaining the circumstances, and while

saying that the English captain “rashly discharged” his gun, he thought

that if the matter was “well looked into, and the former customs

observed, there would be reason found for us to stand upon.”[389]

A somewhat similar incident happened two years later, when Sir William

Monson was bringing over an ambassador of the Emperor from Calais to

Dover. In Dover Road he found a number of States’ men-of-war, and

their admiral, as Monson drew near, struck his flag thrice, but then

“advanced” it again and kept it flying in the presence of the king’s

ship. Monson believed the Dutch admiral had come in on purpose to put

this “affront” on him, so that the ambassador, as well as the Spaniards

then at Dover, might “spread it abroad throughout all Europe” that the

Dutch, “by their wearing their flags, might be imputed kings of the

sea as well as his Majesty,” and so lessen the esteem of the king’s

prerogative in the narrow seas. Instead of firing upon the Dutch ship,

he sent to invite the admiral to dinner, and to tell him that he must

take in his flag. To this request the admiral demurred, saying that

he had struck it thrice, and that no former admirals of the narrow

seas had required more at his hands. Monson rejoined that “times were

altered”; that when the mere striking of the flag as he had done was

sufficient, England and Holland were both at war with Spain and it

was tolerated; but now, since the war was ended so far as England

was concerned, his Majesty required “such rights and duties as have

formerly belonged to his progenitors.” On the Dutch admiral still

refusing, Monson threatened to weigh anchor and come near him, and that

the force of their ships should determine the question; “for,” said the

English admiral, “rather than I would suffer his flag to be worn in

view of so many nations as were to behold it, I resolved to bury myself

in the sea.” The flag was then struck, and the Dutch ships stood out to

sea. Monson tells us that he was congratulated by a Spanish general who

had been watching the proceedings, who said that if the Hollanders had

worn their flag times had been strangely altered in England, since his

old master King Philip II. was shot at by the Lord Admiral of England

for wearing his flag in the narrow seas when he came to marry Queen

Mary.[390]

Sometimes, however, the zeal of the naval officers led them too far

in their resolution to compel the salute. Thus in 1613, when the

Count of Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador, was returning to England

accompanied by two galleons, an English man-of-war forced the Spanish

ships to take in their flags off Stokes Bay. The ambassador complained

to the Lord Admiral (the Earl of Nottingham), who decided that the

captain had exceeded his authority, for the Spaniards were not bound

to strike their flag unless to the admiral of the narrow seas, and

the captain was neither admiral of the narrow seas nor employed under

his commission. The rules or etiquette regarding this ceremony were

indeed somewhat complicated, occasionally changed, and not always

well understood, and as a good deal will be heard of the striking of

the flag in the following chapters, it may be well to say something

here about the practice. It appears that it was customary from a

remote period for merchant vessels to lower their sails on meeting

a ship of war in seas under the dominion of the state to which the

latter belonged,[391] but the ceremony only attained to international

notoriety in connection with the claims of England to the sovereignty

of the narrow seas. The practice varied at different times. Generally

speaking, by the custom of the narrow seas as interpreted in this

country, any foreign man-of-war meeting with an English man-of-war in

those seas had to take in her flag and strike her top-sails as soon

as she came within sight or within range of the English guns, and she

had to keep in the flag until she had passed out of range. A merchant

vessel had to strike in the same way. Further, no vessel in the narrow

seas was to pass to windward of an English ship of war, but must “come

by the lee”; the inferior had to make way for the superior.[392] In

an English port or road no foreign ship or English merchant vessel

could wear her flag in the presence of a king’s ship. This custom was

also sometimes enforced in foreign ports and roads, but usually only

when out of range of forts on shore. If a foreign vessel, whether

man-of-war or merchant ship, did not thus “do her duty” or “perform

the homage of the sea,” the English ship of war might hail her or send

a boat to command her to strike. Or they might at once, without any

parley, fire a shot across her bows, and after an interval another,

also across her bows or over her poop, and if this was ineffective,

then a third between her masts or at her flag. If the foreigner still

refused to strike, a broadside was usually poured in, and the vessel

might be carried into port and the offender punished. In the reign of

Charles II., Spaniards, Dunkirkers, Frenchmen, and other foreigners,

were not infrequently brought before the courts and fined for refusing

to strike. If a merchant vessel refused to strike until she was shot

at, she was compelled to pay to the king’s ship twice the value of the

gunpowder and shot expended.

In England the custom, no doubt, originated in the Channel, probably

in the time of the early Angevin kings, when the opposite coasts were

under the same rule; and it is most probable, as formerly said, that it

arose in connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over pirates and

for securing peaceful commerce. In early times the utmost lawlessness

prevailed on the sea: it would be a common duty of the king’s ships to

satisfy themselves as to the character of the vessels they encountered,

and the lowering of the sails and the coming under the lee, for “visit

and search,” might well be a relic of a duty enforced for that purpose.

With regard to ships of war, the ceremony appears to have been first

confined to the Channel, and was held to be peculiarly a privilege

of the admiral of the narrow seas. Thus, when Captain Plumleigh was

appointed admiral of a squadron for service in Ireland in 1632, he was

ordered by the Admiralty if he met “in any part of the narrow seas with

the _Convertive_, in which Captain Pennington commands as admiral of

those seas,” to take in his flag, and to “continue it furled whilst in

sight of that ship, it being an ancient honour and privilege belonging

only to that admiral to carry the flag in the maintop in those

seas.”[393] Monson also tells us, in referring to the decision of the

Lord High Admiral in Gondomar’s case, above alluded to, that every ship

of the king’s serving under an admiral could not demand the striking of

the flag when out of sight of the admiral; but the foreign ship, “be

he admiral or no, is to strike his top-sail and hoist it again, to any

one ship of the king’s that shall meet him.” He further states that

any foreign ship or fleet arriving in an English port, or passing by a

fort or castle, had to take in their flag three times, and advance it

again, unless the English admiral’s ship was in the same harbour, in

which case they were to keep it in so long as the admiral was present;

“but if any other ship of his Majesty’s be there but the admiral’s,

they are not bound to keep in their flag, but only to strike it thrice

as aforesaid.” Monson added that he wished, in these later times

(the reign of Charles I.), “that his Majesty’s ships would take more

authority upon them than is due,” in order to curb the insolence of the

French and the Hollander--a wish which, as we shall see, must have been

fully gratified. It was against the Dutch that the striking of the flag

was most thoroughly enforced, and one cannot but admire the patience

and restraint they exhibited under great provocation. The French and

Swedes avoided giving the salute as much as they could. As the century

wore on, the English exaction on this point grew more outrageous.

Foreign ships of war were forced to strike on their own coast even to

our royal yachts, and the Hollanders were asked to strike not merely

in the British seas, but wherever they were encountered. To the old

sea-dogs all seas were “British” where their fleets were strongest.