The varying fortunes of the obstinate and fiercely contested
struggles with the Dutch for maritime and commercial supremacy in
the days of the Commonwealth and the Restoration are familiar to
all readers of English history, and especially of English naval
history. Never did English seamen fight better than in these Dutch
wars, and never did they meet more redoubtable foes. The details
of the many dogged contests marked by alternate victory and defeat
are now more or less unintelligible save to the expert in the naval
strategy and tactics of the times, but legends have grown round the
story of Martin Tromp sailing down the Channel with a broom at his
mast-head, and of the exploit of Michael de Ruyter in burning the
English ships at Chatham, which are never likely to be forgotten.
The names of these two famous seamen are probably better known to
Englishmen than those of any of the contemporary English admirals
save that of Robert Blake alone. This fact should bespeak for the
attempt that is here made to trace the causes and the growth of the
Anglo-Dutch rivalry at sea and in commerce, which culminated in
the collision between Blake and Tromp off Dover on May 29, 1652,
and the declaration of war that followed. It has been my object
in these Ford Lectures to treat of the relations between England
and the United Provinces during the half-century that preceded the
first outbreak of hostilities, and to make it clear that these
wars of 1652-4, 1665-7, 1672-4 were the inevitable outcome of a
long-continued clashing of interests, which were of fundamental
importance and indeed vital to the welfare of both nations.
The first half of the seventeenth century was one of the most
critical periods in English history. In any account of the reigns
of the first two sovereigns of the House of Stewart political and
religious questions of primary significance thrust themselves into
the foreground of a picture full of deepening dramatic interest,
with the result that other questions, apparently subordinate but
in reality closely bound up with the national destinies, have
been either relegated to the background or wholly overlooked and
neglected. It has been so in regard to the questions dealt with in
these pages.
The history of the revolt of the Netherlands and of the rise of the
Dutch Republic shows to us Englishmen and Dutchmen united by bonds
of sympathy and fighting side by side against a common foe. To both
alike the Spaniard and the Inquisition were hateful, and in shedding
their blood freely for the cause of Dutch freedom Englishmen were in
fact acting in their own self-defence against the ambitious projects
of Philip II. At first sight then it appears strange that the
conclusion of the truce for twelve years in 1609 should have been
followed by a coolness and growing estrangement in the relations
between the two countries, and by a series of endless bickerings,
grievances, and disputes which all the resources of diplomacy in
protracted negotiations proved unable to settle amicably to the
satisfaction of both parties. The truth is that the very points
of resemblance in the racial characteristics of the English and
the Dutch brought them into collision in almost every part of the
world. Born colonizers, traders, and explorers, each people was
instinctively conscious that its destiny was upon the water, and
that mastery of the seas was a necessity of national existence.
Hence a rivalry which was unavoidable, inexorable, a rivalry which
could eventually have only one of two issues, either the voluntary
submission of one of the rivals to the other, or a trial of strength
by ordeal of battle.
James I and Charles I, whatever the deficiencies and mistakes of
their foreign policies, were not blind to the significance of
the appearance of this new sea-power on the other side of the
'narrow seas', and were quick to recognize that the Dutch menace
to the essential interests of their island kingdom was at least
as formidable as the Spanish menace had ever been. The diplomacy
of both these kings was on the face of it vacillating, uncertain,
and opportunist, but it is unjust to attribute this wholly to
constitutional infirmity of purpose, or to an innate propensity
to carry through their schemes by tortuous by-ways and dubious
intrigues. There was no lack of steadfast determination on the part
either of James or Charles in their resolute attempts to conduct
the government and administration of their kingdoms autocratically
without that adequate financial aid which Parliament alone could
grant. But in consequence their treasury was generally empty, and
it is therefore not surprising that, confronted with the constant
fear of imminent bankruptcy, they were compelled to be shifty in
their dealings with foreign powers, and to work for the achievement
of their ends by the processes of a devious diplomacy rather than
risk the costly charges of an appeal to arms. Nevertheless it
will be seen that in their negotiations with the United Provinces
never for a single moment would either James or Charles make the
slightest concession in regard to the claims of the British Crown to
undisputed sovereignty 'in the narrow seas', and they insisted that
every foreign vessel should recognize that sovereignty by striking
its flag when meeting a British war-ship in those waters.
The period with which I am dealing was one of chartered companies,
of trade monopolies, and of commercial protection in its most
aggressive form. Probably at that stage in the world's history
no other economical system was conceivable or would have proved
workable. In any case most of the disputes and differences between
the English and the Dutch at this time arose from questions
connected with trading privileges, and these lectures contain much
concerning them. It is still, however, extremely interesting and
not without instruction to read the arguments that were used and
the principles that were upheld by these statesmen and diplomatists
of former days. Economical questions are always with us, and men's
opinions differ now as to their right solution as much as they did
three centuries ago.