Almighty alone and the King of England usurpes to Himself although perhaps per gratiam Dei by which the most Absolute Princes govern their Lands and Territories And the Ambassadour Downing also concerning the aforesaid sense of the Ninteenth Article in his Memorial delivered in the Name of the King demanded of the States a plain and clear acknowledgment of the aforesaid Pretended Soveraignty of the Seas Eveâ—y one that can tell of our Country-men the impartial World may sée that not the refusing to strike the Flag in pursuance of the said Article which was fully performed as shall hereafter be made evident but only a Refusal of the said acknowledgment hath béen the subject of the King of England's complaint And it is likewise easily to be apprehended that at present the said Acknowledgment is demanded from the States not by reason of the Justice of Right to the pretended affair but only out of a plotted Design to war against Us which design could not be put in Execution but by a demand of Impossible Satisfaction for which intent the Ambassadour Downing propounded nothing else to the States than the Acknowledgment aforesaid lest having made Propositions of other things he might receive satisfaction for his King who he knew would not be satisfied Of what importance the said Acknowledgment so demanded is is not unknown to any of the Subjects of this State whose only subsistence is Commerce and consequently the Liberty of the Seas I do believe that not one single Fisherman in our Country can be found be he never so simple that apprehends not his chiefest Interest to consist herein and that to force the said Acknowledgment out of his throat and thereupon to cause the Effects of the said Pretended Soveraignty to follow is one and the same thing as to tye up his throat or at least there is no other Distinction than betwixt a speedy and a tedious yet assured Death since after the said Acknowledgment there can at the best nothing else be expected from the King of England's Grace and Favour than an option and choice of a sudden period or a lingring disease which is worse than a precipitated death And although the King of England extends not His pretended Dominion further than the British Seas yet it is evidently known that the Limits of the said Seas are by the King stretched out so far that not the least part for a passage out of our Country is left which is not in respect of his pretended Soveraignty subjected to the King according to his sense considering that not only the Chanel but also the North Sea and a great part of the Ocean is by the King of England accounted the British Sea so that We should not be able out of our own Country to set out to Sea but only by the Grace and Favour of the King of England of which we should be assured â—ar less than now we are of his faith and promise We shall not enter at present to confute the aforesaid pretences to the Soveraignty of the Sea not only because the same would probe too prolix but also and that principally by reason it cannot be judged necessary to contradict what all the World holds to be impertinent except the King of England who as little can adhere to reason as with reasonable offers he will be satisfied We shall only say that it is false and never can be proved that we ever fished in the Sea with licence and permission of the King of England's Father and that for paying Tribute as the aforesaid Declaration expresseth We confess that in the year 1636. some of the King of England's Ships of War seized upon our defensless Herring-busses and that by méer violence they forced a sum of money from them which they called Tonnage-money but we deny that from thence any Right or Title can be derived not only because violence can create no Right no not by continuance but also because the aforesaid violent exaction was not continued Complaints being made in England of the aforesaid exorbitance the same afterwards was no more demanded We shall with favour of the courteous Reader passing to the business of the Flag so as the same in the Nineteenth Article of the Treaty at Breda is regulated which Article must decide this Controversie briefly demonstrate that nothing was committed by the Lord of Ghent in the late Encounter contrary to the said Article and moreover that what hath béen offered to the King of England by this State over and above the obligations of the said Articles is of so convincing a concession that we néed not fear to refer it to the judgment of the English themselves as promising to our selves from the said peoples discretion that in respect this State hath given abundant satisfaction to them in point of Honour they will scorn and detest to demand that We should acknowledge the Soveraignty of the Sea procéeding only from a desire of War to belong to Them It is evident and amongst all discreet persons without Controversie that Saluting at Sea either by firing of Guns or striking the Flag or Lowring of some Sail must not be interpreted as some sign of subjection but méerly for an outward testimony of Respect and Civility which then with a Resolute and the like Civility is required and forasmuch as concerns the first saluting whereof We only here shall make mention it is conceived since those commonly first salute that owne themselves inferiours in Rank and Worth to those they méet although they are not under subjection to them that Ships of Republicks méeting at Sea with Ships of War belonging to Crowned Heads to which Republicks yield Superiority in the World must give the first salute either with one or other sign of respect which respect notwithstanding as all other Acts of Civility must procéed from a free willingness and an unconstrained mind in those that shew the same yet it hath often been seen that the strongest at Sea hath forced the weakest to this submission and that likewise the necessity and manner thereof hath béen expressed in Articles Such is likewise concerning the same agréed on betwixt the King of England and this State in the said Ninteenth Article in conformity to former Articles as well concluded with the present King as the Protector Cromwell that the Ships and Vessels of the United Provinces set out to Sea as well for War and defence against Enemies as others which at any time should meet in the British Seas with any of the Ships of War of the King of Great Britain shall strike their Flag and lowr their Top-sail in the like manner as formerly hath been customary To apprehend the true sense of that Article as it ought to be let the Reader be pleased to take notice that the same procéeded originally from the Articles betwixt this State and the Protector Cromwell concluded in the year 1654. and that at that time the same was not expressed in such terms as after
a long debate of some words which the Protector Cromwell would have added thereunto thereby not only to oblige single Ships but entire Fleets of the States to the said Salute in case of méeting with any of the Ships of War belonging to England which words afterwards upon the earnest instance of the Ministers of this State were left out of the said Article so that the aforesaid Nineteenth Article drawn on t of the tenth Article of the Peace in the year 1662. which tenth Article on the Kings side was delivered in out of the thirteenth Article of the year 1654. must not be so understood that an entire Fleet of the States by vertue of the said Article shall be obliged to give the said Salute to one single Ship of the English but the said Article must be taken for a Regulation according to which single Ships and Vessels of this State in point of saluting the Ships of England are to govern themselves Now to apply the said Article according to the true sense to the late accident of the Lord of Ghent it is in the first place to be observed that the King of England's Pleasure-Boat suppose in respect of her Equippage it must pass for a Ship of War which we will not dispute not having met with any single Ships or Vessels of the States but coming in amongst a Fleet then riding at Anchor undoubtedly with a wicked design to séek matter of Complaint it with no fundamental reasons can be maintained that the Lord of Ghent by vertue of the said Article was obliged to strike Secondly It is likewise considerable that the aforesaid Article speaking of meeting cannot be applied to a formed design to cause a Quarrel by requiring in the uncivillest manner in the world an act of Civility and Respect And lastly It is notorious that the said accident happened in the North Sea not far from our own Coast as likewise it is well known that the North Sea is not the British Sea not only because in all Sea-plats yea in the English Map it self it is distinguished from all other but also and especially which in this case is an invincible Argument by reason the same in the seventh Article of the Treaty of Breda are distinctly mentioned one from the other where it is expresly said that All Ships and Merchandizes 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 appears that even according to the King of England's sense the North Sea differs in reallity from the British Sea but vice versâ that the North Sea is made the British Sea and consequently that distinct things are confounded together where there is a design to raise commotions and disturbances in the world And though their High and Mighties might have kept to the Nineteenth Article of the said Treaty according to the true original interpretation yet they declared to the King of Great Britain that upon the foundation and condition of a firm friendship assurance of a real and sincere performance thereof upon the fifth Article of the Triple Alliance in case France should fall upon this State they would willingly cause the entire Fleet when they should at any time méet with any Ship or Ships of War carrying his Majesties Standard to strike the Flag and lowr the Top-sail in testimony of their Respect and Honour which they upon all occasions will publickly shew to so faithful a Friend and so great a Monarch Provided that from thence no occasion either now or hereafter should be taken or the least inducements given to hinder or molest the Inhabitants and Subjects of the United Provinces of the Netherlands in their Free use of the Seas which Declaration the King of England wrongly interprets because that the same is joyned with the true performance of the Triple League that is with his Honour and Word as also with the assurance that no prejudice should be offered in regard of the Free use of the Seas being an infallible argument that The King of England is as little inclined to leave us an undisturbed use of the Seas as He is to kéep and perform his word I have already demonstrated the Iustice and Honour of his Majesties Arms. This Discourse gives me occasion to manifest the Necessity thereof All that is recited here was alledged by the Dutch Ambassadours to our King and if it appear hence that His Majesty could not continue his Alliance any longer with the Dutch unless He would abandon the Soveraignty of the Sea exchange his proper Rights into meer Civilities and those not to be enforced and put Himself and his Dominions into the Power of the Dutch there is none then can doubt but That the King was unavoidably engaged into this War by the insolence and arrogance of the treacherous and usurping Hollanders and that He did not seek or feign pretensions to quarrel with them The Nineteenth Article of the Treaty at Breda doth run thus That the Ships and Vessels of the said United Provinces as well Men of War as others meeting any Men of War of the said King of Great Britain's in the British Seas shall strike the Flag and lowre the Top-sail in such manner as the same hath béen formerly observed in any times whatsoever This Article was transcribed out of a former Treaty made betwixt O. P. and the States General and he was the first that ever inserted any such Article into any Treaty our Right and Dominion over the British Seas having never been disputed before but by an immemorial prescription and possession transmitted unto us and supposed as unquestionable by all Princes these ungrateful Dutch are the first that controverted it disowning it in the time of the late Wars when our Civil distractions rendred our Prince unable to attend unto the Maritime Dominion and to curb their growing pride yet was the long Parliament so concerned to preserve the Rights of this Nation that they made an Ordinance April 5. 1643. commanding their Admiral and Commanders at Sea to inforce all persons to pay the usual and due submissions unto the Men of War appertaining to this Kingdom And the pretended Republick here did vigorously and by a dreadful War assert the said Soveraignty of the Seas So that it ought to be deemed the concurring sentiment of All parties in England that These submissions by striking the Flag and lowring the Top-sail are not meer Civilities and unnecessary Punctilioes of Honour and vain-glory but a fundamental point whereon the Being of the King and Kingdom is in great part suspended and it hath been so studiously insisted on by our Princes that for above Four hundred years it hath been a Clause in the Instructions of the Admiral and the Commanders under him tha◠in case they met any Ships whatsoever upon the British Seas that refused to strike Sail at the Command of the Kings Admiral or his Lieutenants that
then they should repute them as Enemies without expecting a declared War and destroy them and their Ships or otherwise seize and confiscate their Ships and Goods And these Instructions have been retained in use as well since the Treaty of Breda as before it The like Instructions are given by the Venetians to their Captains in reference to the Adriatick Sea and by several other Princes It is manifest and agreed upon by the Considerer that this Article must decide the present Controversie and 't is no less evident that this Article doth decide it to their prejudice and that they are inexcusable as to the breach thereof I will not stretch the words of the Article so far as to infer that they ought to strike Flag in acknowledgment of the Soveraignty of the Sea since otherwise they do not strike it in such manner as the same hath been formerly observed in any times whatsoever though the words oblige them not only to the thing but circumstantiate the manner of it Let their sentiments be free but yet let us see how they comply with the Article as to matter of Fact They say that O. Cromwell would needs after a long debate have those words put in whereas the Article was otherwise penned at first But this allegation is impertinent since we now enquire not into What was at first debated nor insist upon the first draught of the Treaty but what was at last ratified and confirmed on both sides For 't is thence ariseth the Obligation Secondly They say that by the earnest instance of their Ministers O. Cromwell was so far prevailed upon as to relax that Article and leave out the said words and therefore the Article must not be so understood as if an entire Fleet of the States by virtue thereof should be obliged to give the said salute to one single Ship of the English but the said Article must be taken for a Regulation according to which the single Ships and Vessels of their State in point of saluting this Ship of England are to govern themselves To this I reply that it is not credible nor believed here by any that were privy to the transactions of O. Cromwell that ever he consented to any such alteration in the said Article There is no proof of any such thing alledged and 't is notoriously known to all our Admiralty that he never did vary his Instructions and Commissions in the Navy but enjoined them as before to enforce all Ships to strike without regarding whether they were entire Fleets or single Ships And I think this to be a demonstration of the falshood of the Dutch in this suggestion Lastly I find the Articles of peace published at Amsterdam in 1655. in Latine where is not any such thing to be seen as is here insinuated Artic. 13. 13. Item quod Naves Navigia dictarum foederatarum provinciarum tam bellica ad hostium vim propulsandam instructa quà m alia quae alicui è navibus bellicis hujus Reipublicae in maribus Britannicis obviam dederint vexillum suum è mali vertice detrahent supremum velum demittent eo modo quo ullis retrò temporibus sub quocunque anteriori regimine unquam observatum fuit This is sufficient to disprove this impudent forgery of the Considerer but had any such thing intervened betwixt the State and O. P. if it do not appear that His Majesty did make the like accord how comes it to pass that the expressions of his Majesty must be construed by the sense of Cromwell If this Notion of exempting Fleets from saluting any single Man of War were never thought upon nor mentioned much less debated and decided at the Treaty of Breda doth not common Equity and Reason oblige the Dutch to acquiesce in the plain sense of the words and not to distort or pervert them by far-fetch'd interpretations and evasions It is usual in the last Articles of Treaties or in the Ratification for Princes to express that they do sign consent and ratifie the Agreement in its true proper and most genuine sense or sincerely and bonâ fide and where it is not so declared yet it is understood in all Contracts but more especially in the Contracts of Soveraign Princes and Charles V. and Lewis of France are blamed for making use of those little shifts and elusions of Treaties which better become a Pettifogger than a King This is the common Tenet of the Civil Lawyers and consonant to the Law of Nations It is true there lies a ready Evasion for All this is averred concerning Princes and their Contracts but the Dutchmen have nothing that is Royal amongst them their High and Mighties are not Princes and they have different jura Majestatis as they have different ends from the generous and sincere part of mankind After an impertinent Harangue concerning God Piety Protestancy they are absolved from giving honour to them unto whom honour is due Reverence to whom reverence or Right to whom right They can plausibly recede from and evert an Article that is prejudicial to their Interest and insatiable Ambition and impudently exempt Fléets from amongst the number of Ships Such men presume strangely upon their power or the stupidity of the world that impose thereon such Glosses as these There was no such word mentioned no such interpretation proposed at Breda much less assented unto The common usage of that Naval term admits not thereof and the immemorial practice at Sea to the contrary doth sufficiently refute this sentiment The Ambassadours had no power delegated them to part with such a Regality and perhaps it may be said that the King himself hath no such Authority as can devest the Crown thereof However if any such thing had been done had such a sense been admitted of or intended by the Dutch Why did not They urge it sooner and demand that the Instructions to our Admiral and the Commanders at Sea should be changed from what they have been during the space of above four hundred years Their High and Mighties have very much prejudiced themselves in the opinion of all prudent men by so long a silence and in the judgment of all honest persons by remonstrating thus now since thereby they declare that to be the right sense of the Article which is indeed Non-sense and that to be Iustice which is as notorious an Usurpation as any Chronicles inform us of But lest this sense of the Article should not be admitted of They say further in defence of themselves that since in the judgment of the King of Great Britain the striking of the Flag and the acknowledging the Soveraignty of the Sea are equipollent things and that by the one His Majesty understands the other they cannot consent to the striking of the Flag lest it should be construed to a yielding him a Soveraignty and Dominion over the Sea which is too much for these High and Mighty Zealots and such Protestants that abominating all
reâ—rove and if at any time it should happen that this their amicable intention should meet with a wrong interpretation and by chance an untimely revenge of War by any of the said Parties or any others on their behalf should be offered to any of them Confederated that in such case they should faithfully assist one another This is the substance of the Triple Alliance After which he adds That the King the King of England is sensible in his own Conscience though with words he dissembles and disowns the knowledge thereof that by reason of the Triple Alliance the Dutch are menaced with a War from France and that whatsoever the most Christian King pretends this is the true reason of his designs and which he hath plainly discovered in all Courts and is no more than He threatned them with at first in case they ratified the Triple League And therefore by vertue of this Triple League the King of England owes the Dutch an unconfined aid As also limited succours of forty Ships of War six thousand Foot and four hundred Horse by verâ—ue of the Defensive Articles concluded in 16â—8 To which his Majesty is ebâ—iged If their High and Mighties be attaqued by any Prince or State on what pretext soever The King of England being under these obligations and being or imulated by Ambition Avarice and an insatiable thirst after blood determined to take the opportunity of this juncture wherein the most potent King of France did threaten the Dutch with a terrible War to pursue his unchristian designs and to dis-engage himself the better from all obligations of Aid to the Dutch doth of himself previously begin a War and with a specious Declaration palliates and dissembles his foul and malicious designs This is the entire substance of what the Considerer tediously doth insist upon and is the sole foundation whereupon he proceeds to justifie the Dutch and with all possible aggravations of Language bespatters the King of England as if no Chronicles ever produced such a precedent of violated Faith as his Majesty doth now give an Example of I do confess that nothing ought to be more sacred than the word and faith of Princes That War is the last of remedies whereunto they ought to have recourse and which ought not to be commenced but upon just honourable and necessary grounds I do acknowledge the tenor of the Triple League and the Defensive Alliance But I do avow that his Majesty is no way concerned in the violation of them Nor is the Allegation of them pertinent to the present quarrel and of all the futile pretexts which I have read of in History this is the worst whereon the Dutch do bottom themselves The Triple League doth no way interest his Majesty in their defence For it doth not appear that the most Christian King doth invade them â—or entring into it There is no Authentick Declaration or Testiâ—ony that this is the motive which prevails with Him to undertake this Enterprise The Secrets of his mind are known only to himself and to the searcher of all hearts It is not for Men to proceed upon conjectures and surmises which oft-times prove vain and false as if they were certain Truths nor can any Prince be obliged indeterminately and such is the present unreasonable plea of these Hollanders where the condition of the aid to be given is particularly specified viz. If it should happen that this their Amicable intention should meet with a wrong interpretation and by chance an untimely revenge of War by any of the said Parties or any others on their behalf should be offered to any of them confederated that in such case they should faithfully assist one another Can there be any thing more clear than that the aid to be given is suspended upon this one circumstance that the Triple Alliance should fall under a wrong interpretation and that thereupon the party demanding the Aid should be attacqued by a revengeful War How doth it appear that the entring into the Triple Alliance is mis-interpreted since it doth not appear that his Christian Majesty did ever debate it much less declare himself therein How doth it appear that He plainly discovered this sentiment by his Ministers in all Courts since it doth not appear that He gave them private or publick instructions to say so Must a Prince answer for every expression or every particular action of his Ambassadour Can there be no other cause but this found out why the King of France should attacque the Dutch Cannot we imagine that the French retain a secret and inveterate desire of revenge for the notorious perfidy of the States General when they concluded a Peace with Spain without mentioning the Crown of France or having any regard to the French Interest Or is it not possible for the Christian King to make War upon them without a cause or meerly for enlargement of Empire Or for other concealed reasons or unknown indignities What pregnant proof or legal presumptions do the Dutch alledge then that This is the cause of the present War And with what impudence do they upbraid our King as if the thing were so and He knew it in his conscience to be so when as the Considerer himself in the Conclusion of his Treatise says it is not so viz. I shall hint at nothing else in the King of France's Declaration but that it appears visible therein that the War of that high renowned King procéeds from nothing else but a formed design to enlarge the limits of his Territories as far as his ambition is extended yet that we hope that God Almighty shall by the same hand by which he hath hitherto preserved us confound the designs of the King I doubt not but hereby it is manifest that His Majesty is no way concerned by the Triple League to assist the United Netherlands in this Iuncture and even so the Swedes by their indifference shew how much they approve of the Iudgment of his Majesty and no man can say otherwise but such as either regard not what they speak or else take the freedom to surmise and aver whatsoever is for their Interest I come now to the Defensive Alliance whereby his Majesty A. D. 1668. did oblige himself unto that State to give them an assistance if attacqued by any Prince or State on what pretense soever of forty ships of War six thousand foot and four hundred Horse upon promise three years after the expiration of the War to be re-imbursed of the charges of the said succour But neither is this Alliance of any more validity at present than the other It is the common opinion of the Civil Lawyers and Reason it self dictates it that In all Articles and Treaties for peace there is this exception to be supposed in the Contractors Vnless some new cause intervene Vnless it be by the default of him with whom the League and compact is made or Affairs continuing in the same posture and state in which they were
at the time of the contract And that saying of Vlpianus and Pomponius concerning private compacts viz. That an agreement is not violated from which a man recedes upon a just reason and motive this by Interpreters is extended to National Leagues betwixt Princes and States This being supposed It remains that we enquire whether the King of England had any new cause or provocation given him For if such a matter do appear to have happened though it be slight nay disputable yet is his Majesty absolved from breach of Faith though not altogether from the imputation of injustice But if the provocation be weighty and of high importance nothing can be more legitimate than the present rupture which his Majesty hath made with the Dutch I would willingly know if any Englishman can think that his Majesty could be obliged to this Defensive Alliance without any regard to the Peace concluded upon at Breda that is without any supposition that he was in 1668. in any terms of Amity with these Netherlanders If this be unimaginable then it is apparent that the observation of these Articles on his Majesty's part depends upon the observation of the precedent peace on the part of the Dutch His Majesty never contracted this League with them so as to derogate from that and to tye himself up to the Assistance of the Dutch against the King of France or any other invader notwithstanding that they should violate their Articles and multiply injuries indignities and acts of hostility against Him and his Subjects No Prince ever fettered himself thus no Laws of Nations no common reason admits of such a Phancy and therefore the notorious violation of that peace doth plenarily absolve his Majesty from the bonds of this subsequent Alliance The Considerer no doubt foresaw this defense but would not take notice of it lest he should have been obliged to refrain from the aspersions of unparallel'd perfiâ—iousness and violated Faith the Name and Noise whereof might advantage him amongst the Dutch populace and the more ignorant sort of men And to give a further colour to his calumnies he says that the Reasons which his Majesty alledgeth are not the Reasons which he proceeds upon They are but forged pretensions whilst the true inducements to this rupture are Ambition Avarice and insatiable revenge Since the Man so little understands his Majesties inclinations and deportment which have been hitherto such as yield no ground for a charge of this nature I will not stand to refute his insolent and barbarous conjectures nor believe so ill of the most generous mild and peaceable Prince in the world as that He diligently sought occasions for a War when the injurious Dutch rendred all peace unsafe and dishonourable unto him I shall therefore examine what my Author doth urge against the Declaration of his Majesty wherein when my Country-men shall be satisfied I doubt not but they will approve of the Iustice of his Majesty's Cause and be inflamed with a zeal to vindicate the honour of their King and the necessary rights of the Kingdom Concerning the business of Surinam my Author doth not consider every thing all that is said amounts to this That the place being taken in March 1667. by Adrian Crynsen of Zeland with the Forces of their State and so under certain Covenants reduced to their obedience and subjection was indeed in the month of May next following retaken by the English but that the same in pursuance of the sixth Article providing that all Lands Cities Fortifications and Colonies taken during the War by any of the parties then in Arms from the other and after the 10 20 of May retaken should be restored to the first taker was delivered up again into the possession of the States He wonders that the King of England should offer to stile any of the Inhabitants of Surinam to be His Subjects since by the rights of War and the Articles of Peace the plenary Dominion and right of Soveraignty is transferred to the Dutch and they being now Subjects to that State ought to complain to their States General if the said Capitulations be not observed duly but that the King of England is no more interessed in them than is the King of Spain To this I answer That by the third Article instanced in though the plenary right of Soveraignty over Surinam were transferred yet it is expresly said They are to have it altogether after the same manner as they had gotten and did possess them the 10 10 day of May last past It remains then that we enquire What manner of Soveraignty the Dutch had in Surinam by their conquest thereof by the Capitulations of Abraham Crynsen and this appears to be no other than what the Dutch had over Bois le Duc when Grobbendonck capitulated to surrender it to the Prince of Orange upon terms to march away with flying Colours and such Inhabitants as pleased might remove their Estates and Goods into the King of Spain's Dominions within a certain time c. A. D. 1629. so were the Inhabitants of Surinam to have convenient liberty to transport themselves and their estates into the King of England's Dominions And as Grobbendonck by his Capitulation together with those comprehended therein did not become the Subjects of the Vnited Netherlands no though He or his Followers had stayed several months in the surrendred Town but retained to the King of Spain so neither did these of Surinam become by their Capitulation Subjects to the Dutch 't is true they gained thereby the Soveraignty of the territory but not of their persons and to deny this is to act by the Punic or Belgic Faith to deny that Abraham Crynsen at that distance had power to grant Articles and to act as Hannibal did when he refused to ratifie the conditions granted by Maharbal because He though absent was the Superior and had not signed them which deed is censured by Livy thus quae punicâ religione servata fides ab Annibale est atque in vincula omnes conjecti This being premised I cannot understand why the King of England might not call them His Subjects and send for them and as an high injury resent their detaining since thereby He is deprived of so many serviceable Planters in his other Colonies thereabouts This controversie about Indignities and Contumelies done to Princes doth recall into my mind the violence wherewith former Kings have resented them David without any formalities of denouncing War that I read of attacqued the Ammonites and with horrible torments revenged the indignities done to his Majesty upon the Inhabitants of Rabbah And Gustavus Adolphus invaded the German Empire without ever declaring War to revenge the contumelious usage of his Embassadours at Lubec Had either of those potent Kings received any such injuries and affronts as his Majesty of Great Britain hath had multiplied upon him how fierce a vengeance would they have taken upon their barbarous and insolent Enemies whose outrageous
doings do give unto any rigours the face of Iustice and absolves from the usual solemnities of War I suppose it now manifest that our King might with a great deal of Iustice make War upon the Dutch mearly in vindication of his own honour and that without the usual form of declaring War But because this last circumstance is represented so tragically as if thereby the English Ships though acting by a Royal Commission were Pyrates and as bad as those of Algiers and Tunis I shall demonstrate that the solemn Declaration of War before it begin is not always necessary It is not any part of the Law of Nature that a Prince denounce War before he begin hostilities All that Nature directs Vs unto in this case is that we repel force with force and avenge our selves or take reparations for injuries committed against Vs. All that can be alledged for it out of Grotius is that 't is a fair and laudable course and not always practised by the Romans themselves For when the Carthaginians in two Wars had shewed themselves an ungenerous perfidious Enemy such as the Dutch are to all the world they did not denounce the third War against them but proceeded by surprise against that vexatious treacherous irreconcileable people and used them not as other Nations because that others were not like unto them And Xenophon in his Romance of Cyrus thought it no ill character of his Heroe that he should without denunciation make War upon the King of Armenia So did Pyrrhus so did Gustavus Adolphus As in the Civil Courts of Iudicature a formal Citation is not always necessary in like manner a Prince may sometimes omit the proclaiming of War before he practise hostilities But to evince the entire justice of that Encounter of ours with the Smyrna Fleet it may be convenient for us to consider that those Ships meeting with our Fleet did refuse to strike their Flags and lore their Topsails unto the Ships of War of his Majesty contrary to the 19. Article of Breda And that being refused it was not only lawful for our Ships to destroy or seise them and for his Majesty to confiscate them But it was the express Commission of the Ship-Captains and hath been so to all Men of War for above 400 years and an inseparable Regality of the King of England which authorise and authenticate that action in full It is no new Doctrine in England to say no Ship can be protected in point of Amity which should in any wise presume not to strike sail Q. Elizabeth gave the same form of Commissions and Instructions to her Admirals and if there never happened any rancounters in her times like unto this it was because no Prince disputed the thing with her and the Dutch were then the Distressed States This Regality of having the Flag struck to the Navy Royal or any part of it is paramount to all Treaties so far is it from being limited and restrained by the Treaty at Breda and whatsoever contravenes it is not to be construed so as the breach of inferiour Articles The Right of the Flag is not demanded by virtue of the Treaty from the Dutch though they cannot refuse it without annulling that treaty but recognized there as a fundamental of the Crown and dignity of the K. of England Such points are not the subject of Treaties and no concessions were valid against them In such cases we say plus in talibus valere quod in recessu mentis occultatur quà m quod verborum fermulà concipitur It is therefore evident that nothing was acted on our side contrary to the said League in reference to the Smyrna Ships And the ensuing War notwithstanding the 23. Article is to be imputed to the perfidiousness of the States General not that the private act and obstinacy of the Smyrna Ships did make it to be so but the States General had justified Van Ghent in the like case and by that solemn and notorious violation of the Nineteenth Article of Breda in effect declared War against Vs and we needed not to declare any thing on our side it not being judged necessary but a superfluous Ceremony for both parties to denounce War And if the one party as here the Dutch do rescind a Treaty Leagues are individual acts and the violation of one Article doth annul the obligation of the whole then are we ipso facto in a condition of War nor is it requisite the King declare himself They that violate their Faith render themselves incapable of wrong and 't is a vanity to multiply demonstrations of what the Dutch had already made publick In fine the Laws of War inform us that the War is sufficiently declared when all applications and Embassies become fruitless And Divines tell us that there are some cases when a man is absolved from the obligation of fraternal correption and admonition viz. when the person offending is notoriously known to be so perverse and obstinate that all reproofs and warnings would be fruitless for say they He that ploweth ought to plow in hope 1 Cor. 9.10 and where there is no hope of any good success by friendly applications there no man is bound in conscience or prudence to pursue them Though this relate to private persons yet the condition is the same in reference to Princes seeing that the chief ground of Embassies and such like Remonstrances amongst Christian Potentates is Fraternal Dilection and therefore if the inutility and fruitlesness of a Negotiation absolve us justly from it there it will also do the same here Wherefore since his Majesty was convinced by the ill event of all his amicable applications to the Dutch and understood so well the resolutions of the Hague that they would not strike sail he might justly omit all such formalities and immediately proceed to carve out his own satisfaction by an advanced War Concerning the right of the Flag it is in the first place to be remarked that it is clâ—arly intimated in the said Declaration that â—hat King by tâ—e said Right understands the Soveraignty of the Seas since speaking of the Antiquity of the said Right he adâ—s thereunto that it is an ungrateful insolence that We should offer to contend with Him about the said Soveraignty Whereby it plainly appâ—ars that the Flag and Soveraignty of the Seas â—re words of different sounds but according to the Kings meaning of the same signification so that We may easily conjecture that the difference betwixt the King of England and this State about the said Pretended Right of the Flag which is insinuated to that Nation as the most important Grievance wherein the Peoples Honour is concerned is not at present a Controversie about Saluting and Striking of the Flag and consequently no dispute in relation to the sense of the Nineteenth Article of the Treaty at Breda but only a Contest about the Soveraignty of the Sea which This State attributes to God
this nature have been made betwixt Spain and Portugal Sweden and Denmark In fine are not the Seas distinct as the Hadriatick Ligurian Tyrrhene and in the Articles of Breda the Brittish and North-Sea yet are there no precise and Geometrical bounds to them 3. If the Sea can be reduced under any dominion then may the Commerce be hindered by the Proprietor of the same as to such as He pleaseth But Commerce ought to be free according to the Law of Nature and Nations and the denial thereof as also the denying of an innocent passage or the laying an extraordinary Tax for License to pass which is in effect a denial of Passage and Commerce is a just cause of War Therefore the Sea ought to be free I answer that perhaps the pretence of wants not to be supplied but by Commerce is not serious and real but if it be it doth not follow that our domestick indigency and necessities are to be remedied by the detriment or injury of others but we must purchase the opportunities of a supply by complying with the conveniencies of our Neighbours No man must trespass upon anothers ground because He cannot otherwise attend unto his own utility The freedom of Commerce and passage are no solid Arguments when insisted upon by Hollanders both may be refused if there be a suspicion of danger I concur with Albericus Gentilis herein I am of St. Austins mind who held the opinion of Grotius in these cases provided I may have befitting security that the persons trading or passing will not hurt me and that I be ascertained that they cannot hurt me This is conformable to sundry Scriptural examples and the Resolutions of all Ages before and since Christianity Nor doth the imposition of a Tribute for the Fishing or erecting and preserving of Sea-mâ—rks and Light-houses or Convoy-mony infringe the Liberty of Commerce but continue it with Security I do not find that the Dutch have contested thus about the Customs upon the Rhine or plead that 't is unlawful to pay Toll upon the passage of several Highâ—ways and Bridges in order to the repairing of them yet a Logician of Holland would by the same reasons condemn those exactions and deny tribute to whom tribute is due To conclude this point After so many Treatises and fierce disputes concerning the dominion of the Sea upon mature consideration the Controversie is now reduced to this State that as to property the Sea can fall to no mans dominion by reason of its fluxile nature but as to a Sovereignty of Protection and Iurisdiction whereby Tributes are imposed for the defraying of Convoys providing 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 unfaisible this is denied Thus Io. Isac Pontanus and others do decide the Controversie And this decision establisheth the King of England's Right whose Seas are not boundless nor incapable of the aforesaid Dominion of Iurisdiction Such a Dominion the Dutch Professour 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 infatuated with the specious and pious harangues of the peace-loving Christians in Holland Another Argument enforced by Them here against his Majesties 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 then an apparent and inevitable ruine after some time And that since the King of England challengeth not only the Channel but also the North Sea 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 entrenching thereupon do his Majesty apparent injury and violate all Divine and Humane 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 the 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 repugne thereunto for whatsoever is common by nature may be imrpopriated by Occupancy neither can there be a bâ—tter Title to such things then Occupancy Prescription and Custom And that his Majesty hath this Title entirely 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 then it would justifie upon land that one Prince or private person should usurp upon anothers 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 Emperour 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 Renneberg and other strong Towns belonging to the
from being invincible that they are null and altogether invalid For the Argument from popular Mapps and vulgar Sea-plats imports nothing at all Those being made for common instruction 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 Mapps which yet the Laws do exempt from those in which the Mapps do include them The distinction in the Article at Breda betwixt the Brittish 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 't 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 Schoneâ— 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 rejoyns thus and any man may accommodate the passage to our Case Though the Danes do grant there hath ever been a Joynt Alienation 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 named rather for prevention of further disputes than out of necessity Nam câ—ausula abundans non nocet ut nec ejus absentia obest I shall conclude with two brief observations upon the remaining part of this Paragraph not yet replied unto 1. The Considerer saith that the striking of the Flag is but a Civility to his Majesties 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 't is a difficult task to teach the Boores of Holland But where did He learn that the striking of the Flag in the Brittish Seas was meerly 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 Rebell not as an uncivill person And I find that the Crown of France where it pretends to any Soveraignty 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 attaqued 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 Fleâ—t riding at Anchor It cannot be maintained with any fundamental reasons that the Lord Van Ghenâ— by vertue of the said Article was obliged to strike I answer that the Article doth make it Fundamental to the Peace and the Admirals 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 Fleet found riding at Anchour or met under sail Nor do they distinguish betwixt a casual meeting and a voluntary seeking of Foreign Ships oâ— 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 whither 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 The conclusion of this Paragraph doth manifest the Integrity of his Majesty in the penning of His Declaration seeing that the Considerer acknowledgeth That the States General did offer to strike the Flag and Sail unto his Ships of the Navy Royal upon condition He would assist thâ—m in this juncture for that they mean by his observing the Triple Alliance and provided no construction thence should be made to prejudice them in the free use of the Seas viz. in reference to Fishing as well as Sailing It is hence evident that His Majesty did not represent the arrogance of the Dutch in so hainous a manner as He might have done without injuring them The Considerer hath done it and I refer it to the consideration of all English-men Thus I have exactly replied unto all that the Considerer hath alledged against the Declaration of his Majesty and what else He hath written in reference to the present Quarrel and I think I have made it evident to the meanest capacity that the present War is authorized by all those circumstances which make it Iust and Honourable and Necessary I intend in a Second part to address my self to my fellow-subjects as the Considerer doth to his and excite them to do no less to avert injuries and defend their Honour and the Rights of His Majesty than He exhorteth the Dutch to do contrary to all right to our detriment and dishonour I will therein shew those that were concerned for the War against the Dutch under the pretended Common-wealth that the Quarrel is fundamentally the same now that it was then and that they cannot have any tenderness for the Hollanders at this timeâ— who did so hainously complain of their Oppressions and Usurpations then The Hollanders are the self-same People still As much Hollanders in Europe as they are at Iapan or ever were at Amboyna I know not why we should not demonstrate our selves all to be as trueâ— English men And to convince such persons I will Print the Speech of Mr. St. Iohns their Embassadour to the States at the Hague during the pretended Commonwealth FINIS Domin Baudius de induciis belli Belgici l. 3. Grotius Apologet. c. 19. Terris fretis portubus per Indiam Orient Hispaniarum atque Lusitaniae regem atque ut auguramur etiam Anglos exuere M. Schoockins de imper maâ—it c. 21.