to that of the Sovereign of the Wrong-doer and there Impleads him and prays for Justice If a Frenchman kill a Frenchman one Alien another upon the Land of England the Fact is committed within the local Ligeance of the King of England and against the Peace and Protection of his Crown and therefore triable before his Courts But if two Englishmen be under the Pay and Service of the French King and one of them Kill the other aboard a French Man of War within the 4 Seas The French King's Judicature will have the Conusance of the Crime as done within his Ligeance and against the Peace and Protection of his Crown Thus stands the matter of Fact as to the Marine Jurisdiction and thus it has been for many Ages but yet there is an ancient President which seems to impugn something that has been said and not to take notice of it were to report things unfaithfully and therefore I crave leave to examine it 'T is a Bundle or Roli in the Tower of London Superscribed De Superioritate Maris Angliae Jure Officii Admiralitatis in codem Record I can scarce call it 〈…〉 cap. 27 for 't is not any Judicial Act or Monument of a Court of Record and it may be read as 't is transcribed at large by Lord Chief Justice Cake and by Mr. Selden who highly insists upon it I shall abbreviate it truly and in short the Case was this A League had been concluded betwixt Edward the First of England and Philip the Fair of France Of the 〈…〉 in which it was Covenanted that each should defend the others Rights and Neither relieve the other's Enemy After this a War ensued betwixt Philip and the Earl of Flanders whom Edward secretly savoured Whereupon Reyner Grimbald who was General at Sea for the King of France took several Ships both of England and of other Nations Trading to Flanders and confiscated Ships and Goods and imprison'd Persons as carrying Relief to an Enemy Upon which and other Complaints Commissioners were appointed by both Kings call'd in the Roll writ in Norman French Auditours Deputez per les Roys d'Engleterre de France a redresser les dammages faits The Plaintiffs who were of several Nations appear by their Procurators or Attorneys before the said Commissioners and joyn all together in one Bill or Libel as being all involv'd in one Common Cause In the Rehearsal of the said Libel 't is alledg'd that Whereas the Kings of England by reason of the said Kingdom from time to time whereof there is no Memory to the contrary have been in peaceable Possession of the Sovereign Dominion of the Sea of England and of the Isles of the same by Ordaining of Laws c. And whereas 't is Covenanted in the League lately made betwixt the two Kings that each should Defend the others Rights Franchises and Liberties c. Monsieur Reyner Grimbald Commander of the Fleet of the King of France who Names himself Admiral of the said Sea being Commissioned by that King to serve him in his Wâ—â— against Flanders hath contrary to the said League wrongfully assumed the Office of the Admiralty in the said Gea of England upon Pretence of the said Commission taking the People and Merchants c They pray that the Persons Ships and Goods so taken may be delivered to the Admiral of the King of England to whom the Counsance of the whole Matter of Right appertain'd He who shall read more at large in the places before quoted the magnificent Attributes given to the Kings of England of their being peaceably possess'd time immemorial of the Sovereign Dominion of the Sea of England by ordaining Laws and Statutes Prohibiting Arms and Armed Vessels taking Sureties and giving Safeguards and ordaining all other things necessary to the Preservation of Peace and Right amongst all People passing upon that Sea c. will at first view be ready to cry out suimus Troes fuit Ilium We were English men England was and yet perhaps no need of such Exclamation At first reading it seem'd to me at some distance like a Stone Wall athwart my way and no possibility of passing farther but when I examined it more nearly I found it but a Silken Curtain of specious words drawn artificially before the Eye and easie to be put back by the hand 1. First it is to be noted that all this is but a Plaidoyé a Plea or Action a Supplicatory Libel or Bill of Complaint No definitive Sentence or Arrest nothing that did pass in rem Judicatam This alone were there nothing more is sufficient to abate the intrinsick Value of it The Roll makes no mention of any decision given by the Delegates upon any the Matters contain'd in the Libel and either none was given which seems most probable and those Controversies decided some other way or the Roll is left imperfect 2. Though the Interessents of several Nations as Danes Germans Hollanders c. suffered Dammages by the Seisures of Grimbald in like manner as the English did and therefore joyn'd with them in the same Libel yet the Libel was penn'd by English Council as is manifest by the Address or Direction oâ— it A vous Seigneurs Auditeurs Deputez To you Lords Auditors deputed Par les Roys d'Engleterre de France by the Kings of England and France where England has the preference of Order to France contrary to the style of Neutral Nations of that Age. 3. The Allegation of the Kings of England having been time immemorial in the peaceable Possâ—ssion of the Sovereignty of the Sea was not made by the French Delegates in the Name of the King their Master but by English Advocats in favour of their Clients Cause The French King had Commission'd Grinthald to exercise Jurisdiction at Sea by Arresting and Confiscating Ships and Goods and Imprisoning Persons for carrying Relief to the Earl of Flanders his Enemy by which Commission Grimbald justified himself for doing such Acts as were manifestly repugnant to the peaceable Possession of the said Sovereign Dominion on the part of England If the King of France had acknowledged the Admiral of England the only competent Judge of thingâ— done and committed upon the Sea of England why did he together with the King of England depute Auditors or Delegates for determining those Matters then in Controversie 4. The Art in penning the said Libel is remarkable it affirms the Marine Jurisdiction of the Admiral of England but it does not except against a Power in the King of France to constitute an Admiral with the like Jurisdiction and that upon the Sea towards Flanders 〈…〉 For 't is certain that the Crown of France had Admirals before the time of Philip the Fair. 'T is true that great Body of the Kingdom of France had been cantoniz'd and divided after the manner of the German Nations into many Franca Fâ—uda as they â—ali'd them Free Fees which are supreme and independent Sovereignties only the persons of those
from him is to set a Superiour over him and to exercise Jurisdiction within his Territory without an Authority derived from him is to King it in another's Kingdom to set up Co-ordinate Supremes within one Realm in Matters of the same Civil Cognisance Which is as much a Contradiction as to affirm many Infinits for as the Infinity of one makes all others finite so the Supremacy of one makes all others Subordinate Thirdly From a Right of Fishing within those Seas without special Licence first obtained from the Lord of the Seignory and under such Conditions and Considerations as he shall think fit The reason is because this is the Patrimonial Property of his Crown and the Fishery is in a manner all the profit that his great Sea Territory yields him The Dominion of the Sea without an appropriate Fishing is as if a Vineyard should be a Property but the Grapes common Or like an Estate or Possession of Land vested in one to the use of another 27. H. 8. cap. 10. and such we had many here in England till a good Statute executed the Possession to the use and so conjoyn'd what ought not to have been divided Nor can it be alledg'd that a promiscuous Fishing in the Sea is of no damage to the Proprietor for admitting the multitude of Fish to be so great as to suffice all Mens use which is not always true yet this will abate the price of the Market for Sale nor can the Fishery be Farm'd out if occasion be at so good advantage For so we read that the Eastern Emperour let out to Farm the Fishing in the Aâ—gaean Sea near Byzondium Niceph. Greg. l. 9 at the yearly Rent of Ten thousand Crowns and sometimes more I am sensible that what I have already said and part of what follows will be thought by some to run too much into the Niceties of Law and School and that 't is a Thread spun too sine But without the help of such a Thread how sine soever it may seem we shall wander without end in a Labyrinth of Phrases and sorms of Speech we shall lose Things in the ambiguity of Words and mistake Shadows for Substance He who affirms a Sea-Dominion and by it understands any thing less than Property embraces a Cloud for Jâ—â—â— To ride actual Master at Sea with a well â—quipp'd Fleet or to have such a Plenty of Naval Stâ—res in constant readiness as shall be sufficient to answer aâ— Occasâ—ons is not the Dominion of the Sea This is â—ower not Property though the Property and Honour toâ— especially of an Island Prince are best secured and supported by such â—ower Neither is the Honour of the Flag and of requiring Foreign Ships to lower their Sails and do a Reverence any part of the Dominion of the Seas nor has any relation to it as I shall shew presently Much less do such usual Expressions and Words as these the British Seas the Sea of England Our Seas import any legal Dominion but only denote a Geographical Description as Mare Flandricum Mare Nermannicum Mâ—re Arâ—mericum Mare Aquitanicum and a hundred others do And nothing more usual than for Seas to receive their Denominations from the Shoars they rowle upon and Our Seas are the Seas which rowle upon our Shoars But that which occasions the ordinary and most frequent Mistake is the word Dominion it being equivocal and of a doubtful sense as the Latin words Impertum and Dominium likewise are For sometimes they are taken strictly and legally denoting Property and thus Imperium and Dominium are the same with publick and private Property according to that of Seneca Seâ—de Beneâ— l. 8. c. 5. Râ—x emnia possidet Imperio singuli Dominio The King possesses all by his Sovereignty and yet particular Persons have their private possessions too But then again sometimes they are taken loosely and Historically denoting Power only and Command as Pompeio datum est Imperium maris intra Herculis columnas The Roman People gave Imperium Maris to Pompey the Command of the Sea not the Property of it They Commissioned him their Admiral or General at Sea as far as the Streights Mouth Thus some of the Roman Emperors were intitled Terrae Marisque Domini Lords or Despots of Sea as well as Land so is Vespasian called by Josephus And yet they were but Lords in Power not in Property Jure naturali communia sunt omnium aer aqua profluens Mare Inst de Rer. Div. Par. 1. for by the very Text of the Roman Law as it was afterwards compiled by Justinian the Sea is accounted as common as the Air and that by natural Right And thus some Men understand no more by Dominion of the Sea than what our usual Sea-phrase imports to ride Master at Sea or of the Sea. But 't is one thing to be Master of it in an Historical and Military sense by a Superiority of Power and Command as the General of a Victorious Fleet is another thing to be Master of it in a legal sense by a possessory Right as the ture Owner and Proprietor of it is In like manner we say of a General at Land that he is Master of the Field Master of it in Power not Owner of it in Title Property is a fix'd and permanent Right a man may lose his Seisin and yet retain his Title an Usurper is no Owner but Power is flitting and transitory and so soon as the Possession is lost the Power is gone If we confound Power and Property Potestas Proprietas by a promiscuous use of the one for the other the Dominion of the Sea will be like that of our Cornishmens Ball at one of their Hurlings 't is his who can catch it so long as he can keep it till another gets it from him I shall add one Quotation more out of the Roman Story not wholly unworthy observation 〈◊〉 Anâ—â—â— 4. Tacitus says Italiam utroque mari duae classes Misenum apud Ravennam praesidebant Two Fleets guarded Italy on both Seas one at Misenum the other at Ravenna Sueton. Vit. 〈◊〉 And Suetonius ascribes the first Institution thereof to Augustus Classem Miseni alteram Ravennae ad tutelam superi inferi Maris collocavit The Fleet at Misenum was for the safety of the Upper Sea towards Gaul and Spain Westwards the other at Ravenna was for the safety of the Lower Sea towards Epirus and Greece Eastwards Our Kings in England have so exactly followed this Model of Augustus that one would think they had copied from his Original Has Italy an upper and lower Sea So has England Our upper Sea is that Northwards betwixt England and Germany Our lower Sea that South Westward betwixt England and France Had the Roman Emperors their distinct Fleets one for each Sea Our Kings had their distinct Admiralties one for the North and another for the South reckoning North and South from the mouth of the River Thames Their
Equipp'd for War over the Seas of England Whether any Sovereign Prince or State having occasion to enter upon any the Seas of England with Men of War either in entire Fleets or as Convoys to Merchants have first asked leave so to do of the King of England as the Supreme Lord of the Territory I have often met with a Traditional Story both in Discourse and in Printed Pamphlets that Queen Elizabeth having intelligence that Henry the 4th of France had a design to encrease the Naval Strength of his Kingdom and to Equip a considerable Fleet of War not only for the Mediterranean but for the Seas also toward England She sent to bid him desist from it That the Queen might request him not to put out upon these Seas with an unusual Fleet as that which might occasion Jealousie in her Subjects and oblige her to an extraordinary Expence in Arming proportionably and consequently tend to weaken the Amity and good Assurance betwixt the two Crowns I say that she might do this for I do not find that she did it is neither morally impossible nor wholly disagreeable to the practice amongst Princes But that she did pro Jure interdict and forbid him so doing as an Intrenchment and Invasion of her Right by entring with an Armed Force upon the Territories of her Crown without her leave for this I shall suspend my belief till better Vouchers be produced 'T is too common amongst Men first to form their Opinions and then to seek their Proofs and some rather than not find them will devise them There is another currant Story of the same alloy That Queen Elizabeth seized in the Bay of Cascais in Portugal Sixty Laden Ships belonging to the Hans Towns of Germany and afterwards consiscated both Ships and Goods For having presumptuously pass'd over her Seas without first obtaining her Royal Permission In this several Mistakes are complicated together one in Law and two in Fact. That in Law is this supposing the Dominion of the Seas to have been universally acknowledged as the Queens undoubted Right yet ought not the Hanseaties who were Friends and peaceable Traders and pursuing their lawful Occasions to have been consiscated for not a king leave of Passage over these Seas had there been nothing more in the case because they needed not in Law so to have done No more than a Market-man needs ask leave of the Owner to pass his Field over which the Market Path lies The two Mistakes in Fact are these 1. The said Sixty Sail of Ships did not in Fact pass the Seas of England 〈…〉 15.9 〈…〉 lib. 95. and therefore could not be consiscated upon that accompt Mr. Cambden our faithful Annalist says expresly and so does Thuanus too That they pass'd on the North of Scotland by the Occades Hebrides and great Western Ocean on the backside of Ireland a long and dangerous Passage to avoid being intercepted in the Channel by the Queens Ships 2. The sole Reason why they were confiscated was this because they carried Goods of Contrabanda Prohibited Goods viz. Corn which at that time Spain wanted and Naval Provisions to the relief of an Enemy who at that time was preparing a new Fleet for the Invasion of England in revenge of the Disgrace he had received the year before viz. in 88. And this they did contrary to the Queens Proclamation and Monitory Letters to the Hans Towns whereby she forbad them to supply Spain her declared Enemy with such Provisions under the Penalty of forfeiting Ships and Goods Thus the Dutch in the year 1652. when by their Interest and Influence in the Court of Denmark they had caus'd an English Fleet of above Twenty Merchant men Laden with Pitch Tar Flax Hemp and other Naval Stores to be Arrested in the Sound supposing that England with whom they were then in War would be Distressed for want of sâ—â—n Provisions They Published a Placart forbidding all in general to Import into England any the aforesaid Materials upon pain of confiscation thereof as being a Relief to an Enemy in things they particularly wanted for prosecuting the War against them I enquire not here Quo jure by what Right the Dutch did this and whether it was not a Violation of the free Commerce of Neutral Nations But I only instance in the Fact as parallel with what the Queen did Nay the States did far more than what the Queen did comes to for they in the Year 1599 almost in the Infancy of their Republick publish'd a Placart forbidding all Nations any Commerce with Spain not in this or that prohibited Commodity but in all Goods and Merchandizes whatsoever Grot. Host de Rebus Belg. lib. 8. pag. 372. Edâ—t Amstol Vetant populos quescunque â—llos commeatur resve alias in Hispaniam ferre They are the very words of Grotius in his Belgick Annals the eighth Book this by the way â—â—ly If we consult the publick Treaties which have been betwixt England and other Sovereigns concerning Sâ—â—ps of War passing these Seas we shall find the 〈…〉 have been as followeth The usual Covenants are 〈◊〉 have been That the Ships of War of either side may 〈◊〉 come into the Roads Havens and Rivers each of other provided they be not in such number as may occasion suspicion and therefore the number is ascertain'd and not to be exceeded unless to avoid imminent Danger and in such case notice to be given thereof For Example In the Treaty concluded at Madrid in the Year 1630 betwixt Charles the First of England and Philip the Fourth of Spain which Treaty was but a renewal of the former made with King James in the Year 1604 it is in the 9th Article agreed That it shall be lawful to have access unto each others Ports with Ships of War whether they shall arrive there either by force of Tempest or for necessary Repairs or for provision of Victuals so they exceed not eight when they come of their own accord nor stay longer than they shall have cause And when any greater Number shall have occasion of Access they not to enter the Port without the privity or consent of the King. This is the form of all the Treaties and Articles like to this have been agreed betwixt England and France and England and Helland but they are always reciprocal and as their Ships of War are restrained from access to the English Ports so are the English from access to theirs in equal manner And 't is to be noted that the Restraint is only from access to each others Ports but never any Restraint of Foreign Ships of War from entering in what Number they please the Seas of England Thus in the Year 1639 which was but nine Years after the Treaty aforementioned at Madrid a Spanish Fleet of above sixty Sail equipped for War entred the Western Channel without leave first asked bound for Ostend to supply the Spanish Netherlands with Men Munition and other Necessaries and pass'd the Channel to the height of
Sovereigns under a Personal Obligation of Fealty to another The respective senâ—â—â—ry Princes were siduciary Homagers to the Kings of France but the Crown of France had no Regal Jurisdiction or Authority within those Frincipalities Thus the great Dakedoms of Aquitain and Normandy were under the Kings of England that of Britany was under a Duke of its own the Earldoms of Provence Tolose and â—anders acknowledged their own Sovereign Counts In those days the Crown of France had only a small Sea-Coast upon Picardy and some in the Mediterranean But in the time of Philip the Fair that Crown was in the actual possession of all Normandy and as the other Principalities became reincorporated into the Body of France from whence they had formerly been dismembred as now they all are excepting some part of Flanders that Kingdom as it enlarg'd it self to the Sea by the accession of many new Coasts so the Marine Jurisdiction thereof encreas'd proportionably I say the fore-recited Libel does not deny a Civil Power or Capacity in the Crown of France to create an Admiral and to invest him with Marine Jurisdiction But the Exception is partly against the Person of Grimbald and partly against his illegal Practises and Seisures contrary to the Alliance made betwixt the two Kings Now this Grimbald was a Foreigner and a Mercenary he was a Genoese whom the King of France had hired with several Gallies of that Republick to serve him in his War against Flanders The Plaintiffs in their Libel call him Maistre de la Navy du Roy de France Master or Commander of the French Fleet but would not vouchsafe him the Title of an Admiral only Que se dit estre Admiral that he call'd himself an Admiral and craftily reclaim the Conusance of their Cause from him as an incompetent Judge to the Admiral of England as an undoubted Authority and before whom they were sure to gain their Process I Have done with the Marine Jurisdiction Of the Fishery and proceed now to the third and last Incident of the Dominion of the Sea and which inseparably follows it and that 's the sole Fishing without which it would be a Property without Profit a Name without a Thing He who has the Soil or Ground has the Herbage and other Growth of it or else a Rent for it if others may freely depasture with him it is a Common The Enquiry is upon the Matter of Fact as to Fishing upon the Seas about England in which our publick Treaties made betwixt our Kings and other Sovereigns will be our best Direction And they stand thus All the ancient Treaties I could meet with concluded betwixt the several Kings of England and their old Confederates the Dukes of Britanny and Burgundy which in those Ages were the most powerful Neighbours they had at Sea are of the same tenour and run in the same form viz. They Covenant on both sides that their respective Subjects should freely and without the let or hinderance one of another fish every where upon the Seas without asking any Licenses Pasports or safe Conducts This is the General Form of them all For Example In the Treaty betwixt Edward the 4th of England and Francis Duke of Britanny the Article in the French of that time runs thus That the Fishermen both of the Kingdom of England and Dutchy of Britanny Purront peaceablement aller par tout sur Mer pour pescher gaigner leur vivre sans impeachement ouâ— disturber de l'une partie ou de l'autre sans leur soit besoigne sur ceo requirir sauf Conduct And the same form had been used before in the Treaty betwixt Henry the 6th and the then Dutchess of Burgundy Thus also in the famous Treaty called Intercursus magnus made in the Year 1495 betwixt Henry the 7th of England and Philip the 4th Archduke of Austria and Duke of Burgundy in the 14th Article 't is agreed Quod Piscatores utriusque partis poterint ubique ire Navigare per Mare secure piscari absque impedimento licentia seu salvo conductu And this form is also kept to in the Treaty made betwixt Henry the Eighth and Chaâ—les the Fifth Emperour and Duke of Burgundy In the time of Queen Elizabeth after that seven of the seventeen Provinces had set up distinct Sovereignties of their own they still enjoyed the same freedom of Fishing as they had done before when united with the House of Burgundy And in the Treaty made betwixt King James of England and Philip of Spain in the Year 1604 the ancient Treaties of Entercourse and Commerce betwixt the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Irelanâ— and the Dominions of the Dukes of Burgandy and Princes of the Low-Countries are reviv'd and reconsirm'd From whence it appears upon the whole Matter of Fact That the Kings of England in their Treaties with other Sovereigns not once or twice but in a Succession of Ages not by surprize but deliberately and when the business of the Fishery came under special consultation did not challenge to themselves the sole Right thereof exclusively of all others as being appropriated to the Crown of England For had they esteemed the Fishery the Property of their Crown and all Aliens excluded from it they would not have admitted the Subjects of Britanny and Burgundy to a promiscuous Fishing with their own Subjects without some valuable Consideration had been given for it or at least some License obtained as a beneficiary Grant derived from them or some Acknowledgment made by way of a Salvo Jure a Saving to the Right of the Crown or England Else it would be as unreasonable as if a Man should throw down the Inclosures of his own Ground and lay that common which before was his Property which is too gross a Reflection upon the Wisdom of those Ages And this may be further illustrated by a samiliar Instance Suppose here in England two great Mannors and betwixt them a large Lake of fresh Waters well stored with Fish and it can be proved That not only Time out of Mind the Tenants of the two Mannors have promiscuously fished therein but that also the Lords of both Mannors have in several Ages contracted each with other for a free Fishing without Leave or License to be first ask'd or obtain'd for their respective Tenants And in the Contract no Exception or Reservation is made of the Fishery as parcel of the Inheritance of one of the said Mannors nor any Words creating a Tenure whereby one should hold of the other nor expressing or implying that it was but a Temporary Sufferance that one of the Lords should share for a time in the Profits of the Fishing without any share in the Fee or Inheritance of it And this by the free Donation of the other commonly call'd De Gratia Speciali or for a valuable Consideration usually termed Quid pro quo or to hold by some small Acknowledgment of Tenure as of a Pâ—pper-Corn Yearly But the Contract
ut Batavi imposterum abstinerent ab oris Scoticis ad Octuaginta saltem Milliaria Here the distance from the Shoars of Scotland which Foreigners were to observe in their Fishing is set very large no less than Fourscore Miles In the Second year of King James Commissioners were appointed and authorized under the Great Seals of England and Scotland to Treat and Conclude an Union betwixt the two Kingdoms Spetisâ—â—â—d's Hist of Scotland p. 483. And in the Articles for Regulating Trade betwixt them it was amongst other things mutually agreed That the Fishing within the Fryths and Bays of Scotland and in the Seas within Fourteen Miles distance from the Coasts of that Realm where neither English nor other Strangers have used to Fish should be reserved and appropriated to Scotchmen only And so reciprocally on the part of England Scotchmen to abstain from Fishing within the like Distances off the Coasts of England But if English and Scots who though the two Kingdoms be sui Juris and independent one upon another are tied together in the same Common Bond of Allegiance to one and the same Prince be excluded from Fishing within Fourteen Miles from each other Coasts how much more reasonable is it that Aliens and Foreigners should be obliged to keep the like Distances King James finding that his foremention'd Proclamation in the Seventh year of his Reign for a licensed Fishing was not seconded by a suitable Compliance on the part of the Neighbouring Nations did about Nine years after by way of Expedient propose a limited Fishing instead thereof For thus I find it in a Letter from Secretary Naunton to the Lord Carlton English Ambassador at the Hague bearing Date January 21th 1618. He acquaints him how the King had by him the said Secretary desired of the Commissioners of the States then residing at London that they would write to their Superiours to Publish a Placart Prohibiting any their Subjects to Fish within Fourteen Miles of His Majesties Coasts that Year or any time after until Order be taken by Commissioners authorized on both sides for a final setling of the main Business And the said Ambassador was Commanded to make the like Instance and Declaration to the States General in the Name of his Master I am apt to believe this Distance of Fourteen Miles was the rather pitch'd upon as the regulated Measure which had been agreed upon betwixt the Commissioners of both Kingdoms in the 2d of the King as I said before I have done with the Authorities and for the better Elucidation of what I have said shall briefly sum it up into a fictitious Article supposed to be made betwixt England and Holland TO Maintain a due Distinction betwixt Natives and Foreigners in Fishing upon the Coasts of their respective Sovereigns And to prevent the manifold Inconveniences which occasionally arise by a promiscuous and unlimited Fishing 'T is mutually Covenanted Concluded and Agreed That the People and Subjects of the United Netherlands shall henceforth abstain from Fishing within any the Rivers Fryths Havens or Bays of Great Britain and Ireland or within the Distance of _____ Leagues from any Point of Land thereof or of any the Isles thereto belonging under the Penalty and Forfeiture of all the Fish that shall be found Aboard any Vessel doing to the contrary and of all the Nets Vtensils and other Instruments of Fishing The like Distances and under the same Penalties to be kept and observed by the Subjects of His Majesty of Great Britain and Ireland from any of the Coasts belonging to the United Netherlands But beyond those Precincts and Limits That the People and Subjects on both Sides be at freedom to use and exercise Fishing where they please without asking or taking Licences or safe Conducts for so doing and without the let hindrance or molestation one of another Saving always the Ancient Rights of the Crown of England and that nothing herein contained be interpreted or extended to any Diminution or Impeachment thereof But that they remain in the same Force and Vertue as before this Agreement The Article is Penn'd indifferently on both Sides and so much the better because the equality of it is an Argument of its Equity yet I could instance in several benefits which would redound to England from such an Article were it pass'd into an Agreement but they are not proper to be mention'd in this place and therefore I shall here conclude with this brief Apology That what I have written is for the Justice and Honour of the Government the Conservation of the Publick Peace the Maintenance of an inviolable Amity with our Allies and is most humbly submitted to better informed Judgments ERRATA Page 25. Line 3. read 1599. FINIS