that upon the 29 of November Preten Art 16. 1659. one of their Ships named the St. John coming from Guyne laden with a considerable number of Slaves was put on shore near the said Island of Curaso and that those of Curaso sending one of the Barques of the said Company to save the said Slaves named the Ostridge while the men were labouring to transport them from the Ship to the Barque there came upon them an English Fregat called the Castle Fregat of which John Peterson du Caldican was Captain who did not onely hinder them from their designe but fell upon them by force and made himself Master of them and took away 84 blaves as a lawful Prize and carried them to Jamaica To the 16. Ans 16. Article it is Answered That about the time in the said Article mentioned there was a Dutch man named Peterson who brought in a boat with 6 or 7 Negroes to Jamaica having disposed of more as he said and alleadging great scarcity of provisions did sell the Negroes to the Inhabitants of Jamaica and being examined how he came by them did aver that he took them at Sea as a Wrack and the Carpenter and others of the Ship so wracked did justify the same All which depositions were sent to the Governour of Curasso by Col. Doyly The Directors of the said West-India-Company do complain Preten Art 17. that upon the 12 of March 1660. the Agents that they had at Cabo Verde were hindered by five English Ships from Trading there as they had customarily done which frustrated them of very great advantages and profits and yet notwithstanding they remain charged with the Entertainment of their Officers and People both Military and others as also other Forts Lodges Ships and what depends on them To the 17. Ans 17. Article it is Answered That this Article is so general that no particular Answer can be made unto it it making no particular mention of any violence done nor to whom except in that general word of the Complaynants Agents at Capo de Verde And all that can be said is that some Ships in which the Royal Company had an Interest did about that time pass to the River Gambia but we never heard of any the least violence or injury they did offer to any persons or Ships in their passage thither And when that complaint shall be so cloathed with circumstance that we can have any particular to six upon an Answer shall be made thereunto In pursuit of this pretence Preten Art 18. the said Company complain again that the same English after they had thus abused them went to the River of Gambia where they dispossest the Ministers of the Company with violence and force and took all so as that people were constrained to abandon all the Forts Lodges Houses and all that the Company possest And for as much as since that time the Company hath not been able to Trade they alledge that the Damage they have suffered by reason hereof ought to be sufficiently repaired To the 18. Article it is Answered Ans 18. That it is much of the like nature for it runs all in general words without naming any Fort or Lodg to which the Dutch Nation have any claim as we believe will most evidently appear when the Dutch shall descend to a particular naming of any Fort or Lodge which we have cause to think they avoid lest the grossness of the allegation should be too notorious The same Company do further represent that in Aug. 1660. Preten Art 19. one of their Ships called the Peacock being at Sea near the Island of Aruba was set upon with force by an Englishman of War and his Complices who brake open the Coffers and Chests and took away what they thought fit and did very much hurt and outrage as declared Enemies to the Company of that Ship and therefore they do declare that they may lawfully demand restitution for the violences done to them To the 19. Article we Answer Ans 19. That the Man of War which the complaynants say took their Ship is not named therefore we cannot Answer but we know that about the time mentioned in this Article there was a Dutch Ship taken about Aruba by Capt. Mynges which as it appears to the Admiralty was in the service and pay of the Spaniard then in hostility with the English and had shot at Captain Mynges and furnished the Spaniard with Ammunition and had Spaniards aboard and therefore legally condemned by the said Court of Admiralty About the end of the year 1660. Preten Art 20. to wit the 25 of December one of their Ships named the St. Peter being at Anchor in the South-Bay near the Isle of Cuba in the West-Indies was not onely pillaged to the loss of her Merchandizes her Cargazon and all the Vtensils of the Ship by an Englishman of War called the Pearl N. Freeborn Captain and that in the presence and sight of another English Ship of which Richard Reesby was Commander with a Commission of his Majesties of England but also the people of the said Ship were treated in a horrible and indeed barbarous manner for among other cruelties which they exercised they put a Cord about the Neck of the Masters Mate and hung him up in that condition till the blood came out at his Nose and Ears so that the Cord was then cut thinking he had been dead after which they put burning Matches to his Fingers until they had consumed the flesh to the bones and in fine constrained the Master and Factor of the said Ship as well by the sad spectacle as by horrible threats to pass and signe an Act obliging them to approve of all these insolent and inhumane actions and to avow that the Ship was fair Prize with all her Lading To the 20. Ans 20. Article we Answer That it is true that one Freeborn a pyrate who had no Commission but had formerly been in service of the Spaniard and is since taken by them and hang'd for his pyracy at Cuba did plunder such a Ship as is mentioned in the said Article but coming to Jamaica the then Governour Colonel Doyly apprehended him and five others of his Company as pyrates and sent them in Irons to London with a charge against them and secured the rest of the pyrates-company at Jamaica and gave a Dutch-Master 50 li. to go to England and prosecute the said pyrates and promised them passage in the Diamond Fregat but for want of prosecution the pyrates after 6 months imprisonment in England were discharged and Col. Doyly restored the Ship and all that remained by her and furnished her with what she wanted to enable her to sail out of the Kings stores and what small remainder of goods were found belonging to her Cargo the Colonel tendred the Master to be freely restored to him but he refused to accept of them and there was never any demand made of them since and
the advantage of the night and turned out the Master and all the Seamen That the Proprietors having represented this to his Majesty did in the end obtain a second discharge in August 1662. the Master of the Ship hoping after this to enjoy the full effect of his Order was forced to content Captain Wutworth and to fit out the Ship again after she had been the second time plundered To the 26. Article it is Answered Ans 26. That we never heard of any Scotch Man of War called Wutworth but true it is that his Majesty upon the first complaint did write a peremptory Letter to the Lords of his Privy Council in Scotland in these words Being informed that there are 2. Vessels belonging to the States of the United Provinces the one named the Vogukay and the other the Goude Real and a Busse taken some of our Subjects Our will and pleasure is that you command them to be forthwith restored unto the hands of James Davidson or to the Masters of the same Ships who are now in Scotland to require them and withal that express order be given that none of our Subjects presume upon whatsoever Pretext or Commission to take or molest any Ship or Boat belonging to the said States under all highest pains This Letter was dated the 21. of August 1661. There was another Letter written by his Majesty 5 July 1662. directed to the Earl of Middleton then his Majesties Commissioner making mention of his former Letter and then adding But soon after upon an humble Petition presented to Us and our Privy Council of England by some pretending interest in the said Ships We appointed our Council to examine the Truth of what was alleadged and to certifie the same to Vs and in the mean time to cause the said Ships with all their materials to be secured till our farther pleasure And now they having examined the whole business and having reported the same to Vs upon consideration of the whole matter We do require you that the said 2. Vessels with all their materials be fourth-with restored to James Davidson or to the Masters of the said Ships who do attend to receive them Of which expecting your performance We bid you farewel That the Magistrate of Edinborough did any violence or that the Master was constrained to content Capt. Wutworth after the Ship had been a second time plundered was never complained of to his Majesty and therefore is not like to be true And seeing the King did so readily order restitution it seems a groundless complaint William Mumma Preten Art 27. and his Associates Merchants of Amsterdam do say that one of their ships named the Hercules David Wouters Master departing from St. Sebastians anno 1657. to go to St. Lucar and Cadiz was the 14 of August in the same year taken and detained by the said Captain John Stoakes who took out all the Merchandize laden upon her without giving him any reasonable satisfaction for his Freight See for the Answer to this pag. 44. onely that the said Commander paid him 1500 Ryals of 8. and no more The said Mumma and his Associates do pretend that they ought to be re-imbursed of their Expences Damages and Interests Albert Lemmerman of Amsterdam says that in Octob. 1655. Preten Art 28. one of the ships named the St. James of the burthen of 300 Tuns Aaron Martin Master coming from Porto in Portugal laden with Tobacco Sugars Shumack and Elephants Teeth having sprung a Leak at Sea by foul weather and being thereby made incapable of prosecuting her Voyage the said Master of the Ship to avoid a further danger ran ashore upon the Coast of Arundel and being there busie in unlading the Ship of some of her choicest Goods an Officer came to him and commanded him presently to leave his Ship not permitting him to carry any thing away with him That the said Master and Mariners being thus constrained to leave the said Ship and Goods there fell upon them presently a great number of the Country people who by the order or at least with the consent of the Officer pillaged the Ship carried away all the Merchandizes and took away the Cordage Rigging and all to the very bolts and nails leaving the very hulk of the Ship worth nothing And though the said Master made his complaint of this barbarous proceeding and in persuit of the business spent a great deal of his time and money and though the Ministers of State and the Admiralty of England were fully convinced of the reason of his complaint yet so it is that the said Lemmerman could never obtain the least satisfaction either by way of Justice or otherwise but was continually put off with delays and excuses As to the 28. Article it is Answered Ans 28. That it may be very well so and the parties may escape with so foul an Act unless a complaint had been made against some particular persons of them by name that they might have been proceeded against and prosecuted according to the Law of the Admiralty which hath certain Rules to proceed by against such Offendors yet we do find in the Court of Admiralty a complaint entered upon which a commission of Inquiry issued forth for discovery of such persons as had done such violence but can find no return thereof so that it seemeth no such discovery could be made Peter Pouilly Preten Art 29. Jerome Boshe the Widow of Heertgen Johnson the Heirs of Daniel Johnson Merchants of Amsterdam do all say that it is very true that one of their Ships named the St. Nicholas of which Baron Claessen Spierdyck was Master coming in January 1657. from the Isle of St. Vincent was taken by an English Fregat call'd the Mackdethem and was delivered to Admiral Blake That the same Ship being carried to Lisbon was there unladen of all her Merchandize part whereof was sent to London and the rest sold with the Ship it self at Lisbon The same Ship and goods being reclaimed by the said Merchants in the month of December in the same year 1657. after long and painful pursuits the said Goods were declared free and exempt from all confiscation by two successive sentences of the High Court of Admiralty of England the one of the 17 of January and the other on the 20 of October 1659. That there being made in England an exact accompt of the proceeding upon the sale of the said Ship and Goods it was found to amount to the sum of 11407 l. 3. s. 9d sterling making 120 m. Florens And forasmuch as the said Merchants could never enjoy the effects of the said sentence nor obtain any satisfaction They pretend that they may demand the same summe by vertue of the said sentence with the Expenses Damages and Interests To the complaint of Peter Ravilli Ans 29. and others set forth in the 29. Article it may receive the same Answer as is made to the complaint of the said Vanhulten upon the 21
Article Lawrence Kettles Merchant of Amsterdam saith Pretense Art 30. That in May 1659. his Ship named the King David Oche Alberts of â—inlopen Master laden with Salt at St. Vvall and bound for Dronton in Norway was taken and carried to Dunkirk by Captain Lonis de Hay To the 30. Article We answer Answ 30. that the Captain was neither an English Subject nor had any English Commission and therefore the English cannot be responsible for his action William Johnson Brunan saith Pretense Art 31. That in the Moneth of Aprill 1659. his Ship named the Black Raven James Johnson Vanderschelling Master coming from Rochel laden with Salt was taken in the Channel by an English man of Warr called John Jaquerson hill That the said ship being brought to Dunkirk the Governour released her by order of His Majesty but she was afterward seized by Order of the Admiralty of England so that the Master was constrained after the pursuit of one Moneth to redeem his Ship with the summ of 3333 Livres 17 Solz As to the 31. Article Answ 31. It is answered that the Master of the Ship knew his Ship or some of her Lading to be subject or liable in some respect to Confiscation that he voluntarily would so redeem her and for such voluntary act no satisfaction can be required John Vanderhell and his Associates of Amsterdam Pretense Art 32. say that it is very true that in the year 1659. the Ship named the Salamander Albert Jaquerson Master coming from Malaga to go to Amsterdam was attaqued taken and brought to Toulon in France by an English man of Warr. That the Master and the Interessed having upon their complaint obtained a Release which was adjudged afterwards That before she should be absolutely discharged the Interessed should furnish the summ of _____ who to get clear of the business and to deliver themselves from this vexation were necessitated to pay the said summ for Redemption and Runsome thereof That the recovery of the money having been made by that Rule upon the Goods and the Interessed having paid it at Toulon could not yet obtain the effect of that Release but were disappointed of the Money as also of the Ship and Goods To the 32. Answ 32. Article We say that seeing the Captain complained of hath no name nor the ransome pretended to be paid for him any summ it may as well be a Barretry of the Master of the Salamander as an act of an Englishman but whosoever he was that took him and whatsoever he had for composition undoubtedly the owner of the Salamander knew he could justifie the capture or they would not have compounded with him in the Ports of the French King their good Allie where they might have had justice against a Pyrate Benjamin Lanson Pretense Art 33. the son of Julien Lanson deceased represents that in the year 1655 certain Parliament ships took away out of the ship called the Medea Horman Suerinse Master these goods following 92 Pipes of Oyl 283. Chests of Soap 8. Bales of Cotten 102. Barrels of Sulphur 14 Bales of Galls All which belonged to the said Julien Lanson and that the said goods were placed in manner of Sequestration in the hands of John Sparrow Richard Hill Richard Blackwell Samuel Wilson Humphrey Blake and Robert Turpin being all Commissioners established by the Admiralty for Prize good That the 23. of December 1657. the very Admiralty it self ordered the said Commissioners to make restitution of the said goods or of the monies raised thereupon to the said Julien Lanson But that notwithstanding a constant solicitation of three years continuance for a dispatch the said Commissioners would not yet be perswaded to comply with the said sentence That in the year 1660. the said Commissioners were the second time formally condemned to the said restitution there being likewise adjudged to the said Lanson upon his accompt then produced the summ of 3385 pounds 2 shillings and 10 pence sterl or 36000 Florens Now in regard that the said Julien could never receive the benefit either of the one or the other sentence he demands it now with charges damages and interest To the 33. Article we answer Answer 33. That the neat proceed of the goods therein mentioned amounted to no more then 1841 pounds and that they themselves at last left the dispute undetermined so that if they did not receive the fruit they expected from the said Decree they may blame themselves for not making a more effectual prosecution William Belin de la Garde Merchant of Amsterdam Pretense Artic. 34. saith that in the Moneth of May 1655. some ships of the Parliament of England did carry to London a ship named the Hare in the Field John Kin Master and though by sentence of the High Court of Admiralty it was declared that three parts of the Goods should be discharged to wit 7 Bales of Linnen 1 Bale of Yellow Linnen 4 Cask of Mercery ware all belonging to the said De la Garde See for the Answer to this Pretense pa. 53. And though in pursuance of the said sentence most of the said Goods were restored to him yet so it is that a great part of those Goods were quite spoyled and the rest so perished and damnified that they lost much of their just value The same person complains again that one of his ships called the Cross of Jerusalem Peter Johnson Master Native of Purmerent being set upon and taken by a Vessel of the Parliament of England was in June 1655. carried to Plymouth and in August following to London That the said La Guarde having represented by certain persons whom he authorized the injury and violence that had been done to the said ship and having demanded the release thereof the Court of Admiralty finding themselves convinced by the force of Reason and Truth did agree to release her by a sentence of the 18. of June 1656. and did Ordain that the said ship should be restored to the said De la Garde together with the freight of the goods that were laden on her according to the Bills of Lading that were produced And forasmuch as the said De la Garde could not enjoy the effect of the said sentence but onely in part And that during the time of three Moneths while they said ship lay seized he could not onely make no profit but was likewise obliged to pay the Seamens wages and to entertain them with Victuals undergoing a great expence before he could obtain the sentence for which he demands to be indemnified The said De la Garde being interessed not onely in the ship and freight but also in two Parcels the one of 65 and the other of 3 Bales of Linnen of Roan did in fine obtain that they might be also comprehended in the said Restitution adjudged him by two several sentences the one of the 25 of February and the other of the 4. of July 1656. And forasmuch as all the said
unlade the said Galles according to his Bills of Lading there came upon him one Lawrence Lowe as being empowered from Sir Andrew Richaut Governour of the Levant Trade in England who under a far setch'd and frivolous pretence caused the said quantity of Galles to be seized And for as much as fince by a sentence of the Schepen of Amsterdam of the 7 of February 1653. the same seizure was declared to be injurious and the Acter thereof condemned to restore the same with the expences damages and interest and also that during the time of the said seizure the price of Galles was much faln they pretend to be Indempnified To the 23. Ans 23. Article it is Answered That if the Sebepen of Amsterdam discharged the arrest and condemned the Arrestant in cost damage and interest the same Court ought to have taxed it and the Complaynant to prosecute the Execution there while the person was upon the place and may not seek satisfaction here But the Judges knew very well that those goods were part of the charges of two English Ships the Reformation and Free-trade that were attaqued by a Holland Ship the Mary under the Hollands Flag and taken by a Spanish Commission contrary to a security given by the owners of the said Ship of War before her departure from Amsterdam that she should not disturb nor prejudice any English Subjects within one year from that time so as it is likely those Judges thought it kindness enough at that time to let their fellow-burger remain in possession of what was pyratically taken and not to punish the Arrestants farther for demanding what was their own And this complaint of Vanhultens will finde its decision in the ajustment of the general demand of the English for the restitution of the whole lading of both Ships which his Majesty's Envoy extraordinary is and hath been ever since in persuit of The same Vanhulten Preten Art 24. and his Associates do further represent That although in the year 1655. the King of Spain being then in hostility with England and France issued out a severe Prohibition against the entrance of any Ships or Goods from either of those Kingdomes into any of the Ports whatsoever of his Catholick Majesty yet his said Majesty dispensing for a while to his Subjects the rigour of that Inhibition was pleased to permit a Commerce with the French suffering them to enter his Ports both with their Ships and Merchandizes And that the said Vanhulten and his Associates building upon that Permission caused to be bought at Rouen the same year 69 Bales of Linnen and laded them in the Ship call'd the Hare in the Field John Kin Master to carry them from Havredesrace to Cadiz in Spain That in June 1665. the said Ship pursuing her Voyage was assaulted taken and carried to London by a Squadron of English Ships under pretence that she was a French Vessel That the said Vanhulten and his Associates reclaiming their Goods made it evidently appear that they did not belong to French-men but were onely bought in France upon their accompt and so charg'd and addressed to Cadiz which being prov'd to the High Court of Admiralty of England the said Court being fully satisfied as to the matter of Fact did by a sentence of the 23 of Febr. 1665. discharge the said Goods as having been seized against all Right and Reason That immediately after the said sentence given the said Merchandizes were again laden and the said Ship resumed her course to Cadiz But in the mean time the Term of the said Permission or Dispensation being expired the said Ship coming to Cadiz was there seized and confiscated with all her Lading July the 30. 1665. Now in regard that all these Disorders happened onely in consequence of this vexatious and perverse manner of proceeding of the English and from that Delay which was but an effect thereof the time of freedome being so far spent during this Dispute that it was impossible to finish the Voyage before it was out They have reason to demand to be Indempnified To the second complaint of the said Vanhulten Ans 24. in the 24. Article we find by the Acts of the Admiralty Court the Ship the Hare in the field with all her Merchandizes except those that were condemned for lawful prize were the same year restored and that the owners of the said Ship could have no expenses nor damages she being taken with an enemies goods in her which was just cause enough for the taking and seizing of her and bringing her in Isaac Fawquier Preten Art 25. and his Associates of Amsterdam do say that it is true that one of their Ships named the Cavillia Anthony Balthensen Master did lade the 13 of January 1658. in the Island of Sardinia 2756 Salmes of Wheat to carry to Valentia at the rate of 11 Ryals freight for each Salme and that withal he had taken on board his Ship a Spanish Marquess with a quantity of baggage that he had promised to carry for 600 Ryals of 8. That the said Ship being arrived at Valentia and busie in unlading her Wheat there arrived in in the same road three English ships commanded by Captain John Stoakes who took the said Ship with part of the Wheat not yet unladen and with the Goods and Baggage of the said Spanish Marquess carried them to Marseilles without allowing the Master any thing for his Freight neither did the English Commander make him satisfaction for the retardment of his Voyage nor for the Wages of his Seamen for that time To the 25. Ans 25 27. and 27. Articles we Answer That the Ships were taken by Capt. Stoaks in the time of an open War between England and Spain and that the complaynants do not say but their goods were contra banda and good prize and therefore it is conceived there could be no pretence to the Freight for the Ships were likewise forfeited and if they had them freed it was of Grace much more if any freight was paid them and therefore they ought to give thanks and not complain John Rombouts Merchant of Amsterdam Preten Art 26. saith that one of his Ships named the Golden Royal of which Cornelius Isbrantson Smit was Master belonging to Flyland was taken in January 1661. near the Dogger Sand by a Scotch Man of War the Capt. called Wutworth and brought to Leith in Scotland and that the said Ship being reclaim'd by the Proprietors who made great and seriours Endeavours with his Majesty the King of England he was pleased to order the delivery of the said Ship in October next following but immediately after the release of the said Ship she being in disorder the Master repaired and fitted her with Guns Victuals Artillery Ammunition and all other necessaries And she being ready to sayl into Holland his Majesty was pleased to revoke the Release he had made whereupon the Magistrate of Edinburg made himself again Master of the said Ship by force and
Injuries Affronts and Hinderances as also the troubles and incumbrances which the English Company hath procured to This Company whereof This Company doth demand reparation and refaction To the ninth Article Answer 9. We know that they have made Contracts with the Queen of Acheen both for Tynn and Pepper and it may be exclusive to us but if so they have violated the express terms of that Treaty 1619 which they misreport for the 27th Article in express terms provides as follows That neither of the two Companies shall prevent or exclude the other for time to come whether it be by means of Fortifications or Contracts that one would make hereafter in any part of the Indies But all the Trade shall be free and common to one and the other in every place thereof We do not deny but where there is no obligation to the contrary it may be lawful for them or us to contract with any Prince or people for the whole of any commodity of their growth or manufacture but if the Hollanders say truth in their own allegations that they have always had such a Contract with the Queen of Acheen they confess that they have injured us in it contrary to the 27th Article of the Treaty 1619 aforesaid But supposing them now absolved from that Article and that contrary to that good neighbourhood which they ought to shew us they have made such use of that liberty as to contract with the Queen of Acheen and others by the influence of their arms to exclude us from the Trade of their Countries yet we being no parties nor consenting to that Contract cannot be understood to be under any obligation not to endeavour to share in the Trade if either party be willing to admit us and if they do it to the violation of their Contract the Contractant only is the person upon whom both by Law and Reason the party injured must have recourse for satisfaction and not upon us And That especially since those Contracts have been for the most part extorted from the Natives by pure force of Arms even while we have had our Factories amongst them and so have been fellow-sufferers with the Natives in the injuries they have done by the War And therefore We think it will be judged very frivolous in the Hollanders to require from us satisfaction for the expence of Their continued Forces by which they maintain the advantages of their first extorted Contract from the Natives to our prejudice The English have of late begun to introduce and practise in the Indies to protect and defend the Ships and Barques belonging to some Nations with whom This Company is in Wars giving them a Warrant or Poss-port Pretense Art 10. whereby they do maintain that those people ought to be free of any trouble or molestation And whereas that hath caused already many disorders and distastes which apparently will breed open hostilities the abovesaid Company doth beseech the King of Great Britain to give such necessary orders that such things may cease for want of which they do protest that they cannot be blamed of the inconveniences which may thereby happen To the tenth Article we say It is true Answer 10. that we have and do practise to give Pass-ports to the Ships of those Natives that are in friendly commerce with us by which all the Commanders of Ships in our service are required not to hinder or disturb them but rather to lend them assistance and the Hollanders do the like and we know not why it may not be as free for us as them And if we have given such Pass-ports to Our friends whom the Hollanders may please to call Their Enemies and therefore attaque them We know not of any disorders that have followed upon it but it seems by the confidence of the request of this Article to his Majesty and the Impudence of the threat of an open War and Protest against Him in case of his non-complyance that the Netherlands Company doth most insolently pretend in their own names to be sole Sovereigns of those Seas and would have his Majesty own them for such but that being a matter of State this Company leaves it to his Majesties Royal Resentment And whereas it is daily more and more seen that the English have no other intent but to trouble and molest This Company in the Indies Pretense Art 11. and to offer any kind of injuries and affronts to their men and That only to pick a quarrel that they may have pretense to make some protests since they have not stuck openly to declare that they get a greater benefit from those protests then by their Trade seeking only thereby to alter the peace and quietness between both Nations The which doth clearly appear by the Impertinent pretenses which they have thought good to produce here and to make use thereof the which doth much concern the Authorities of both Estates to hinder as soon as possible and to oppose vigorously And the Companies of these Countries do demand that it may be provided thereto and remedied as soon as can be Above all that they may be instructed how to govern and carry themselves in the Indies in regard of that Nation because that having surrounded or besieged any Enemies place the English shall endeavour to get in or land with their Ships and so vice versa because that hath caused many distastes and disorders some years since past To the eleventh Article Answer 11. we can but say that the whole affirmation of it is scandalous and false and will never be believed unless they can perswade the world to judge that our peaceable endeavours to follow any part of the right of our Trade in the Indies is a declared intention to trouble and disquiet the Netherlands Company and to injure and affront Their people Nor can it possibly be credited that we should attempt to injure or affront them upon design to quarrel there that we might have a pretense for Protests and boast that we had gotten more by That then by our Trade For first We have not for many years last past been in a condition in those Seas to contest our right with them and therefore could not be so inconsiderate as to provoke those whose avarice and might would could and hath destroyed our interests Secondly It were as ridiculous for any man to believe as it is scandalous in them to affirm that we should get by Protests against Them when hitherto it is notorious to the whole world that we never obtained from them after the clearest conviction of them Restitution of one tenth part of those losses which have been brought upon us by Their Robbery and Injustice But we can with very great truth affirm that when their people have taken our Ships and Goods and could not deny but the Act was unjust that they replied It was better for their Masters to pay for it at home when we could get it then for them not to
Right therein the English sustained great damages to the value of 66436 pounds 15 shillings by the Hollanders and Zealanders the doing whereof was disowned by the States as a depredation and satisfaction treated upon by Commissioners who not agreeing it was referred to his Majesty who awarded 22000 pounds to the English Merchants but no part thereof was ever paid And as a farther testimony of their Right by Occupancy the English are the onely persons that ever did Winter there That the Dutch and Netherlanders to render this Right as ineffectual as they could have oftentimes of late years ridden with their ships before the said Harbours to disturb the fishing of the English by scaring and diverting the Whales from coming in To prevent which the English have to their great trouble and damage been compelled to leave their fishing in the Harbours and come forth to warn them away both by fair means and by force which warning the Dutch have ever used to receive and to submit to the English right by their departure accordingly but no damage was ever heretofore pretended for the same Nevertheless in the Year 1660 and 1661. the Subjects of the United Netherlands growing more numerous and insolent upon that Coast complaint thereof being made to his Royal Highness the Duke of York Lord High Admiral of England his said Highness was pleased in the Year 1662. to send Captain John Clark with one of his Majesties Vessels called the Little Mary to protect the fishing who in order thereunto did warn the Dutch off from that Coast where the English used to fish and have right of fishing As to the particulars mentioned We answer that Captain Clark and the others named therein being Mariners and abroad upon their several employments full answer cannot be given thereunto but certain it is that no claim hath hitherto been made by any person whatsoever in any of his Majesties Courts of justice nor demand elsewhere which gives just occasion to conclude that all those complaints are groundless All that we can hear of is That two ships of the Hollanders riding in one of the English Harbours called Fair Fore-land alias Sir Thomas Smiths Bay contrary to order before given by the aforesaid Cap. Clark were by him forced to depart from whom he took only 5 Shallops with some other fishing instruments whereby to disable them from farther disturbance of fishing in the English Harbours which could not be much damage unto them the season for fishing at Sea which was their design being then past For the ship called the Wooden Fort from which it is said there was a Whale taken it is affirmed that she was riding within two Leagues of Bell point in the mouth of the Harbour which is a place proper to do mischief to the English in scaring and diverting the Whales but not fit to fish in and the said Captain Clark coming on board and finding a Whale newly killed caused the said Whale as also 2 Shallops to be taken from him being there in contempt of his Majesties Authority after warning given and in contempt of his Highness Commission But the said ship had in her Hold to the quantity of 5 or 6 Whales in Bubber and Einns which he did not meddle withall conceiving them to have been taken at Sea As to the fourth ship for the reasons aforesaid no particular accompt can be given thereof but by all that is alleaged it appears that Captain Clark onely took from her such Utensils as might disable them from fishing in or before the Harbour to the disturbance of the English which His Majesties Subjects hold themselves bound to defend so long as his Majesty shall please to assert his interest and right of fishing William Johnson Kreigt dwelling at Graft saith Pretense Art 61. That one of his ships fishing for Herrings named the Charity Martin Geritzen Masters Mate returning from fishing laden with 21 Last of Herrings See for the Answer to the 61 62 63 64. in pag. 60. and having withal 120 Livres in money which he had received for a Last of Herrings that he had sold was upon the 13. of September 1661. attacqued about 8 Leagues from the Texel and taken by one Captain Sadlington and carried to Colchester where being arrived the said Masters Mate saw his ship unladen and was afterwards constrained to carry her to Wesnoo where he was forced to abandon all Nicholas-Corssen of Adrichen Pretense Art 62. Burgomaster of the Town of Vlaerding complains that one of his ships named the Crescent of which Henry Bastiaens was Masters Mate being laden with 14 Lasts of Herrings was in August 1659. taken by Captain White of Newcastle whose Associates as the said Nicholas Corssen is informed dwelt at Leith in Scotland Aaron de Vosse Pretense Art 63. Burgomaster of the same Town saith that one of his ships fishing for Herring named the Fox of which Joseph Foppen was Master being departed with many other Vessels for the said Fishery and being laden with 285 Barrels and a half of Herring was taken the 11 of July 1660. by the above named Captain Geo. Wotworth of Leith in Scotland whither the ship being brought the said Aaron de Vosse took a great deal of pains and made great solicitation for the Restitution of his ship and Goods as also for the reparation of damages suffered by him but notwithstanding all his pains and solicitatious he could not obtain the restitution of one penny John Martensen Pretense Art 64. Olden Roggen Schepen of the same Town complains That a ship of his of the burden of 54 Tun being gone to Sea to fish and being upon the 13 of April 1659. about 3 Leagues to the Northwards of the Sables was attacqued taken and carried to Newcastle by a Captain called John of London George Andriesen formerly Master of the ship called the St. Peter Pretense Art 65. doth complain That being departed from Middleburgh in Zealand the 18. of December 1661. armed with a Commission from the States to go to the West-Indies was taken and pillaged 10 Leagues from Cape de Cruze in the Island of Cuba by a Captain named James Young who had fitted his ship at London and had his retreat in the Island of Jamaica which Prize was taken the 24. of May 1662. and from the ship which was pillaged there was taken and carried away besides what the Seamen took all the Cargazon and Merchandize that had been entrusted with the Master of the said ship to trade withal so that they find themselves well warranted to demand satisfaction by the Authority of the Original Factors To the 65. Article We say Answ 65. that no such man had any Commission from Jamaica but we have heard that such a person had obtained a Portugal Commission and did Plunder English Ships and all Vessels that he took but durst never go into Jamaica for that Colonel Doyly the Governour of That Place gave Orders to all Men of War to