X.

1663.

to have been corruptly interested in preventing a CHAP. settlement, and on that account to have compelled Carew to withhold his claim *, cut short the question of disputed proprietorship with which the Dutch strove to embarrass the case; saying, that "when it should be the question who is the per"son or persons to whom this satisfaction is to be "made, there neither should be wanting a right owner, nor a lawful discharge." +

The Dutch advocate, however, insisted upon the fact of their having already given satisfaction to Pergens, the agent of Courten, who had a letter of recommendation from the late King; and that if there were a question, whether that agent had been duly authorised to receive such compensation, the persons complaining might, under the fifteenth article of the late treaty, prosecute the suit commenced in 1651, by procuration from Sir Paul Pindar, in the law court at Amsterdam, and obtain redress by such means: for this, he contended, was the suit, signified by the words "litem inceptam prosequi," in the treaty of 1662.

Downing, in reply, maintained that Courten had already assigned his interest in the ships, and was moreover a bankrupt at the time he pretended to authorise an agent to obtain compensation; that the letter he had obtained from Charles I. was a mere letter of recommendation, and written, moreover, when the King was in durance, and without means of being informed of the true circumstances

* Temple Works, i. 288, 289.

Downing to Clarendon, Dec. 18. 1663.; Vol. III. p. 265.

X.

1664.

CHAP. of the case; and that the suit mentioned in the treaty could not be that commenced, in 1651, by procuration from Sir Paul Pindar. He was dead; with him died also the procuration; and it was therefore not possible to continue the old suit.* He also contended, that the framers of the treaty should be the interpreters of its meaning; and, in support of his position, that by "lis incepta" was meant the negotiation at the Hague, in opposition to the remedy by the ordinary course of justice, he showed five letters from Secretary Morrice, expressing the King's objection to the prosecution of any legal suit before an interested tribunal, against adversaries so rich as the Dutch East India Company. He also showed a certificate under the hands and seals of the English commissioners who concluded the treaty, and a printed letter, to which were affixed the names of the Dutch plenipotentiaries who signed it, admiting the same interpretation. +

It was,

This alleged admission was denied. however, acknowledged by the States-General (according to Downing) that the words might be construed either way, and therefore "it was as free "for them to take them in the sense they had "most mind to, as for Downing to take them in "the sense he conceived most advantageous for "the English :" and thus stood the question at the commencement of the summer of 1664.

Downing to Clarendon, Dec. 18. 1663; Vol. III. p. 266. May 6. 1664.; Vol. III. p. 316.

+ Ibid. May 20. 1664. Letter CXLVIII, Vol. III. p. 324, et seq. Ibid. Vol. III. p. 325.

X.

I have enlarged upon this case, because, deriving CHAP. from adventitious circumstances an importance to which it had no intrinsic claim, it became one of 1664. the chief ostensible causes of the war between England and the Dutch.

of the

But there were graver causes of dissension. Colonial The English merchants grievously complained of aggressions the means by which the Dutch attempted to extend their colonial power in Africa and the East, and to impede the commerce of other nations. It was averred to be their practice to declare war against the natives with whom the English traded, and thereupon forbid all trade with them and when the war was at length terminated, the English found themselves still excluded, because the Dutch had, by that time, compelled the natives to bind themselves by an agreement to trade with no other people. The aggressions of the natives were also made serviceable for the same purpose. A factory at Commenda and a fort at Cabo Corço, on the Gold Coast, in Africa, both belonging to the Dutch, had been, the one burnt, the other seized by the native Africans. The Dutch declared war, and besieged both places; and they had made these blockades a pretext for interdicting English trade, not only at those places but also along the whole coast, and had detained two English ships (the Charles and the James) which attempted to prosecute their commerce. Downing, on the part of England, main

Downing to Clarendon, Sept. 18. 1663. Letter CXXXV.,

X.

1664.

CHAP. tained the injustice of preventing trade, even at Commenda and Cabo Corço, because at Commenda they had a factory as well as the Dutch, and within the harbour of Cabo Corço was a Danish fort, to which free access could not be refused. He also denied that it was an effectual siege by sea and land; and although he did not pretend to prescribe to the Dutch what means. they should pursue for reducing the places in question, yet he must contend, that unless they prosecuted a bona fide siege they could not be entitled to the privileges of besiegers.

De Witt admitted the injustice of preventing the English trade along the coast; but he defended the prevention at the two places in question, and weakly attempted to raise an argument, in favour of the interdiction of English trade, upon a passage in the late treaty which was strictly applicable only to rebels, and not to nations with whom each power might be at war.*

An

Similar complaints were made respecting the conduct of the Dutch in the East Indies. English ship (the Hopewell) was seized, upon pretence that she was bound for Cochin, on the coast of Travancore, which the Dutch were besieging by sea and land. Another (the Leopard) was seized because bound for Porcat, the Rajah of which, the Dutch asserted, had submitted to them by treaty; and they therefore claimed a right to prevent all foreign ships from trading there. Downing denied that the Rajah had submitted at the time the

* Downing to Clarendon, Feb. 12. 1664. Letter CXXXV., Vol. III. p. 279, et seq.

X.

1664.

English ship was seized; and even if he had sub- CHAP. mitted, the English had a factory at Porcat, secured to them by treaty with the Rajah; and they could not be deprived of the right of trading there, without notice being previously given either by the Rajah or by the Dutch.* The Dutch advocate, shifting his ground, admitted the right of the English to their goods, but claimed for the Dutch the privilege of deciding by what conveyance they should be restored, -a claim which, Downing truly replied, was almost equivalent to a denial of restitution.

Such cases, involving questions of deep interest to the colonial and commercial prosperity of England, were among those which, rousing the anger of the English public, caused complaints to be laid before the Parliament in the spring of 1664. Three great trading companies,—the Turkey, the East India, and the Royal African Companies,— with many unincorporated merchants and traders, concurred in representations which accused the Dutch of obstructing their trade, by pretence of war with the native powers wherever the English had established factories,-by pretence of agreement with native powers for exclusive trade, — by detention of English ships,- by proclaiming themselves lords of the South Sea, and arrogating to

Downing to Clarendon, March 18.1664. "If the Rajah had not surrendered his country," said Downing, "but had made a treaty by "which he bound himself to permit the English to trade therein no "longer, yet, he remaining still prince, the notification thereof must have come from him; and a competent time, at least, given for the removal of the English, with their effects:" but " if he had absolutely given them (the Dutch) his country, the like notification must have been