AN ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES Between the KING of DENMARK, AND THE DUKE of Holstein-Gottorp.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES Between the KING of DENMARK, AND THE DUKE of Holstein Gottorp. WITH Some Reflections upon the present Motions of the Swedes.

IN A LETTER.

LONDON, Printed by Tho. Warren, for Thomas Bennet, at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1700.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES Between the KING of DENMARK, AND THE DUKE of Holstein-Gottorp.

SIR,

YOU are so pressing, when you demand any thing, that one must needs either grant your Request, or fall out with you. But I never saw you so Violent, as since the troubles, which seem to arise in the North, under pretence of the Ex­ecution of the Treaty of Altena. You will by all means [Page 2]have me not only to tell you what the matter in Que­stion is, but also to add my Opinion. 'Tis in vain for me to protest, that I am not vers'd nor skill'd e­nough in these Affairs, for to be able to discourse up­on them pertinently, and to the purpose, you will not admit of this excuse, and therefore as one must Love his Friends with their faults, so I will endeavour to satisfy your Curiosity, as well as I can, being re­solv'd, rather to expose my self to yours, and the pub­lick Censure, then to run the hazard of loosing your Friendship.

For to take things in their true beginning; I must tell you, Sir, that, after the Kingdom of Sweden had separated it self from the Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway, and broke the Act of Union pass'd at Calmer in the Year, 1397. in the Reign of the glorious Queen Margarete; which was express'd in these Words: The Three Kingdoms of the North did join for ever, and were to have but one King for the future; which was also perform'd under Six Kings one after another; Frederick the First, Duke of Holstein and Sleswig, to whom the three Crowns naturally fell, succeeded with­out any dispute to those of Denmark and Norway, having besides, the two Dukedoms re-annexed to his Dominions.

This Prince being Dead, left Four Sons, Christian the Third, who succeeded him in the Throne, Duke Adolf, the Chief of the Branch of the Dukes of Holstein Gottorp, and the Dukes of Jean and Frederick, who dy'd both without Issue. Christian the Third, upon the earnest Sollicitation of the Queen [Page 3]Mother, divided the Dutchy of Sleswig, which is from time Immemorial a Fief of the Crown of Denmark, and the Dutchy of Holstein, which makes a part of the Circle of the Lower Saxony, between himself, Duke Jean, and Duke Adolf, his Brothers, in the Year 1544. in hopes to make his Brother Duke Frederick have the Arch-Bishoprick of Bremen.

Christian the Third dy'd, and left to succeed him Frederick the Second, and Duke Jean, commonly call'd Jean of Sunderbourg, or Jean the Younger, Chief of the Branches of Sunderbourg, Norbourg, Glucksbourg, Ploen, &c. Frederick the Second made a Treaty with this Duke in the Year, 1564 by which the King yielded to him Sunderbourg, Norbourg, Glucksbourg, Arensbeck, Ploen, &c. with some reserves, and the Duke in favour of the King renounc'd the Succession, after his Royal Father, for himself, Heirs and Posterity.

Finally, Duke Jean, Brother to Christian the Third, King of Denmark, and to Duke Adolf, being Dead, Frederick the Second, and Adolf, divided between them, his Lands and Estates, in the Year, 1581. These Treaties, Sir, are the basis and ground to several others made between those Princes, which it will be too long to give a particular account of. I shall only say this: That what is most remarkable in them is, that by them all, until that of the Year 1658. the Dutchy of Sleswig, was al­ways a Fief of the Crown of Denm. and the Dukes there­of receiv'd their Investiture from the Kings of Denmark. As to the Dutchy of Holstein, the Kings of Denmark, and the Dukes have taken and still do take jointly the investiture thereof from the Emperour, which is [Page 4]call'd, according to the stile of the Empire: Investitu­ra Simultanea.

'Tis true, that notwithstanding the forementioned Di­visions and Treaties of Alliance and Union, there has often been Disputes between the Kings of Denmark, and the Dukes of Gottorp; the Dukes having always endeavoured to possess their part of the Dutchy of Sles­wig in full Sovereignty.

It was to that purpose that Frederick Duke of Gottorp, Grand-Father to the present Duke, having Marry'd Sleswig Eleonora his Daughter to Charles Gustavus King of Sweden, joined with this King in the War, he had with Frederick the Third, King of Denmark. This War being terminated by the Treaty of Roeshild, in the Year 1658. and by that of Copenhagen, 1660. and Charles Gustavus having Stipulated by the foremen­tion'd Treaty of 1658. that the King of Denmark, should satisfy the Duke of Gottorp by a particular Treaty. And accordingly the same Year the Treaty was concluded as follows: The King of Denmark resigns to the Duke of Holstein and his Issue Males, Born and to be Born in lawful Marriage, the Right of Vasselage and So­vereignty over the Dutchy of Sleswig, and the Isle of Femern, with all their Dependencies, Promising to fur­nish the Duke with Letters Patent accordingly. This was perform'd the same Year, and ratified and con­firm'd by the Treaty of Copenhagen, 1660. by that of Fontainebleau, 1679. and Finally, by that of Altena, which is the last of all, in the Year 1689.

So that, to have a true notion of the thing you must know, that, before the Treaty of 1658. the Kings [Page 5]and the Dukes were really Joint-Lords of the Dutchy, though each one had his Domains and Vassals apart, ac­cording to the Divisions; but with this difference, that the Dukes being Vassals of the Crown of Den­mark, paid Homage to that Crown for what they possess'd jointly, or separately; whereas by vertue of the Treaty of 1658, the Dukes are made free from this Homage: Nevertheless the Union and Commu­nity are still in force; insomuch, that the King and the Duke are always Joint-Lords. It is true, they don't agree about the extent of this Community; for the Duke pretends that it does not extend farther than to the Nobility and Clergy, but as for the Coun­try, Towns, Bayliwicks, with the Rights Pre-emi­nencies and Prerogatives, the things, says he, are so se­parated and divided, that one has no right in the others Portion.

The King on the contrary pretends that, notwith­standing the Divisions made, and the resignation of the Right of Vassalage, the Community is still in force, and does extend it self, not only to the Nobility and Cler­gy, but also over Towns Bayliwicks, and which is yet more, over the whole Country.

I beg your Pardon, Sir, that I don't examine here all the particular Reasons, that each party gives, for to make good his pretensions, I shall only say what may be said most solid in this matter on both sides. The Duke can say: That, besides the Divisions made by the Treaty of 1658. and by the following Conven­tions and Letters-Patent, the Right of Vassalage and [Page 6]Sovereignty, are so yielded to him in his Portion of the Dutchy, that he has therein a Legislative Power, and a Right of Sovereign Jurisdiction, as to Pardon Criminals, to raise Taxes, to build Forts, and to put Garrisons in them; to make Alliances, and generally all the Rights, that other Sovereigns have, and which they are not accountable of but to God alone; and all this separately and independently, insomuch that the King has nothing to do, or to concern himself with, in the Dukes Portion, no more than the Duke has in the Kings, who has the same Rights.

To which the King may Answer: That this is true in one sense, but not in all, for, if the Sovereignty were absolutely separated, it should be in such a manner; that whatsoever one Sovereign did in his Portion, the other could have no right to hinder, nor to take any No­tice of it. And this can't be; by Reason, that besides the Community, that subsists without dispute over the Nobility and Clergy, the Rights the Duke has over his part, and those the King has over his separately, don't hinder the two Sovereigns from their common Right: viz. the general Inspection over the whole Country.

And this appears: First, by the Treaties of Union, whose aim is, according to the Tenor, the maintaining of Peace and Concord, the good of the Country in Ge­neral, and the Mutual Assistance, which the Sovereigns owe to one another. Now as the principal point of a Go­vernment respects the Good, the Advantage, the Peace, and the Preservation of a Country, it is clear, that the Community in the Dutchy of Sleswig, is still in force [Page 7]as to this point, according to the Treaties of Union. Besides, it is grounded upon Reason; for the Portions of each Sovereign are so intermixed one with another, that if this Union does not subsist, the Country will always be in trouble and disorder. Secondly, this will be more evident by these following expressions of the Letters-Patent: The Estates, Possessions, Liberty, Rights and Priviledges, belonging to the Nobility, Com­monalty, Towns, and in general to all the Subjects, shall remain intire without any Disturbance. Now, don't these Words prove sufficiently, that the two Sovereigns are oblig'd Mutually and Reciprocally to the Preser­vation of the Rights and Priviledges of all the Sub­jects of the Dutchy, and that they have right to take care of the Performance of this Article, each of them in the others Portion separately, and jointly over the whole? And it is, I think, but reasonable; for, if one of them should Act contrary to the Treaties of Union, the other must have right to oppose himself, and he, that contravenes, cannot Answer, that it is his parti­cular Affair, being it is a true General business and a Common Right of two Sovereigns over one Sove­reignty.

The King can say yet more, having some particular Rights, which the Duke has not; for on the one side, the Treaty of 1658. and the Letters-Patent expresly contain: That the Right of Vassalage and Sovereignty, is yielded to the Dukes and their Issue Males, Born and to be Born in Lawful Marriage. From whence it appears plainly, that the Right of Fief, is not Abolish'd but [Page 8]Conditionally, and only suspended in Favour of the Duke, and his Masculine Race. And on the other side, there is an express Condition in the Letters-Pa­tent, viz. That the Dutchy of Sleswig neither shall nor can be Alienated, either in whole or in part, to the pre­judice of the Crown and Kings of Denmark. Now it is certain, that, if the Duke be oblig'd to perform these Articles, the King of Denmark has Reason to have a Watchful Eye upon him for the interest of his Crown, and to oppose himself against all Con­traventions.

And indeed the King has a double Right in this; one, as being Duke of Sleswig, jointly with the Duke of Gottorp, the other, as King of Den­mark, or to say as Sovereign, who has been and can yet very easily be Feudal Lord of the Dutchy. Therefore the Duke in respect to the King, is not to be look'd upon as a Sovereign, without Con­dition or Exception, but as a Sovereign, freed from the right of Homage by his Feudal Lord, to whom he is oblig'd for it, by a Principle of Gratitude, if the thing has been done freely and spontane­ously on the Kings side, and by a Principle of Justice, if it has been done by force and contrary to the Rights and Constitutions of the Government; and to whom he is accountable for his Administration, on the Points beforementioned.

However it be; it is upon the Principles of which I have spoken, that the Duke of Gottorp, who has been brought up at the Court of Sweden, and in a very great aversion to Denmark, has pretended several things, that neither his Father, nor his Ancestors, e­ver had, especially the Right of building Forts and Redoubts, at Holmer and other places, which he had begun two Years ago, or thereabouts, but was hin­der'd from continuing them by the King of Denmark, who caus'd the Works that were begun, to be entirely demolish'd. But as the Duke since, has Married the Eldest Princess of Sweden, Sister to the present King, this Marriage has made a Stricter Alliance between this Crown and him; insomuch that the King of Swe­den has sent about 5000 Men into the Dutchy of Sles­wig, for to put the Duke, as it is believ'd, in a Condi­tion to rebuild the same Forts, by which he pretends to secure his Country. This, Sir; is the matter of Fact.

The Dukes and the Swedes Partisans alledge two Reasons for to justify this their Proceeding; the First is the Second Article of the Treaty of Altena, which they say, shews that the Duke is well grounded in his Pretension. The Article is thus: That the King of Denmark shall re-establish the Duke of Holstein in all his Estates and Goods, in his Sovereignty, Regales and Rights, as, to raise Taxes, to make Alliances, to build Forts, and to put Garrisons in them, &c. The Second is: That the King of Sweden being Gua­rantee of the Treaties since the Year 1658. and especi­ally [Page 10]of that of Altena, and a Party concern'd in it, has thereby a just Foundation for maintaining the Duke in his pretensions. But here are Two Questions to be examin'd; The first is: If the Second Article of the Treaty of Altena, is to be understood in that Sense, which the Duke and his Favourers give it, the Second is, if the King of Sweden has a just Foun­dation for his Proceedings. And hereupon I only will make some general Reflections.

As to the first Head: the first Reflection I shall make is: That how clear soever the Second Article of the Treaty of Altena seems to be in favour of the Duke, it is never the less not without Objection, and to give it the extent, that his Favourers do, the point that respects the Forts, must be ex­press'd thus: With the Right of building Forts where he thinks fit and Convenient, without his Majesty's taking any Notice of it, or finding fault with it.

What I here say, is no Cavil; for, to be con­vinced of the Truth of what I say, one needs but to read the Fifth Article of the same Treaty, which says thus: As for the Ʋnion and A­greements between the two Houses, and the Treaties made till the Year 1675. they shall continue in their full Force and Vigour, and be Religiously kept and ob­serv'd, as well as the Treaty of Westphalia, the North, and Fontainebleau. Who sees not, that how Sovereign soever the Duke of Gottorp be, or what Right soever he has to build Forts, and to put [Page 11]Garrisons in them, &c. he can do nothing but what agrees with these Treaties of Union and Agreements between the Houses, else the Fifth Article is useless. Now the Question is: If what the Duke does be not contrary to these Treaties. This is my first Re­flection.

The Second is: That without descending to the particulars of what I here before have spoken con­cerning the aim and intention of these Treaties of Union, it is enough to say, that all Treaties of Union are by right such, that, although those, who treat should find their interest wholly separateed, one of the Parties can do nothing, that is prejudicial to the other, without infringing the Treaty, else it is no longer a Treaty of Union. This is a matter of Fact incontestable, and being so; with how much more Reason is it, when the Parties have the Rights and Interest in common as in this present Case? The Duke of Gottorp therefore is to prove, not only, that it is for the common interest to build Forts in the Places, where he will build them, and that they are necessary for the good and preservation of the Country, but also, that these Forts cannot be to any prejudice to the King of Denmark his Joint-Lord. And this is, what he can never be able to prove; for on the one Hand he will build them in the middle of the Country, which is useless for its preservation, seeing it is never thought necessary to fortify, but only the Frontiers; on the other hand, it is evident that he Fortifies himself against the King, deprives his Majesty of the Right of the gene­ral [Page 12]Inspection he has over the whole Dutchy, and con­sequently the Duke breaks visibly the Unions and Agreements between the Two Houses, and even the Community; though it should not extend any further than to the Nobility and Clergy: for this Community alone is enough to hinder one of the Sovereigns from doing any thing that concerns the general interest of the Sovereignty, without the consent of the o­ther.

I think the King has reason to tell the Duke: You have Right to build Forts, I confess it; you have Tonningen, of which you are Master without dispute. But that you may do nothing to my prejudice, and that, That, which you design to do, may be for the good of our common Sovereignty, let us agree about the place and the Works; afterwards you may build freely, and I shall be so far from opposing it, that I will assist you.

But the Duke instead of Acting unanimously with the King for the common good, will alone give Laws, explain the Treaties as he pleases, and be the Sove­reign Arbiter in a thing, where he has but only his Vote. This is not yet all; for the Duke is so far from considering jointly with the King what is necessary for the good of their common Dutchy, that he intro­duces there the Hereditary Enemy of the Crown of Denmark, builds Forts and puts them in their Hands, pretending, if I so may say, to give the Sovereignty another Master. Is this the sense and meaning of the Treaties of Union between the Two Houses? [Page 13]Is this the Sense of the Treaty of 1658. and of the Let­ters-Patent?

This is so true, that I would fain ask those, who have advis'd the Duke to Act as he does, if, now the Swedish Troops are in his Country, they are assur'd, that their Master is Master enough to make them leave it, when he Commands. And was there never any Example, that Princes have pay'd dear for their Passion, desire of Revenge, and too much trust? It is to no pur­pose to say, that those Troops shall Swear Fidelity to the Duke, and obey his Orders; for besides, that such Oaths are but useless precautions, according to the practice now adays, one must be willfully blind, not to see, that, whatsoever happens, the King of Sweden will always be Master of his Troops, and the Dukes Orders must submit to his.

It might perhaps be said: That this is the Dukes business, that he is Master at home, and that he has right to make Alliances; but this is a mistake, since he carries the thing too far; for it is chiefly the King's business, whose interest it is to hinder the Swedes from Fortifying themselves in the Heart of his Domini­ons. Besides, can one say, that the Duke is so ab­solute Master, even of his Portion in the Dutchy, that he can dispose of it as he pleases? No, certainly; for without alledging the Community over the Nobility and Clergy, and the Unions, which hinder one of the Sovereigns from undertaking any thing to the prejudice of the other, one needs but read the Treaty of 1658. for to see that the Rights of Vassalage and Sovereignty [Page 14]are not yeilded, but to the Dukes, and their Issue Males, Born and to be Born in lawful Marriage, and not to any other. And therefore the Issue Males once failing, the King remains Sovereign alone and en­ters into all his Rights again, as I have already ob­serv'd. Besides, the Letters-Patent say expresly: That the Dutchy of Sleswig cannot be Alienated, neither in whole nor in part, to the prejudice of the Kings and Crown of Denmark. Finally, As for the Right of making Alliances, it is evident by all that I have said, that what Right soever the Duke has to that, yet nothing can Authorize him to put the Coun­try in the hands or Power of any other, nor by conse­quence to introduce Foreign Troops. For what rea­son then does he charge the Country with new Troops? What War has he to fear? Where, or who are the E­nemies? All Europe is in quiet; and if there be no­thing to fear, why then does he oppress the People or exhaust the Country without necessity? Is this the meaning of the Treaties of Union between the Houses?

Some perhaps will Answer: That the King of Denmark himself is the Enemy of the Duke of Gottorp, because of what pass'd in the time of the late Duke his Father. But the King may re­ply: First, That neither he, nor his Ancestors, have ever been Enemies to the Dukes of Gottorp, but when the Dukes have been theirs, and held Cor­respondence with the Enemies of the Crown of Denmark, contrary to the Treaties of Union, &c. [Page 15]And indeed the Kings of Denmark had good ground then to secure a Country, wherein they have an in­contestable Right, and to hinder the Dukes from admit­ting their Enemies, and giving them entrance into their Kingdom. Secondly, If this reason shall take place, no Treaty of Peace can any longer subsist; for be­sides, the renewing of those of the Union, what do these following Words of the Article of the Treaty of Altena mean? There shall be an Eternal Oblivion of what is pass'd on both sides, this Treaty makes an inviola­ble Friendship, and a most strict Ʋnion between his Ma­jesty and his Highness, as well as between their Heirs and Successors, &c. And who knows not, that, when a Treaty of Peace and Reconcilement is concluded between Princes, it is no longer permitted to renew the Differences pass'd, nor to make War without Grievances?

The Third Reflection is: That the Treaty of Altena, taken in its true Sense, is no more than a Confirmation of that of Copenhagen, 1660. and the others following; as it appears clearly by these Words of the Second Article in that Treaty. .... and in all the Rights, Priviledges, and Pre-eminencies, that he injoy'd by Vertue of the Treaties of Westphalia, and the North, &c. This shews evidently, that the meaning of this Treaty has properly been but only to settle things again upon the same Foot they were before. Now since all things have been re-esta­blish'd, and the late Duke satisfied with it until his Death, why then does he change them at present, and [Page 16]give beginning to new troubles, that may prove dangerous to the whole Country of things by no great importance?

The Fourth Reflection is: That the Duke of Got­torp, or rather his Counsellors, ought to Remem­ber, that there are very many reasons which ought to bind him to the Crown of Denmark, rather than to that of Sweden; for, besides that, which the King and they have in common in their Dutchy, their Treaties of Union, the Disorders and the Prejudice that divisions may produce, and the Friendship there naturally ought to be between Princes of the same Blood, and descended from the same Kings; are not the Dukes of Gottorp, for these many Years, Presumptif Heirs to the Crown of Norway? And is not this pre­sent Duke become Heir to the Crown of Denmark, by the Dutchess his Mother? Now if these Ties don't produce a good Understanding, I know not what can?

I go on to my Second Question, viz. To inquire if the King of Sweden be well grounded to pro­ceed as he does? Hereupon I shall make the follow­ing Reflections.

The First is: That the King of Sweden having no Difference with the King of Denmark; and the Duke of Gottorp, his Ally, injoying in Peace his Domains, Revenues, and his Sovereignty, jointly with the King his Joint-Lord, and separately over his own Vassals, it is surprising that he should run the hazard of kindling a War in the North, and not rather try all [Page 17]means of an Accommodation, especially since the whole difference is but about the Sense of the Second Article of the Treaty of Altena, the ground of which the Parties agree on.

To this they will say, that there have been Confe­rences held and are broke of; but as each Prince Pro­tests, that it is not his fault that these Conferences took no Effect, it is a Mark, that it would be easy to renew them, and yet I think it would be better to attempt it again by way of Negotiation, than by for­cible and unlawful means.

My Second Reflection is: That though the King of Sweden be Guarantee, and Party concern'd in the Treaty of Altena, yet he cannot give it what Sense and extent he pleases.

The Third is: That, to speak properly, the King of Sweden is not Guarantee of the said Treaty, for the true Guarantees, that is to say those, who can have Right to take Notice of the performance of the Trea­ty, are the Mediators, viz. The Emperor, the Ele­ctors of Saxony and Brandenburg; but suppose that the King of Sweden be Guarantee of this Treaty towards the Duke of Gottorp, the King of Great Britain and the States General are so likewise; so that it would be well worth the while to Act unanimously with the Media­tors and Guarantees, or at least not to Act without their consent or advice; and the Duke of Gottorp is so much the more oblig'd to do it, for that it is his interest to manage the Powers, that can do much in this Affair, and will have reason to be offended at his proceeding. That which makes me believe that, they are not con­sulted, [Page 18]is, that I do not see it is for their interest to suffer the Swedes to render themselves more Powerful in Ger­many, than they are, nor that they should put their Troops into a Country, where Denmark has so great a Right.

I know they will Answer, that the King of Sweden is a Young Prince, who has Ambition and Courage. All this I grant. But is this a sufficient Ground to undertake a War upon? For in short, it is very likely that the King of Denmark will not be idle or wanting to himself; and must one not have strong and just reasons, when he undertakes a thing of so great a Consequence? With­out which a Prince renders himself accountable to God of all the Blood, that shall be shed in the War he under­takes, or is the cause of.

Nay, I dare proceed yet farther to say, it is not al­ways enough that a Prince has good reason on his side to begin a War, it must be for some weighty and im­portant Affairs that are worth the while; without which he is still accountable to God for all the Disor­ders, that may ensue.

Now can any Body reasonably say, that to Fortify the Dutchy of Sleswig in one place more than in another, or that the Sense of the Second Article of the Treaty of Al­tena, is a matter that Merits the hazard of involving three Kingdoms in War and Troubles? This being so, I can­not conceive, how any body can advise the King of Sweden to such an Enterprise.

But, Sir, if you will have me speak plainly, I must needs confess, between you and I, that I cannot believe, that only the design to help the Duke to rebuild his Forts, [Page 19]is the true motive that makes the Swedes Act thus, and you can never beat it out of my Head, but that they have some other projects, whereof the Treaty of Al­tena is but the Cloak. However it be, other Princes and Powers in Europe, and especially England, and Hol­land must see, if it be their interest in these present Cir­cumstances of Affairs, to let the War break out in the North, and not to keep the Ballance equal between the two Kings. And how can this be, as long as one makes himself Master of a Country, whereof he has no right, and which to speak properly, belongs to the other.

Moreover, every Body knows that the Treaty of Sweden, with the Town of Bremen, does expire with this Century, and that the King of Sweden might renew his pretensions; that it is not impossible either to sur­prise this Town, or to have gain'd a party therein, to send some Troops from thence into Sleswig, and to throw a greater number into that Country, under pre­tence of making up the number again, that he may have a considerable Army in Germany. I am apt to believe, that the Neighbouring Princes will have a watchful Eye upon these Affairs; for my part, I will rely upon their care, submitting my Reflections to the more Ju­dicious. and my Conjectures to the Events.

I am, SIR,
Yours.
FINIS.

BOOKS Printed for Tho. Bennet.

THE Certainty and Necessity of Religion in General, or the first Grounds and Principles of Humane Duty Established. In Eight Sermons, Preached at St. Martins in the Fields. At the Lecture for the Year 1697. Founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle Esq;

The Certainty of the Christian Revelation, and the Necessity of Believing it, Establish'd in Opposition to all the Cavils, and Insinuations of such as Pretend to allow Natural Religion and Reject the Gospel. Both By Francis Gastril, B. D. and Preacher to the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn.

A Conference with a Theist. In Four Parts Compleat. By William Nichols, D.D.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.