The Answer of the English, to the Pretensions exhibited by the Subjects of the United Provinces.
THis Complaint doth Answer it self;Ans. 21. that upon complaint to the Admiralty of England, be obtained a discharge of the said Merchandizes; upon [Page 40]caution, and on the 11 of December, 1660. he obtained sentence of Restitution; whereby his caution was discharged, and the Merchandizes declared free; condemning those that had detained them, to restore them: Now, if all the merchandizes came not to his hand, that were in the Ship, (as he saith they did not) yet is there not to be found in the Admiralty any complaint thereof, nor any proof made upon any such complaint of the reality or truth thereof; so that here can be no cause of complaint of the defect of Justice; he himself not prosecuting any farther to have the sentence put in execution.
William Mumma, Preten. Art. 22. Huter Peterson, and Gilbert Skouten, (all Merchants of Amsterdam, and interested in the said Ship, the Maria) referring themselves to what hath been alledged by the said Philip Vanhulten, and his Parteners concerning the said Ship; do say further for a ground of their complaint, That the same Ship was stopt at Toulon for the space of three years and five moneths; and that during all that time, the Owners could not make any benefit of their Stock, nor yet get the Ship discharged. And for as much as by the sentence of the High Court of Admiralty of England of the 5th of December, 1660. it was declared, that the said Ship being wrongfully taken, ought to be restored to the Owner, (as in effect it was, after a tedious pursuit) they think that they have very good grounds to demand satisfaction for all their Expences, Damages, and Interests, beside the restitution of their Merchandizes.
And as to the complaint of William Mumma, Ans. 22. Huter Peterson, Gilbert Skouten, Merchants of Amsterdam, interessed in the said Ship, the Mary: They complain of an arrest laid upon the said Ship at Toulon, and that they lay under that arrest for the space [Page 41]of 3 years, and 5 months, and that during that time, the owners could not make use of their Stock, and that the restitution being made after long persuits, they think themselves well grounded to demand satisfaction for all their expenses and damages.
For the arrest laid upon the Ship at Toulon, it is neither said when, nor by whom; so that we know not the meaning of it, or why any satisfaction for any damages sustained by any arrest at Toulon, should be demanded from England: And as for the damages and expenses sustained by the suit depending here: If there was just cause of the seizure, then was there no cause of the giving them damages or expenses; If there was no cause of the seizure, and the damage and expenses demanded at the time of the sentence, and not given they might have appealed, and have had remedy, but now it is too late.
The said Philip Vanhulten doth represent farther,Preten. Art. 23. that one of his Correspondents in Gibraltar, (having bought at a publique sale 507 Bales of Galles) laded the same in the Ship called the Campien, Peter Johnson Veltmuys Master, and consigned them to the said Vanhulten at Amsterdam. That the Master being arriv'd, and about to 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: [Page 43]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 [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 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 [Page 46]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 Ʋs; 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 Ʋs, 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, [Page 47]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 [Page 48] 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 [...]inlopen, Master) laden with Salt at St. Ʋvall, 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 [Page 50]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, 35 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 [Page 52]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 Merchandizes were not delivered to the said De la Garde, nor to his Assurers, to whose use he had made over the profit of the same: And also that by the long seizure, and other mischances that happened thereupon, their value was diminished by one quarter: Whereas on the contrary, if the said English ship had not done them this Injury there had been got at least 30. per cent. so that the said Complainant doth believe that he may demand to be Indemnified.
The same De la Garde doth complain that one of his ships called the Golden Fortune (Francis Johnson of Amsterdam, Pretense. Art. 36. Master) was taken in July 1655. and carried to Poully by Captain Green, being then in Commission and under Oath to the State of England; and forasmuch as the said De la Garde did make it evidently to appear, that when the said ship was taken and reclaimed, the propriety was solely in himself: and that the said Captain had extreamly abused his Commission, by vertue of which he could not [Page 53] Arm himself but against the Subjects of the King of France. The said High Court of Admiralty by their sentence of the 28. of July 1655. did not onely decree a full release of the said ship, but did also order, That the said Henry Green and all others, should restore the said ship with her appertinences, without any reserve; and also to pay to the Owners the freight which the Master of the said ship was to have had for the carriage of the said Goods that were found aboard her, and taken by the said Henry Green. And though according to the said sentence, the said restitution ought to have been effective, and the payment made; yet so it is, that the said freight was not paid, nor the ship restored until they had taken away, and pillaged more of what did belong to her.
The same person doth further complain,Pretense. Art. 37. That in August 1655. one of his ships named the St. James (Peter Johnson of Amsterdam, Master) returning from the Maderas toward Amsterdam, was assaulted, taken, and carried to Dover, by an English Captain (Edward Goodwin by vertue of a Commission from England. That the High Court of Admiralty, being duly informed of the injustice of the Prize, did give release to the said ship, and by a sentence of the 28. of November, 1655. ordered the said Edward Goodwin to make speedy and full restitution, which was not done; and the said De la Garde did not enjoy the effect of the said sentence, but onely in part; the restitution having been made by little and little, in four Moneths time, and therefore he demands his damages.
To the 34, 35, 36, and 37. Articles, Answ. to 34, 35, 36. & 37. Art. The complaints therein contained, are to be answered as to the complaints of Van Hulten, set forth in the 21 Article; viz. that there is no complaint entered in the Admiralty that can be found; whereas not onely complaint, ought to have been made, but likewise proof of the Truth of such complaint, which being not done, there [Page 54]can be no cause of Complaint now made of the want of Justice, himself not prosecuting any farther to have the said Sentence put in due Execution. Nor can they make any Demand here, in regard the ship was taken in the time when there was Hostility between France, and Cromwell, and the said L'Guard being a French-man.
Godfrey Wassemburgh dwelling at Amsterdam, Pretense. Art. 38. complains that an English ship, commanded by Captain Christopher Mennys, did in the Year, 1658. near the Barbadoes take the ship called the Charity, which he carried with her lading to Jamaica, where he caused the said Goods by Order of the Admiralty of England residing in that Island, to be discharged, and amongst the rest, two Cases of fine Linnen, belonging to the said Wassemburgh. And further, that since Oliver Cromwell, who took upon him at that time the Stile of Protectour of England, knowing that the said ship, the Charity was an English Vessel set out by English Merchants, some living at London, and others in this Country, to whom the Trade of Barbadees was not forbidden, did declare, that the said ship and goods in her were free, so that a good part of the said Merchandizes was restord to the owners, Nevertheless, the said Wassemburgh could never obtain restitution of those two Cases of fine Linnen.
To the 38. Article; Answ 38. We Answer, That it is true, that Captain Mennys did take such a ship which was afterwards restored entire, as it was brought in, save only what might be plundered by the Seamen: (which no care can prevent) but by the Act of Navigation; the whole ship and goods ought to have been Confiscated, but the Intention of the Law was deluded by some English Men, pretending a Propriety in the goods, who never since made any demand of the goods mentioned in this Article.
John Van Wickford, and his Associates, Pretense. Art. 39. do complain, that one of their (ships called Campen was attacqued, taken, and carried to Jamaica by Three English Fregats, and that the said ship was since released after it was known that it was not laden with any goods of Contrabanda: But in the mean while there was taken out of her a Quantity of goods, and by reason of this stop, the ship could not accomplish her Voyage, for which they demand Satisfaction.
To this 39. Article, Answ. 39. we Answer as to the Preceding Complaint.
William Van Meekerel and his Associates, Pretense. Art. 40. Proprietours of the ship called the Peace, and of her Cargazon, do complain that on the 26 of Feb. 1655. the said ship having taken in some Slaves upon the Coast of Guyne, and that she had put them off for Sugars at the Barbadoes, where she had also traded for Elephants Teeth, and other Merchandize, was attacqued upon the open Seas, and carried to the Barbadoes by a Parliament Vessel of England, of the Squadron of Admiral Penn. And although the Interressed made their Complaint, and represented the Injuries and Wrongs that had been done them unto Cromwell; which Complaints were from time to time seconded by the continual Instances of the Embassadours by Order from the States, yet so it is, that they could never obtain any satisfaction, neither for ship nor goods, for which they now demand it.
To the 40. Article, we Answer, That the said ship,Answ. 40. the Peace, was taken as trading contrary to the Act for Navigation, and according to the practise of the Holland West India Company; who constantly give Letters of Mart to all their ships, to take Vessels that trade to any of their Plantations.
Abraham, and John Clawsen Ritsert, Merchants, Pretense. Art. 41. dwelling at Rotterdam, do represent, that the ships, Red Lion, and Golden [Page 56]Port, upon each of which they had Ensured 2000 Florens departing from Bourdeaux in May 1661. and arriving at New found Land, the 14. of June following, were there taken by an English ship of War, called the Jersey; Richard Hacks Captain, who pillaged her, and took away her best, and most Valuable Goods and sent her afterward to Portsmouth And though upon the 5. of October following, the same ship and Goods were declared free; this yet notwithstanding, the Restitution was not made but in part, the Goods that were taken away remaining in the hands of those that took them. Now forasmuch as in the Quality of being Ensured, they were condemned the 30. of April 1661. by two several sentences of the Commissioners for Sea Affairs, and Assurance of Rotterdam, to re-imburse, and indemnifie the interessed in proportion to what they signed, for the loss that they have suffered upon the said Merchandizes: And that the said loss hath been since valued by Arbitratours, upon the ship, the Red Lion, at 44. and the ship, the Golden Port, at 38. per Cent. They demand Satisfaction.
To the 41. Article, Answ. 41. We say that the ship was taken trading contrary to the Act of Navigation, and therefore Legally Confiscate; and if any thing was restored; it was of Grace, and though the Interessed might have recourse upon their Assurers, who were obliged to Indemnifie the Assured against all kind of Losses, yet the Insurers had no colour of pretence against the English.
Paul Timmers, Pretense. Art. 42. and his Associates dwelling at Rotterdam, do say, that one of their ships, named the Stroy Yoncker (Jum Alberts Master) coming for Bourdeaux laden with Wines, and Aquavitae, was in the month of July, 1661. attacqued, and taken near the Maaz, and carried to Dover by an English Captain, named John Penny; and though it were easie to make it appear Evidently that the said ship and goods were taken from the Owners, without Justice and Reason; so that [Page 57]they ought to have promised Restitution without delay, especially such earnest and pressing Instances being made for the same: And that the Injustice of this Action was sufficiently represented to the High Court of Admiralty, who ought to have taken Cognizance of it; Nevertheless, the said Interessed, after they had taken much pains, and been at much expence, were obliged to Compound with the said Captain Penny, upon very unjust Conditions, and to give him 200 l. sterling, though the Wine were in part spoiled, and that the rest had lost the half of its value, after so long a time.
To the 42. Article, We say,Answ. 42. That if the Complaynant had not the patience to attend the due proceedings of the Admiralty, for a decision of his pretended right, but Anticipated it by a voluntary composition, with the Captain; It must necessarily be concluded that he was conscious of his guilt, and therefore durst not stand the Tryal.
Simon Tunemans, Pretense. Artic. 43. and his Associates, dwelling at Rotterdam, do Complain, that having in July, 1662. sent one of their ships named the Swan, to the fishing of Whales in Green-Land, was hindred from the beginning of his fishing, See 58. for this Answ. and so evilly entreated by an English Man of War that took all his Shallopps, Cordage, and Nets, Oares, and Sails, and all his necessary Instruments; that finding himself no longer able to continue his fishing, he was constrained to retire, and return to Rotterdam, for which he demands Indempnity.
The same doth further represent,Pretense. Art. 44. that another of his ships named the Collier, (Gerard Cornelisen Master) coming from Bourdeaux, was taken by an English Man of War, and carried to Portsmouth; See 59. for this Answ. and he alledgeth, that the damage he received in that Encounter ought to be made good to him, cum omni causâ & accessione.
Henry Van Leith, and his Associates, Pretense. Art. 45. dwelling at Dort. doe [Page 58]represent that in the year, 1661. one of their ships, called the Prince William, (John Werbeck Master) being at Anchor at the entrance of the Harbour at Plymouth, under the Canon of the Castle, was attacqued by the Burgesses, and Inhabitants of that place, who took from him his Sails, Cables, Cordage, and other necessaries. That the said Burgesses not daring to bring the said ship into any Harbour, because they knew there was none could approve of the Pyracy; extorted from the Master of the ship, by way of Ransom the summ of 26l. 10. shil. sterling.
To the 43,Answer to 43, 44, 45. 44, 45. Articles, we can give no Answer, untill the Persons complained of, be Named, and the Circumstances more Explained.
The said Henry Van Leith, Pretense. Arti 46. and his Associates say yet further, that on the 2. of June following, the same ship being Arriv'd before the same Harbour of Plymouth was again Attaqued by a Captain, named Stephen Evers, apparently at the Instigation of the said Burgers; who took him and carried him into Ireland, and though they made the most Active Instances, and all possible endeavours for it, yet so it is, that they could not obtain the Restitution of the ship or Merchandizes, nor the value of the one, or of the other.
To the 46. Article, Answ. 46. That Stephen Evers was no English Man, nor had any English Commission, and therefore we cannot Answer for Him.
The Proprietours of the ship named the steeple of Dort, Pretense. Arti. 47. as also Jacob Vandergraff, Isaac Biesheuvel, and their Associates, as Freightours, and Proprietours of the goods, do say, that the said ship being sunk at Harwich, the Burgers of the Town, and the Souldiers of the Garrison of the Castle, instead of succouring and comforting the Master of the said ship in his misfortune, as they were obliged, did cut his Sails and Cordage, and put him quite out of condition to set sail; and [Page 59]after this, they pillag'd his ship, and took away the goods that were laden upon her; so that the Interessed could not recover any thing, neither in part, nor in whole, notwithstanding all the endeavours they used; so that it cannot be denyed but that they ought to be Indemnified, with Costs, and Interests.
To the 47. Article, That no time is mentioned, Answ. 47. nor persons named that are complained of; nor is it alleadged, that any Appeal was made for Justice.
John Pychen, Theodore Van herweere, and their Associates, Pretense. Arti. 48. all Merchants, dwelling at Dort, do say, that one of their ships called the Prince, whereof (Laurence Davids Captain) who was taken near the Caribes, by five English ships, and brought to the Barbadoes, under pretence that the said Laurence Davids might discover the design the English had to surprize the Island of Jamaica. And forasmuch as by reason thereof, the said ship could not finish her Voyage, they thereby lost the profit which they did infallibly believe to make, as well upon the Cargason, as upon the Return; and on the contrary, by that hinderance, they suffered great Losses, and pretend to be Indemnified.
To the 48. Article, It is Answered,Answ. 48. That the Complainant doth not affirm that ever he made any demand of Satisfaction; nor have we any Evidence that he received any Injury, and therefore we think the Article to be frivolous, and out of time.
Albert Arentsen, Merchant, Pretense. Arti. 49. dwelling at the Brill complains that about the middle of Sep 1659, a bark of his serving for the fishing of Herrings did meet between the Maaz, and the Sea, an English ship, commanded by one Captain Hamilton, who in a frolick, without any offence in any manner offered him, Boarded him, took him, and carried him to Yarmouth.
To the 49.51,Answer 49. 52, 53, 54, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 70, 71, 72. We Affirm the several Actions therein mentioned, were not done by English Commissions; and if they were done by any Foraign Commissions, Portugal, Swedes, or any Other; we are no more responsible for them, then the Hollanders would be for those Hundred Ships and their Charges that were taken by Hollands Ships, and Persons, from the English, by Spanish Commissions, in the time of the late Warr between the King of Spain, and Cromwell.
Leonard Licoghton, Pretense. Art. 50. and John Ham, Merchants, dwelling at Enchuysen, do complain that in August. 1660. an English Captain, (called George Wotworth) did seize at Haymouth near Berwick, and carried away, two ships for Herring fishing belonging to them. The One, the Prince of Aurange (Femme Claessen Master) and the Other, the Three Golden Herrings, Commanded by the Master-Mate, Peter Johnson, which were unladen, and their Cargason sent to London, where it was sold; It is true, that after great instance and long solicitation, the Commander of Haymouth, did release the said ships, and referred them to Captain Bronsert, of Munekedam, but they never got the rest, nor satisfaction for the Herrings, Netts, Cordage, Anchors, Victualls, and other necessaries of the ships which were utterly lost; as also a 9th part of the said ships, which was condemned by the High-Court of Admiralty of the North-Holland, as an acknowledgement, and that without prejudice to the Charge which the said Captains have been at to bring home the ships into their Country.
To the 50. Article, Answ. 50. We never heard of the Two Ships therein named, and less of the Men, called Commissioners of Haymouth, who are said to have released them. Haymouth being a very small Village, consisting of a Dozen or Sixteen Fisher-Mens Hovells.
Leonard Licoghton, and John Ham, do represent further,Pretense. Arti. 51. that in the Year 1659. one of their ships, namely the Forest, (Herman Janssen of Enchuysen, Master) was attacqued, taken,See for the Answer to these Pretenses, pa. 60. carried away, and sold, at Yarmouth, by an English Man of War and that the ship was likewise sold with her Herrings, Salt, Caske, and other necessary Instruments for fishing, to one George England Alderman of Yarmouth, interessed in the said Man of War.
The same person saith further,Pretense. Arti. 52. that in the year 1660. the same Man of War, (Wotworth) took one of his Barques at the Herring-fishing, named the Faith, (Cornelius Barentson Kelocker Master) and carried it to Montross in Scotland.
Peter Peterson, (Masters Mate) dwelling at Enchuysen, Pretense. Arti. 53. complains that in the Year 1659 he was taken with his ship named the Green Tree, fishing for Herrings, laden with seven Last and a half of Herrings, by an English ship, of which the Captain was called Cooler, who carried him to Ely.
Roemer Cant, Burgomaster, and Cornelius Mossel, Schepen of Enchuysen, Pretense. Arti. 54. do represent, that in September 1655. a Man of Warr that went from Dunkirk, and was mann'd from Thence, took Two of their ships upon the Sea, fishing for Herrings, the One named the St. Peter, of which (Reyn Engëlse of Egmont was Master.) And the Other named the Turtle, (of which Cornelius Janssen was Master;) which Two ships were carried to Dunkirk; That they have made very many pressing Instances for release of the said Two ships, but could obtaine nothing, onely it was permitted them to make an Agreement; so that the said Interessed to obtain their release, were constrained to pay the summ of 5277. Livres, 3. Solz, of which they demand Restitution, with Indempnity, for the rest of their ships.
Cornelus Olphersen, dwelling at Enchuysen, Pretense. Art. 55. Complains that in the Year, 1655. a ship of his named the Arms of [Page 62]Nimmegen, of which Richard Trexe of Enchuysen was Master, coming from Roüen laden with French Goods, was taken in the Channel, by an English Captain (one Green.) That the Goods were declared Prize, but with express condition that the freight should be paid to the Master of the ship: And though in pursuance thereof, he ought to have received the said freight, and to be put into the condition he was in before he was taken, as to his Cordage, Anchors, Sails, Cables, and other necessaries of his ship, which the said Captain and his men had taken from him; yet so it is, that after a great deal of pains and solicitation, and expence, he never recovered more then 2000 Florens.
To the 55. Article, Answ. 55. We say that the Complaynant had his freight adjudged him; and if it were not fully paid him, why did he accept of less, without appealing to the Court, who would have seen their own sentence fully executed?
Gerard Seager, Pretense Art. 56. Burgomaster of Enchuysen and his Associates, Owners of, and interessed in the ship called the Fortune, do say, That the said ship departing from the Texel on the 16 of December, See this Answ p. 60. 1659. was about two days after met at Sea, and fallen foul upon by two other ships near the Isle of Wight; so that being very Leaky and unfit to pursue her Voyage, she was constrained to put into the first Harbour; and for avoiding present danger, took her Course for Weymouth in Portland, where being arrived in the Road, she cast Anchor, with intent to send out one to ask leave of the Governour before she entred the Port. Whereupon the 20. of December, in the morning, three English Vessels came directly to her; One of which was Commanded by Captain Peter Morell, who without having received any offence, took her, pillaged her, and brought her to Dunkirk: where the Associates of the said Captain plundred her of all that was left, as Victuals, Cordage, &c.
Symon Semeynsse, Pretense. Art. 57. Burgomaster of the said Town of Enchuysen, and his Assiciates say that in September 1659. a ship of theirs serving in the Herring fishing, called the Aaron, (John Arentsen, Master) coming from the Fishery, laden with about 44 Tun of Salt Herrings, and 10 Tun of Fresh Herrings, was attacqued and taken at Sea, and carried to Yarmouth by an English man of War, called Alexander Simmons. That the same Man of War having taken out of the said ship all the said Herrings, both fresh and salt; as also all the Sails and Cordage; after he had kept the said Master in Arrest 7 Moneths, so that he was utterly ruined; he constrained him to come to a Composition, and to oblige himself by the interposition on of one John Gardiner to pay him the summ of 21 7 Florens, 2 Solz.
To the 57. Article, Answ. 57. The Complainant confesseth he compounded with the Captain, and voluntarily agreed by the interposition of his own friend, and therefore can have no cause for complaint of Injustice done him.
Heerge Peters Molenear, and his Associates, Pretense. Art. 58. dwelling at Enchuysen, do say, that one of their ships called the Cornmill, of which Peter Cornelissen was Commander being arrived in Greenland, See this Answ. p. 65. was discovered the 6 of July 1662. far enough to the North from the remotest point of any part of the Coast, and 24 Leagues at least from the Bay Disco, by an English Fregat named the Mary, of which John Clarke was Captain. That the said Captain obliged the said Commander to come aboard him, where he kept him Prisoner 3 days and nights, without any reason, and notwithstanding all the instances, intreaties, and desires, of the said Commander.
That after this the said Captain carried the said Commander in his ship toward the Bay, where the English Admiral lay, and would not dismiss him until he had taken [Page 64]from him by force 4 Shallops, 12 Fishing Lines, 20 Nets, 8. Harpons, 4 Shallop sails, and all the Oars, and other necessaries for the whole Whale fishing, which cast him into such disorder, that in the most proper season of the Fishing he was constrained to abandon it, and return home.
Cornelius Peterson, Pretense. Art. 59. Lowen, and Peter Adrianson Van Ley, dwelling at Purmerent, do represent that one of their ships, named the Wooden Fort, on the 2 of August 1662. being fishing for Whales about 5 or 6 Leagues from the Coast toward the Bay of Belsont, and having the day before taken a Whale 16 Leagues from Land, was attacqued by 2 English Vessels of which one was a Fregat commanded by Captain John Clark and the other a Pinnace, of which John Piper was Captain, and after they had committed several outrages upon him, he was carried by them into the Bay of Belsont to the English Admiral, John Mandrey; and though the said Admiral could not pretend any right to the Whale that had been taken; and confessed he had nothing to pretend to it, if it were taken 14 or 15 Leagues from the Coast; and notwithstanding all the Mariners of the ship the Wooden Fort, did declare that it was taken at that distance, yet the said Admiral did not onely take the said Whale, but also the Finns of another; 2 Shallops, 12 Lines, 24 Oars, 24 Nets, 4 Harpons, and many other Instruments necessary both for Fishing and Navigation; so that the said ship finding her self by that means disabled to continue her fishery, the Interessed have reason to demand reparation for their damages.
Jacob Jeunissen Winding and his Associates, Pretense. Arti. 60. do say, That on the 3 of August 1662. one of their ships named the Prince William, of which William Jacobson was Commander, being fishing for Whales in Greenland, the said ship was driven by a small Wind near to Belsont, within 5 or 6 Leagues of the Coast; and there met Captain John Clark in Company with another fair English ship, well mounted.
That the said John Clark did first make a shot over him, and then Another directly At him, and so forced the Commander to come aboard him. And while the said Commander was aboard the said Fregat, with some of his Seamen, the men of the Fregat entred the ship Prince William, and took out of her by force, as follows, 2 Shallops, 18 Lines, 23 Nets, 10 Harpons, 10 Foregangers, 20 Oars, 2 Sails, 4 Hatchets, 1 slitting Knife, and other Instruments; and moreover, the Captain extorted from him for his two shot which he had made, 20 Florens in money, 4 Cheeses, 2 Barrels of Brandy, and a bag of Grout; so the said Commander being by reason of this pillage, put out of all condition to continue his fishing, was constrained to return home.
John Claessen, Merchant and his Associates, dwelling in the Ryp, do complain, That one of their ships named the Fisher, of which John Arissen Brack was Commander, being in June 1662. arrived in Greenland to fish for Whales, had there the ill luck to receive such damage and disorder by the Ice, that to stop his Leaks, and caulk his ship, he was constrained to draw near the Coast; and in pursuit thereof, the said Commander the 26 of the said Moneth, entred with his ship into the said Harbour, called Green-Hauberg, in Spits-Bergen, and caused his ship to be there Carined, to stop her Leaks; where the said ship being thus repaired, and ready to return to the fishing, the said Captain John Clark came directly upon him, and took from him 4 Shallops, 9 Lines, 15 Nets, 24 Oars, some Sails, and Masts, a great quantity of Hatchets, and all sorts of Knives and Ʋ tensils necessary for fishing; so that by this means the said Commander found himself disabled to continue the fishing.
To the 58, 59, and 60. Article, It is answered;Answer to 58, 59, 60.
That the Country of Greenland was discovered by the English in the raign of Queen Elizabeth; about the beginning of King James his raign, the Kings Standard [Page 66]was set up, and the dominion thereof assumed to be in His Majesty, by the name of King James his New-Land: in pursuance whereof, his said Majesty did by several Acts of State, assert his right thereunto; and particularly the 10. of January 1613. his pleasure was signified unto Sr. Noel Caroon Knight, Ambassadour for the States of the United Provinces, as followeth; viz. That the said Country of Greenland, together with the fishing of Whales upon that Coast, and all other Commodities arising from thence, do properly belong to his Majesty, Jure Dominii, His Subjects having been the first discoverers thereof, as was made manifest unto the Lords of his Majesties Privy Council; and possession taken in the name, and on the behalf of his Majesty, by erecting his Highnesses Standard on that place, and therefore that without leave first obtained from his Majesty, or from those to whom his Highness had granted the sole use and possession thereof, it is not lawful for any other of his Majesties Subjects (much less for Strangers) to fish or abide there: And whosoever should presume to attempt any such thing, (as it appeared the Hollanders had done) especially being forewarned as they had been the year before) if thereupon any prejudice or loss did happen unto them, either in their persons, or goods, by being forc'd to depart, or having their Commodities taken from them, they cannot justly complain of any wrong, for they came thither upon their own perils.
And in purfuance of their Right, his Then Majesty and King Charles the First, of blessed Memory, and their Subjects, by their Authority, having constantly asserted and maintained the fishing in Bell Sound, Green [Page 67]Harbour, and the Harbours and places adjacent, against all Nations which have intruded, and in particular, in the year 1618. in the defence and exercise of this 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 [Page 68]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 [Page 69]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 [Page 70]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 [Page 71]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 apprehend him, for his Insolence to a Vessel called, The Blessing of London.
Cornelius de Lincourt, Pretense. Art. 66. hath presented to their Lordships a memorial of Goods, that his Father Jacob de Lincourt deceased, left in the Island of St Christopher, on the 5th of April, 1655, which have been detained by him that commands for the King of England in the same Island; under pretense, that there ought to be a recovery made upon them, for the losses which the English pretend to have suffered by the said Cornelius de Lincourt during the late War with England; because he had taken some of their Buildings: And forasmuch as the Commissioners established over the said goods, to wit, Captain William Tresilgem, Captain Samuel Wintrym, and Master William Jordan, have declared that the Goods of the deceased are in their custody; and of what Value they are, according to the accompt of Sugars, and Indico, which they have Esteemed at 306100l. of Sugar, and 750l. of Indico, he demands Restitution with Indemnity.
To the 66. Article; If the complainant have Right, Answ. 66. he must seek it upon the Island, by course of Justice, and his pretence ought not to be admitted against our Nation untill that be denyed Him.
Leonard Johnson, Pretense. Art. 67. formerly Master of the ship called the [Page 72] Martin of Rossum, of Middleburgh, hath represented to the States an Authentick Copy Translated out of English, being in effect, a Declaration of the Governour for the KING of Great Brittain in Jamaica, by which it is testified that the said Leonard Johnson Arrived the 16th of December, 1661. in that Harbour, with his ship and Company, in a miserable condition, having no more money then 50. Ryalls of Eight, to supply their necessities, he therefore obtained leave to fell 30 Negroes; but afterwards desiring leave to sell all the rest of the Negroes he had, it was refused him, and he had his Pass-port to be gone: But notwithstanding, after his sayling from thence, the 18th of February 1662. he returned thither again, by mischance, two dayes after, and was presently Borded by some Seamen belonging to his Majesties Fregat, called the Diamond, commanded by Captain Richard Whiting, according to the Instructions of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, Lord High Admiral of England: But the Governour having put all under a Guard, caused the ship to be visited, and finding that the said Leonard Johnson in the sale of his Negroes, had not exceeded the Number that was allowed him, and because there was no more found in his ship then 260. pound, of which 218. pounds was carried to the Governour, and 50. Negroes, who were rated at 478. pounds sterling, which summ being added to the 218. pounds, makes in all the summ of 696. pounds sterling, which the said Governour did remin to his Royall Highness, or to his Order.
To the 67. Article; Answ. 67. The Admission of the complainants Ship first to Jamaica, was a noble excess of charity in the Governour, who took upon him to dispence with the Law, to supply the complainants needs; That the taking of the ship afterwards, was what the Captain might, and ought to do by Law, and his Duty; And if the complainant had any thing restored him, he owes thanks for that, and ought not to complain, that a part was detained, when the whole was Legally consiscable for [Page 73]his trading with our Plantations, contrary to the Act of Navigation.
All the Interessed in the ship named the St. John, Pretense. Arti. 68. of which Leven Kachlaer of Trevere in Zealand was Master, do complain that the said ship departing from Trevere in the month of January, 1662. Bound for France, See this Answ. p. 60. was met near the Coast of England, by a Fregat Commanded by Captain Jacob Vangaber, who made himself master of the said ship on the 29th of January, 1662. and carried her to Rye in England.
It is further represented, that Bartholomew de Jager, Pretense. Arti. 69. of Middleburgh, Master of the ship called the Fortune, (a Vessell of 150. Tun, or thereabouts) departed form Middleburgh, April 2d 1652. with the said ship and lading, confisting of 450. Quintalls (measure of France) of salt, of St Martin. Twelve pieces of Aquavitae of Rochel, which were laden at Rochel, by Christian Denis, and Maquet, and belonging (as it appears by the Bills of Lading) to Regnier Martensse, and Jacob Lievens, Merchants of Middleburgh, to go for Nieuport; and that being Arriv'd upon the 5th of the same moneth, before the Harbour of that Town, at break of day he came to an Anchour, and that early in the morning, Three ships of the Parliament of England came up directly to him, namely Two of the squadron of Vice-Admiral Goodson, who lay before Ost-end, and the third coming from the West, who approaching the said Vessel, made several shot at her, so that the Master, and his men were fain to leave the ship to save their lives; having first nailed his Sea-brief to the main-mast, to shew that both ship and goods were free. He did also cause to be planted a white flagg, joyning with it One of the Prince of Orange's, to notifie that all was free; But this signified little, although the said Lievens had also given to understand that the ship was his; for the men of the said Parliament Vessel came up notwithstanding with their Shallops to the said ship the Fortune, under protection of their Cannon, and [Page 74]took away Anchors, Cordage, Sails, Cable, &c. and set fire at last both to ship and lading.
To the 69. Article, Answer 69. we say, That Vice-Admiral Goodson Commanded no Squadron of Ships in the Year, 1662. and therefore if any thing was done of what is complained at that time, it must be done by some other Nation.
Hierosme Cornelissen of Flushing, Pretense. Art. 70. declareth likewise, that he departed from Flushing, on the 17th of May 1657. under the Convoy of John Thyssen for Ostend, laden with bay-salt; and that about two Leagues from the Town of Ostend, two Fregats came up to him, the one Commanded by Captain Lambert, and the other by Captain Groff, the latter of which pillaged him: But however the said Captain promising that he would restore the whole to him,See for the Answer to the Pretenses 70, 71, 72. in pa. 60. provided he would give him a Declaration that he had not been damnified by him; which the said Cornelissen consented to; but after the giving thereof, he could get no more of him then nine Livres de gros: His losse amounting (besides that) to 13 Livres, 16 Solz, and 9 Deniers de gros; and that of his man to four Livres de gros, of which he could not obtain Restitution.
All the Interessed in the 19 ships that went from Flushing the 6th of August, Pretense. Arti. 71. 1656. under the Convoy of Captain John Tyson, do represent that the said ships being Arrived near Blanckenburgh, did there meet 6 or 7 English Vessels, who attacqued them, being laden with Wine, Brandy and Salt, and fired upon them furiously, took and sunk 5 or 6, so that there Arrived at Ostend but 13, or 14.
Cornelius Janssen, Pretense. Anti. 72. Peter Bogart, John Andreessen, Masters of ships dwelling at Middleburgh, and Flushing, do Remonstrate, That sailing in the Year, 1659. with their ships and [Page 75] Merchandizes which were not Contrabanda, towards Ostend, were driven back by certain ships in such manner, that they were constrained to return to the place from whence they departed, and where they were freighted which did them a great deal of wrong, and they have reason to demand to be Indemnified.
The ship named the Town and Country Adjacent, Pretense. Artic. 73. belonging to the West India Company of the Chamber of Groninghen, was taken by the English in the Channel, with the Merchandizes thereunto belonging, and Depending.
When we know the Captain that took her,Answ. 73. and time when, and where any claim hath formerly been made, an Answer shall be given.
FINIS.