A REPLY OF Sir GEORGE DOWNING Knight and Baronet, Envoy Extraordinary from His Majesty of Great-Britain, &c.

TO THE REMARKS OF THE Deputies of the Estates-General, UPON HIS MEMORIAL Of December 20. 1664. Old Stile.

LONDON, Printed Anno Dom. 1665.

A REPLY of Sir George Downing, Knight and Baronet, Envoy Extraordi­nary from His Majesty of Great Bri­tain, &c. To the Remarks of the Deputies of the Estates General, upon his Memo­rial of the 20th of December, 1664. Old Stile.

THE under-written Envoyée Extra­ordinary of His most Sacred Majesty of Great Britain, &c. having sent to the King His Master a certain Book printed at the Hague, and Entituled, Succinct Remarks and Deductions made by the Deputies of the Estates General of the United Provinces, upon his last Memorial, and approved by the said Estates, and ordered by them to be delivered by their Agent de Heyde to the Ministers of several Kings residing here, and to be sent to their Ministers abroad with this Direction and Instruction, pag. 3. To the End, [Page 2] that they continue duly to inform those Kings of the foundation of the Alliance which this State hath with them, and of the true State of Affairs; and to the End that they do cause Their Majesties to comprehend the sincerity of their Intentions and Procedure. And His Majesty having also been informed, That the said Book hath accordingly been sent and delivered, hath commanded him His Minister to say thereupon, by way of Reply, as followeth.

And first, as to the bitter Invectives, Re­proaches, and foul and railing Language where­with the said Book is stuffed from the beginning to the End; It is to be remarked, that it is an usual thing here (however strange it may seem elsewhere) to revenge themselves in this kind up­on any with whom they have Disputes. How ma­ny Resolutions hath he seen of the Estates Gene­ral, wherein the Subjects of other Princes having addressed themselves to the Kings their Masters, upon their just Complaints against the People of this Country, and the said Complaints thereup­on brought to them in their Name, and by their Order, they have not contented themselves with the not doing them Justice, but fallen upon their Persons with railing Language, treating them with the Title of Impudent, &c. And having had lately a Dispute with the Bishop of Munster, a Prince of the Empire, they thought it not enough to take the Sconce or Place in Question, but in their Letter to the Emperor of the 10th of June 1664. and which was printed and sold pub­lickly [Page 3] here at the Hague, they treated the said Bishop with the Titles and Characters of Ʋnjust Ʋsurper, great Impudence, and that his humour rendred him incompatible, if not to His own Sub­jects, yet at least to all His Neighbours: But cer­tainly, 'tis a practice very little to the reputation or advantage of any that use it: Such as have a good Cause in hand to plead, will not spoil it by railing Language, which renders suspect what­ever is said, as proceeding from Passion, and not from Reason; but such as have an ill one, when they cannot answer ad Argumentum, they turn themselves ad Hominem: And as to himself, he is not here as a particular Person, but as the Mi­nister of the King his Master: And he is com­manded to say, that there was not one word in his said Memorial, that passed the bounds and limits either of his Orders, or of Civility, and good Manners: And as whatever Evil Treatment by Word or Deed is done to any publick Minister residing in any Court in the Execution of his Of­fice and Instructions, is done to his Master, That His Majesty takes them all as said against his own Royal Person, Crown, and Dignity, and looks up­on it as a piece of Turcism, and of the way of those of Algiers, where when any Dispute arises between them and any other Prince or State that hath a Minister residing there, they sometimes revenge themselves upon the Minister first, with reviling Words, and then with blows; and the one is as law­ful as the other: Nor is the King Himself, His Par­liament, and the whole Nation in General, better [Page 4] treated therein than he; and is this the way to ac­commodate matters? or is this a proper prepa­ratory and Introduction to that Extraordinary Embassy from France to England for that End?

And as to the matter of the said Book, page 5th, 6th. The Deputies endeavour to justifie the Proce­dure of the Estates General, in not communicating to him their Resolution, to which his last Memo­rial was an Answer, upon this double ground; First, That if he the said Envoy Extraordinary would have had it, or any Copy of it, that he ought to have sent to their Secretary for it. Se­condly, That it was not their intention to answer to his Memorial, and that he had nothing to do with that Resolution. As to the first: Every Court hath its Customs; and he doth declare, That to his best remembrance in the many years he hath re­sided here, he never received any one Resolution of the Estates, but what was sent to him by their Agent de Heyde, or some other Officer of theirs; and that having once for hast sent to their Secre­tary for the Copy of a Paper that did concern him, answer was made, That they could give none till they had order; and that when they had such order it should be sent. As to the Second: Was not the said Resolution Entituled, Extract out of the Register of the Resolutions of the Estates General, upon the Memorial of Sir George Downing? And doth it not begin, Having de­liberated by way of Resumption upon the Memo­rial of Sir George Downing, &c. And was not the whole Body thereof, To make appear the con­trary [Page 5] of what had been by him alleadged in his said Memorial? And how is it then, That he had nothing to do with it? Was he not here upon the accompt of the King his Master, to do his business, to maintain his Cause upon the accompt of the Disputes between him and this State? And shall such a Resolution be Printed and pub­lished, and given to other Ministers by them, and can it be said that he had nothing to do with it? Whereas in truth he was the principal, and concerned in the first place, and other Ministers only Secondarily; and that their Communicating the same to them, and not to him, lookt rather like a Surprisal of them and their Master, then otherwise.

For what is further said, page 6th, of his ha­ving distributed his Memorial, 'twas not he but the King his Master that sent it to other King, and Princes: All he did was to give it to some other Ministers: And what is more or­dinarily and constantly practis'd, here and in other Courts, then for publick Ministers upon occasion to give one another Copies of their Memorials and Papers? But this was not done till it had been first given to the Estates General; and they in printing and publishing their An­swers, without delivering them to him or the King his Master, did thereby break off all further Treaty between him and them; and to be a Mi­nister of the first, second or third ranck makes no difference as to this, they are alike sent to the State, and to deliver their Papers in the first [Page 6] place to them, and they theirs reciprocally to the said Ministers; and when this Corres­pondence is broken off, it ceaseth to be any further a Negotiation or Treating, and becomes a declaring against each other, and an appeal to others thereupon. And so is this Case.

Page the 6th and 7th. In answer to what he had said of his Majesties having as a perpetual mark of his kindness towards this Country, suffered many antient pretences of his Subjects to be blotted out, the Deputies are pleased to say, Ʋpon which there is to be considered, that if this abolition of all antient pretences be a mark of affection, the pretences of the Subjects of this State, and of the State it self, were much greater in number and quality then those of the English (as appears by the LISTS exchanged on both sides), they desired that all the Piratories done by Por­tugal Commissions should have been forgotten, and de facto your Lordships have testified so much more affection then the King of England, for that you have yielded more of your Right then he; for that which ought to be principally conside­red here is, that it will not be found that even before the conclusion of the said Treaty, any one English Ship hath been taken by the Inhabitants of these Provinces, or their Armes, which the English could reclaim, as belonging really to them. Whereas the said LISTS of dammages did not consist of, or intermedle with, or contain in them any thing that was blotted out by the said Treaty, but onely such matters as were reserved by [Page 7] the same. And as to any thing pretended to be done by Portugal Commissions, those were also all matters that had happened since the year 1654. and so also not mortified, but reserved by the said Treaty. And how then do the Deputies bring these two instances, as Argu­ments that this State had forgiven more than his Majesty? And as to their third Argument, which they call their main one, viz. That it will not be found that even before the conclusion of the said Treaty, any one English Ship hath been taken by the Inhabitants of these Provinces or their Armes, which the English could reclaim as be­longing really to them: and which is again re­peated, page 11th and 12th. For that the En­glish cannot complain, that since that time (to wit, the time of the General abolition) and be­fore the conclusion of the said Treaty, the Inhabi­tants of these Provinces have taken any one Ship Effectually belonging to English. What may not be said by them that will publish to the World, deliver to foreign Ministers here, and cause to be delivered by their Ministers a­broad to Kings and Princes, a Paper with such an Affirmation as this? What, not one Ship taken before the Treaty, that the English could reclaim as belonging Effectually to them? Was not the Ship Experience built in England! and belonging wholly to English, Sailed wholly by English, taken Anno 1660. upon the Coast of Portugal, with her lading worth between four and five Tun of Gold, by one Quaerts, and others [Page 8] of Zealand? Was not the Ship Charles, belong­ing to Captain Spragg, and others his Majesties Subjects, and whereof he was Commander, ta­ken as she was peaceably at an Anchor in the Road of St Martins in France, under the pro­tection of the Castle, in the Month of July 1660, by three Men of War of this State, and then in their Service, Commanded by one Captain Enno doedeson Starre, and the men barbarously treated? And so all that great Roll of Ships specified and set down in the LIST of the Dammages of the English, delivered by him unto them, and all taken since the General Abolition, and before the conclusion of the late Treaty, and the Times and Places, and by whom there particularly specified? And is this (as is said pag. 3.) To inform duly the Kings their Allies of the true Estate of Affairs between the King His Master, and them? And have they not great Reason to expect, That upon such Informati­ons, they should break with the King his Master, to joyn with them? Nor is it to be wondred, since their Papers contain in them such Informa­tions as these, that they pass by the King His Master, and Him His Minister, and give them no Copies of them, and are so angry, that they take any notice of them.

For what is further said, pag. 7, 8. concern­ing the Lists of Damages, That the Lists were exchanged in time convenient; that he the saidEnvoyée had so much less Reason to complain upon this accompt; for that their Lordships were sooner ready than he.

[Page 9] As to the first, The Treaty was concluded upon the 4th of September, 1662. St. Vet. and the Lists of Damages were not exchanged till the 23d of August, 1664. St. Vet. which was near two years after; and was that a convenient time to be spent meerly for the giving in of what they had to demand? or did it look like a desire of hastning to a Conclusion, and determining those Matters that had been the Cause of so much ran­cour between the Nations?

As to the Second, viz. their being ready sooner than Him, having several times by word of Mouth earnestly sollicited the Exchange of those LISTS; upon the 11th. of September, 1663. Old St. he gave a Memorial to the States General, wherein he declared, That he was then ready on his part to exchange the said LISTS, aud did from time to time after press the Exchange thereof, giving in also some other Memorials to that End; and yet it was near a year after, e're he could obtain the same: And when about fourteen dayes before the Ex­change thereof the Agent de Heyde came to him to speak to him about the exchanging of them. Which was the first Summons that ever he had about that Matter; He returned for Answer, that it had been so long since he had been ready, that his Papers were neer musty with lying by; that he would look them out, and attend at the day should be appointed for the Exchange of them: And when within a few dayes after, viz. upon the 16th. day of August, he came to a conference [Page 10] with the Deputies, theirs was not yet ready, for that they had it only in Dutch (whereas it hath been a constant Custom between them, as with other Ministers also, to deliver all Matters in some common Language, or at least a Copy.) And so that meeting lost, and the Exchange not made till the 23d, as above-said.

Pag. 8, 9. The Deputies say, To pursue from step to step the Text of the Treaty, immediatly after the Exchange of the LISTS, and before the speaking of any accommodement, or decision of the Matters therein, two things were to be examined: First, Whether the Pretensions set down therein, were not more ancient than the times limited by the said Treaty? Secondly, Whether they were of such a Nature and Quality as may be thought fit to be re­ferred to such Arbitration? Whereupon, in the Con­ferences about this Matter, their Deputies made only one Remark upon the English LIST, to wit, upon a matter hapned in the Indies, and known atLondon, the 20th. of January, 1659. And it was accordingly exchanged by him the said Envoy,and in the preliminary Conferences, only these two things could be considered: However, it pleased the said Envoy to proceed otherwise, imploying to no purpose, in the examining matters, to the bottom, the time in which the said LISTS might have been perfected, whereby it appears, That, if the said LISTS have not been perfected, the said En­voyeis the Cause thereof, and not your Lord­ships.

With their favour there is a third thing, [Page 11] which by the Text of the 15th Article was also to be considered in the Preliminary Conferen­ces; and which is the foundation of the other two, viz. That they be such matters as the one Party hath suffered or can pretend to have suffered from the other; nothing was to stand in the LISTS, which, supposing the fact to be true, could not yet be charged upon the other; and the English LIST was so carefully and mo­destly penn'd, that the Deputies (as is here con­fessed) made but one only Exception against it, though the Estates had sent it to all the Pro­vinces, to all the Admiralties, and to the East and West India Companies, to be Examined and considered. And he the said Envoy Extraordi­nary had proceeded with that Frankness and Candour, as to tell the Deputies at the time he delivered the said LIST, that that Article was lyable to Exception; and that he should not have offered it, but that there were several notable circumstances that did wholly differ it from others of the like Nature. And when in the next Conference upon the 14th of October fol­lowing O. St. the said Deputies did demand to have it Expunged, in the ensuing Conference after, which was upon the 8th of November fol­lowing O. St. he consented thereunto; and withall demanded of them if they had any other Exception to make against the English LIST, to which they replyed, No: and then asked them whether the said LIST was not [Page 12] then fully agreed by them, to which they re­plyed, Yes.

And whereas they do impute to him, in rela­tion to the Remarques made by him upon their LIST, that he should have uselesly spent the time in Examining matters to the bottom, he went not beyond the three rules above mentio­ned: but whereas such care had been used in the penning of the English LIST, as that but onely one Exception could be made against the same, as above-said: the truth is, there were very few Articles in theirs that were not lyable to Exception by the said rules. For Example, Ar­ticle the 2d, 3d, 10th, 17th, 18th, 39th, 44th, 48th, &c. no time mentioned, whereby it could not be distinguished, whether they were matters that happen'd within the time limited or not. More­over, Articles the 2d, 19th, 24th, 28th, 33d, 34th, 35th, 39th, 43d, 44th, 45th, 47th, 48th, 71, 72d, 73d, &c. no person named that should have done the injuries there complained of; and so it ap­peared not whether those matters had been done by English, or other Nations; and de facto in several Articles, the persons named and com­plained against were no English, nor had we any thing to do with them, as Article 16th, 20th, 30th, 68th, &c. and so they might as well have inserted whatever Ships had been taken from them by the Turks. And a notorious Pi­rate call'd Ʋryborn, who had no Commission, and who preyed indifferently upon all Nations, [Page 13] having taken a Dutch Ship near Cuba, and coming therewith by accident to the Island of Jamaica, the Governor there immediatly seized him, and clap'd him and his Company in Irons as Pirats, and sent five of them in Irons to London, to be tryed for their lives; set the Dutch men that he found on board him at liberty, and restored them their Ship, supplyed them freely with necessaries for their Voyage out of his Majesties Stores, and gave the Master of the Dutch Vessel money to go to London to prosecute him, and provided him with a Passage; and the said Pirate is since hang'd, and yet this is inserted among others to augment the number of their pretences. And for the pretences of the Dutch East India Company, he shewed that they were so far from being of such a Nature, as to be fit to be referred to such an Arbitrage by Commissioners and Umpires, &c. or to any Arbitrage, as that in truth the very inserting of them was a plain and downright Mocquery and Derision of the English; for Example, Article the 4th. Whereas Anno 1661. the States General, and the East India Company having given their Orders to the English East India Company to receive pos­session of the Island of Poleron, (which of right was theirs) and thereupon the said Company put themselves to a great Expence in sending Shipping, Men, and all necessaries for the pos­sessing and planting the same; they content not themselves with the Non-delivery thereof, [Page 14] and their frustrating thereby all that Expence, but here demand reparation for their going to receive the same. So, Article the 5th, they de­mand reparation from the English, because their East India Fleets return every year round Scot­land, and because they every year send a Con­voy for the securing of them. Whereas what is this to the English? Do not other Ships also that return in the Summer from other long Voyages, by reason of the largeness of those Seas, and the length of the dayes, return that way also? And do they not here constantly, even in time of peace, grant Convoy to their Shipping for the Baltick, for France, and for London it self? and why do they not by the same rule demand satisfaction from the English for them also, and in the conclusion make them bear their whole Naval Charge? If they think fit to return that way, and to be at the Expence of Convoyes for their Shipping, What is that to the English? So Article the Seventh, They say they command all their Ships outward bound for the East Indies, not to enter into any Har­bour, or cast Anchor in any Road of England, and demand satisfaction for the same from the English. They may if they please give such Orders to all their Shipping, and that as well inward as outward bound, and by the same Rule demand satisfaction for the same. Article the Eighth they say. That while they were in War with the King of Bantam, and kept some Ships [Page 15] before the said place for the blocking of it up, the English notwithstanding thereof did endea­vour to Trade there. Is this a business to be referr'd to such, or to any Arbitrage? If the Dutch be in War with any Country, and have a few Ships Riding before a place, without a Land Force to block up the same, Is it not lawfull for English to Trade there? Yea in Anno 1659. did not the Dutch East India Company make satisfaction to the English East India Company, for three English Ships that they had then taken upon the accompt of their having Traded at that place? Article the Ninth, They say they had a Contract with the Queen of Achin for the sole buying of her Pepper, and some other Commodities in cer­tain places; and yet that the English had Tra­ded in the said places for the said Commodities: Whereas the English were no Parties to the said Contract, and so not bound up therewith, and consequently no Action against them if they did so Trade. Moreover, that there were se­veral Articles concerning Ships taken for Tra­ding at His Majesties Plantations contrary to the Laws of His Kingdoms, and in the said Arti­cles it is acknowledged that they did Trade there, and that a great many of the said Articles were concerning matters which in the Arti­ticles themselves they acknowledge to have been ended between the parties themselves, and thereupon the money paid, yet therein [Page 16] revived, and payment again demanded for them from the same Parties: And these, and other Re­marks of the like Nature having been made by him in the Conferences last mentioned, to this day, he hath never since heard from them: And how is it then that they are pleased to say, That he the said Envoyée Extraordinary, and not their Lordships, hath been the cause the said LISTS are not perfected?

Pag. 9, 10, & 11. Concerning the Hopewell, Leopard, Charles, James, Mary, &c. The De­puties say, That they were only hindred from tra­ding in certain places that were either formerly be­sieged, or blocked up by Sea; that the English can demand no other Satifaction, but only for the loss of the profit of their Voyage, and so that these Pre­tensions cannot be very considerable; that theEnglish themselves have done the like in several rencounters, and that yet this State hath offered to His Majesty to satisfie the Persons interessed, and to make a Reglement for the future. Suppose the Case as is here suggested, and as they put it, that the places where those Ships would have traded, had been really, and bona fide, blocked up by Sea, without being also blocked up by Land (which they do not so much as pretend to affirm) how fresh and pregnant are the Instances of the practice of this State against such a Maxim as that?

When the King of Spain had of late years a great Number of Ships of War upon the Coast [Page 17] of Portugal, and before the Town of Lisbon, for the blocking of it up by Sea: and though he had at that time a great Land Army in the Bowels of that Kingdom, yet did they not send their Men of War thither, and that not onely to force their Trade, but also to take those Men of War of the Spaniards that had inter­rupted the same? And when the late King of Sweden did formerly besiege the Town of Dantzick with a great Fleet of Men of War, and had also at the same time considerable Land Forces in those parts; yet did they not send a Fleet from hence, and by force open their Trade there? whereby they have suffici­ently let the World see how little they will endure that Rule to be practised against them which they impose upon others: and let it but be taken for granted that they may thus do, fare­wel all the Trade in the East Indies, or upon the Coast of Africa, or upon any of those remote parts, for any other Nation but themselves.

But with their favour, this is not the Case: As to the Hopewel and Leopard; Hath it not been made out in several Conferences, in the presence of the Directors of the East India Company, not only by authentick Copies of the Commis­sions and Instructions of the Captains of the said Ships, the protests made by them, but under the hand of the Commander in Chief of the Dutch Fleet before Couchin, that the Hopewell was upon her way from Surat to Porca, and stopped in [Page 18] the open Sea as she was passing by Couchin to go thither, and not suffered to pursue her Voy­age: and that whereas the Leopard, being one of his Majesties own Ships, according to the In­structions she had to that Effect, came of her own accord in her way to an Anchor before Couchin, to acquaint the same Commander with her design for Porca, where the English had then a setled Factory, to which the said Ships were consigned; and the Dutch at neither of those times had either a Land Soldier within the Kingdom of Porca, or a Man of War be­fore the Town, nor upon the whole Coast of that Kingdome; that notwithstanding thereof, they were both stopped by him, and not suf­fered to pursue their Voyages thither. And here (if the said Envoy Extraordinary would give himself the liberty) might he not justly retort on them their railing and reviling lan­guage, for affirming, as is here affirmed, that they were only hindred from Trading in places blocked up by Sea?

And as to the Charles, James, and Mary, hath it not been made out at several Conferences by Authentick and undeniable proofs, that the pla­ces where they were hindred from Trade were not besieged or blocked up by Sea? but only the Dutch West India Company kept constantly about Castle Delmina three or four Men of War; who assoon as they heard that any Ship belonging to English, or any other Nation, was [Page 19] come upon that Coast for Trade, one or more of them was sent to ride before such place where they were to Trade, and then they must not trade there because it was a place block't up; and if the said Ship weighed Anchor to go to any other place, then the said Men of War weighed Anchor also, and followed them to such place, & then they must not Trade there neither, because that was a place block't up; and so from place to place. This is the truth as to those Ships, and yet they shot at, and took their Boats with their ladings, wherever they endeavoured to send them on shoare, taking also the men prisoners; and in like manner shot at the Boats or Canoes of the Natives, which endea­voured to come on board them; and this in pla­ces where the Dutch had neither Fort nor Facto­rie: and where the English had not onely a con­stant Trade, but setled Factories, and at pla­ces where other Christian Nations had their Forts, and with whom we were in Amity, and had a free Trade; as namely at Fredricksburgh belong­ing to the Danes: and let them shew that the En­glish have done the like to them in those parts.

And whereas the Deputies say, that the Dam­mage could not be very great▪ since it was but the hindring of some Ships from their Trade, and not the taking of them. Is the defeating of so many Ships of East India and African Voyages a small matter? Yet this is not the main, but the conse­quence hereof, which was no less then the utter overthrow of the whole English Trade in those [Page 20] parts. For if the said Companies might upon such pretences as these are, defeat such Ships as were sent thither, of their Voyages, without making good and just satisfaction, who would adventure any more, or to what purpose? And what might then France expect of their new East India & West India Companies, but that their Ships return as these with their Empty Holds, Provision spent, Tackle worn out, Mens wages to pay over and a­bove, and yet the most Christian King must be im­portun'd by this State even to break with his Ma­jesty, because of his opposing these mischievous practises.

And as to what they say that satisfaction was offer'd, 'tis true, that after many Memorials, long and tedious Conferences, and many Months de­laies, seeing His Majesty and His Parliament: net­led and alarm'd in the highest degree with these and orher the Insolencies of the Subjects of this State, they do in their Resolutions of the 5th of June last, New Stile, promise, that they would so direct matters as that satisfaction should be made; but nothing followed thereupon. And whereas they would impute the cause thereof to the want of some Body to pursue it on the behalf of the persons interessed, did not he the said Envoy from day to day with all vehemence and earnest­ness continue to press them in their Name and on their behalf? and yet what doth their Resolution of the 25th of September say more then their for­mer? And whereas the 14th Article of the late Treaty requires expresly, that satisfaction be made [Page 21] within 12 months for all matters on this side the Cape de Bonesperance, that should have happen'd after the conclusion of the said Treaty, the said 12 Months did expire, and nothing done, Complaint having been made by Memorial, concerning the Ships Charles and James, on the 17th. of Septem­ber, 1663. Old Stile, concerning the Ships Hope-well and Leopard on November 7. following, and concerning the Ship Mary on February 16. of the year 1663. Old St. and yet to this day no satis­faction given, whereby the Treaty broke; and in the mean while, daily new Complaints; the Hope-well hindred in a second Voyage to Por­ca; the Samson, Hopefull-Adventure, Speed-well, and Captain Bartwick's Ship, and in a word, every English Ship that went to trade upon the Coast of Africa, that they could master, in like manner defeated in their Voyage, as the Charles, James, and Mary, and not so much as Satisfaction promised for any of those; and which is above all to be remarked, That whereas we had been so long held in Expectation of our mony, now at last instead thereof, it is added in the afore-said Resolution, That the Case is disputable; so that we were now further off our payment then in the beginning of the Summer; or, if it had been given Us, (which it is not) yet being done in this manner, that is to say, not as of Justice and due, but only as out of particular Courtesie and Complaisance to His Majesty for that time, What would it have avail'd us? The Dutch East-India [Page 22] Company did in the year 1659. make sa­tisfaction for the Postilion, Frederick, Francis, and John, (as above-said) taken upon the ac­compt of their having traded to Bantam, then block't up by Sea by them; and there was added in the Treaty concerning those Matters, That the two Nations should for the future rencounter one another with all peaceableness and perfect friend­ship, as well within the East-Indies as elsewhere. Yet so great is the advantage that the said Com­panies have made by practices of this kind, as notwithstanding the said satisfaction and promise of the State they have continued ever since to do the like (as appears by the many Complaints of this kind of the English East-India Compa­ny, specified in the Englist LIST of Dama­ges) for that by hindring other Nations from trading, they inforce the Natives to compact with them for the whole Product of their Countries; and so though they do make satisfaction for the particular Ships stopped, yet they thereby be­come infinite Gainers; and then not suffering any Nation to Trade there, because they say, they have agreed for the whole. Nor hath their present Grandeur arisen so much from their Mesnage, or any thing of that kind, as from these violent and indirect Means: And if these things were practised by the said Companies, while disowned and discouraged by the State, and promise made that the like should not be done for the future, What was now to be expected [Page 23] from them when it was said by the State, that it was disputable whether they might not do so? yea, in the Dutch List of Damages, as above-men­tioned, satisfaction demanded from the English, for having traded in Places block'd up by them by Sea (as they call it?) And thus whereas this Dispute had hitherto been only between the Companies of each side, it was now become a Dispute immediatly between his Majesty, and this State, they patrocinating and maintaining what the said Companies had done: And do not the Deputies say in this Book, pag. the 11th, That These Pretensions are not so clear, but that they may be disputed? And pag. 18. they say, We do avow, and We do maintain, that it might be done. And thereby all hopes of any quiet Trade, or good Understanding in those Parts for the future ut­terly cut off; and not only so, but what Secu­rity nearer home? Do not the Deputies say in pag. 17. That which is just in the Indies, cannot be unjust in Europe? And is not that a fair Warn­ing to all the Kings of Christendom, to let them know what they are in time to expect in these Parts also? that is to say, to be handled by those of this Country, as their said Companies now handle the Kings of the Indies; to be told, that unless they will sell them the whole product of their Countries, they shall sell them to no body, and to have Fleets plac'd upon their Coasts for the effecting thereof? And as to what is said of their having proffered a Reglement for the future, he refers to what is said by him concerning this mat­ter in his Reply to pag. 17.

[Page 24] And as to what is said, pag. 11. concerning the Parliament of England, the said Envoyée Ex­traordinary could wish, that with what ever Lan­guage the Deputies had pleased to treat him, that they had been more sparing as to them. They say there, That the Proposition which the Parliament made to His Majesty, was, That He ought to attacque this State, and to make War upon them.

The two Houses of Parliament (as is known to all that understand the Government of that Kingdom) are they to whom the People there­of do ordinarily in great greivances address them­selves, and it is their Natural way for relief; and the said Houses upon such Complaints, can­not transact or treat with any Forraign Prince or State, (that being the Prerogative of the Crown) and so humbly applyed to His Majesty, That he would be pleased to interpose, for the obtaining satisfaction in those numerous and great Com­plaints; but as to the attacquing of this State, or making War with them, that there is not a word of any such matter in the said Propositi­on; but it hereby appears, what is in the De­puties sense attacquing of this State, viz. Let never so many Injuries be done by the Peo­ple of this Country to others, if after never so many years patience, and utmost Endea­vours for obtaining satisfaction in an ami­cable way, serious and real Consideration be at last had for obtaining the same, This is attacquing them, and becoming an Aggressour; [Page 25] and they are pleased to add as to the Reason and Ground thereof, It must necessarily be belie­ved, that this Proposition proceeded from an insa­tiable appetite, that they had to ravish the Goods of o­thers, and from a depraved Gusto, that they found in the Taking, Robbing, and Depraedation of the Inhabi­tants of these Provinces.

A very uncharitable construction, and such a one as none but the Deputies of this State would ever have made. Suppose never so much to be taken from the People of this Country, What Ad­vantage could the Parliament of England have thereby, or what could they expect by a War as to their own particular Accounts, but only to be Con­tributors largely with the rest of the Kingdome out of their own Fortunes towards the mainte­nance thereof, as if one would take the Liberty of Retorting, might it not be said, and with much more Reason, that the East and West-India Com­panies of this Country, durst not presume to do as they do, but because so great a part, at least, of the Governours thereof are concerned in them, and that it ariseth from the same ground, that it is so difficult, and almost an impossible thing to ob­taine Justice and Satisfaction for any Injury done by them, be the Case never so Clear and Evident.

For what is further said, in page 11. The said En­voy Declares possitively, that he hath Order from the King His Master, to assure this State, that His Majesty will not permit that His Subjects do Attaque or Surprize [Page 26] as Sea the Ships of the Inhabitants of these Provinces; And that the King would do them no hurt till he had Advertised them by a Formal and Preallable Declaration of War.

To this, he doth Reply, that he cannot but wonder that the Deputies do Affirm, that he doth Declare thus much, the words of his Memorial being as followeth; That the King his Master did the last Spring (to take away from them all Umbrage, which might cause any Extraordinary Equipping at that time) give him Order to Assure them (as he then did in a Publique Conference with their Deputies) That His Majesty would not trouble or hinder their Fleets, which they then expected out of the Streights, and theEast-Indies, nor those then at the Fisheries upon His Coasts.

And was not all that made good to them to a puncto, and is it not a very ill requital for so franck and seasonable a Declaration as that was at that time, (and which the King His Master was no way obliged to make to them) and which was made good, thus to misrecite his Words?

For the Justification of the Extraordinary Equipage in these Parts the last Summer, the Deputies say, page 11, and 12. They Take, they stop in the Havens of England, and Confiscate with their Merchandizes the Ships of this Country by Express Order of the King, and yet cry out against their Equi­page, though but small, and such as had been hereto­fore made; So that it was impossible that the said Equipage could give any Umbrage to the King of Great [Page 27] Brittain, Especially after they had assured His Ma­jesty by their Letter of the Twenty fourth of July, that their Reall Intention and Constant Resolution was to do no hurt to His Subjects, and that it would be fitting not to suffer that the said Fleets should go off their Respective Coasts, and Havens, and that the King said to the Ambassadour of this State, in the Audience He had about this Matter, That His Majesty would let Him know His Mind concerning this Matter in Three Dayes in Writing, which yet he hath not done to this day.

It is to be Remarked, that they here Alledge the Taking, Stopping, and Confiscating of the Ships and Goods of this Country in these Parts, for a ground to Justifie the late Extraordinary Equipage; Whereas that Equipage was Ordered and Equipped in the beginning of the Summer, and the Taking, and Stopping of the said Ships was not till November following, nor any Con­fiscated till February after: And as to what they say that that Equipage was but very small, and that they had formerly made the like; Did they not resolve in the beginning of Summer to Equippe Thirty of their Capital Ships over and above their Fleet under De Ruyter, and such as were fitted out for the Convoy of their East-India Ships, and what for Guiny? And was this a small Equipage? And were not hundreds of Carpenters sent on a suddaine to work there­upon, sparing (as is said in his Memorial) nei­ther Holy Day, nor Work a Day, Moon-light, [Page 28] nor Sun-light, as if it had been upon the most Pressing and Urgent Necessity that could have fallen out; and this in a time when they had no Dispute with any other Nation that could give any imaginable Occasion or Pretense for the same; Nor had the King His Master, at that time above Seven or Eight Men of Warr in these Seas, nor any further Equipage in hand; And he had Declared in His Answer to His Par­liament, which was well known here, that He would yet Endeavour the Accommodating of Matters with this State in an Amicable way, and give Orders to him His Minister to that Effect: And how can it then be here said, That it was impossible that this Equipage could give any Um­brage to His Majesty.

On the contrary, how was it possible, but that it should give him the utmost Umbrage, it being very well known that their Lordships are too good Mesnagers to put themselves to such an Extraordinary Expence in a Frolick, and with­out some proportionable Design, and to be sure such Design could not be with Reflection upon any other then himself.

And as to the Letter to His Majesty above mentioned, they do here Confesse, page 12, and 13. (as was Alledged by him in his said Me­moriall) That they had one Fleet Actually out and gone to His Majesties Coasts at the time of the Writing of that Letter, and so would have been out of that Engagement, and it was as [Page 29] Numerous as that of His Majesties, for the keep­ing whereof within Doors they were so So­licitous. And whereas they say; That this State had no other Fleet at Sea that was Capa­ble to Act, for that those that they had at Sea were onely Destinated for the Convoy accustomed to be sent every Year for their Fleet out of the East-Indies.

It is not usual to send every year such a Fleet as that for the convoying home of their East-India men, and there is not one Word in the said Letter con­cerning that Fleet, much less to assure him of the de­sign and intention thereof, and why they umbraged as His Majesties having Sixteen or Seventeen Men of War together in the Downs, His own Port, and where he is wont ordinarily, even in times of the greatest Quiet, to have as many for the Honour and Grandent of His Kingdom; and he in the mean while not umbraged at their sending as many upon His Coasts, when they had also at the same time a­nother Considerable Fleet in Readiness at Home; And suppose they had assured His Majesty in their said Letter to Him, with all the Fine Words Ima­ginable, that this Fleet had been onely Destinated for the Convoy of their East-India Ships, had they not in like manner assured Him when they sent De Ruster into the Streights, that he was Destinated only against the Pirates of Algiers and those Parts; and yet it was after found that he was capable to Act els­where, and upon other accompts; And if it be con­sidered about what time those Orders must have [Page 30] been sent to him: It will appear that his going to Guiny, must have been in Design and Agitation about the very time of the delivery of this Letter to His Majesty, for that He received them about the beginning of September, New Stile. And at the same time they had also in Agitation the Preparing of another Fleet, under the Notion of sending thither, which also was out of the En­gagement in the said Letter, and yet the De­puties would have it thought that the States had Proceeded with such Incomparable and Indi­sputable Candour and Franknesse towards His Majesty in Relation to these Matters; Where­as in Truth, all their Overtures to Him con­cerning the Dispositions of Fleets, had Designs and Catches with them. And on the Contra­ry, His Majesty to shew His Reall, Peaceable Intentions, had from the beginning of the Re­ports about these Equipages, Earnestly pressed that the same might not be, and that no Ex­traordinary Equipage upon either side should be made, for that then to be sure there could not be any thing of ill Ren-counter, Surprize or Jealousie.

And as to what they say, Page the Thirteenth, That they did pay them off so soon as their East-India Fleet was Arrived. Was not Tromp (Comman­der of that Fleet) and others of them after the Arrival of their East-India Ships, Re-victualled and sent to joyn with their Lievtenant Admiral Ob­dam before the Ma [...]s, and continued with him [Page 31] a long time after. And as to what is said or His Majesties having promised to give them His Answer in Writing in Three Days, It ap­pears hereby how Exact their Lordships are in taking notice of, and Expecting the Fulfilling of whatsoever is said to them, even to the least Circumstance and Puncto, and to take Advantage thereupon. It were well if such Ministers as Reside here, could obtain in many Months, that which often times is promised to be given them in a few days; but if they Please to Examine first the Memorial of the Ambassadour of This State to His Majesty of the 11/31 th. of July last, They will find it therein said, that His Majesty had even then by Word of Mouth given him His Answer as to this point, the VVords being; That his Majesty had been Pleased to Answer upon the First Point Touching the Keeping of the Fleet from going to Sea, that the Numbers which were Fit­ted and Prepared on His Majesties Side were no way Extraordinary, but onely for Common and Customary Use, and without Designe of bringing any Dammage and Inconvenience upon the Inhabitants of the United Provinces, and that though they did goe out, that He would give such Order to the Chief Commander thereof, that this State should have no cause to ap­prehend any Sinister Encounters from the same.

And upon the Fifth day of August following, His Majesty gave the said Ambassadour an An­swer in VVriting to the like Effect; And how is it then here affirmed, That His Majesty hath [Page 32] not to this day made known to their Ambassadour in Writing His intention concerning this Matter.

And may it not Justly be said, that he that was the Penner of this Book, was either very little acquainted with hath passed between His Majesty and this State, or very ill incli­ned?

For, VVhat follows, Page the Thirteenth,Hereby may be Judged, the Candour and Sincerity of the English, for that before the time of this E­quiping (which they would have to be thought the Immediate Cause of the Violences they have done, the King of England) had already given Order to Attacque, and take by Force the Places and Forts belonging to this State, so that in serving them­selves of this Pretext, for the Covering of their manifest Violences, they give themselves insensibly into a Ridiculous Contradiction, producing for an Effect, that which had its being a long time before its Cause.

As to how farr His Majesty is from being lyable to be Charged or Blamed upon the Accompt of any of these Matters, appears by what follows, where they are Treated of at Large; but as to the Purpose, for which they are here Produced, viz. As if they had been made a Foundation, for what had been done afterwards by His Majesty here in Europe; If it had been so, it had indeed been very Ri­diculous, but all the use that is made by Him in His Memorial of that Extraordinary Equip­page, [Page 33] was to shew that they did thereby in­force His Majesty to Arme also, the Words being Page the Fifth; Seeing himself Menaced with these Equipages, which could not be but with regard to the KING Himself, was at last con­strained (though very contrary to His Inclinations) to Arme Also.

So they might also have saved the Labour of saying afterward, Page the Thirteenth and Fourteenth; It cannot be said these Orders were given because of the Equipage made in this Coun­try, or because of the Voyage of De Ruyter to the Coast of Africa, seeing they were Executed before the said Equippage was made here, and long before the Voyage of De Ruyter.

He was not so Ridiculous as to make that which had hapned after, to be the Cause of what had been done several Months before, and when, and where, and by such Per­sons as could have no manner of Imagina­tion thereof; Nor was ever the said Equi­page, or De Ruyter's going to Guiny, pro­duced for the Justifying of what was done by the English there; and therefore one would think some more Grounded Occasion at least should have been found out, if they had had a minde to take to themselves the Liberty of falling upon the whole Eng­lish Nation with such Reproachful and Dis­dainful Language, and which it may be is [Page 34] not elswhere to be found, no not upon the Reallest of Occasions to have been gi­ven by any State to a Nation in General; And to say no more, the English have de­served better from this Country and State, and what if it should be Retorted.

Hereby may one Judge of the Candour and Sincerity of the Hollanders, &c.

Page the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Six­teen, Concerning the Ship St. Jacob, Laden at Gottenburgh and bound for England, the Deputies are pleased to say;

First, The said Envoy hath the Impudence to say, that This State are the Aggressors in Europe, for that they Stopped in their Ports a Certain Ship which came from Sweden Laden with Masts. That which he saith is so Ex­travagant, and the Reason wherewith he backs it so Impertinent, that none but Sir George Downing would have affirmed the one or made use of the other.

Secondly, Seeing the Ship concerning the stopping whereof he complains was of Gotten­burgh; What had he the said Envoy to do to Intermeddle therein?

[Page 35] Thirdly, This State had Defended the Tran­sporting out of the Country of all sorts of Com­modities serving for the Equipping of Ships, af­ter the Publication of these Defences, this Preten­ded Ship of Gottenburgh hapning to be in one of the Havens of this Country, it was necessary that She had a Particular Permission from the States to go out.

Fourthly, That Liberty was granted Her to go out, and it depended onely upon them to be gone.

Fifthly, That during the being of this Ship in this Country, News came that the English Took and Stopped in their Havens, all Ships belonging to the Inhabitants of these Provinces.

As to the First with your Favour; He is not the onely Person, or the First that Affirm­ed them to be the First Aggressors in Europe, and that among other Reasons upon the Ac­compt of the Stopping of this Ship; the King His Master had said the same in His Narra­tive given to His Parliament in the Month of November, and therein among other Argu­ments alleadged the business of this Ship; So that 'tis His Majesty upon whom these Incivil and Opprobrious Terms of Impudence, &c. [Page 36] are Cast and do Abutt, nor was the said Nar­rative unknown here at the time of the Writ­ing of this Book.

As to the Second, The said Ship was Laden upon the Accompt of one Sir William Warren an English man and Merchant of London, and Bound for England; and those of the said Ship with whom the said Lading was Intrusted, did apply themselves to him the said Envoy upon her stop for his assistance for the obtaining of her Releasment, as well as to the Minister of Sweaden upon the accompt that she came from Gottenburgh, and the Master a Burger of that Town; And can it then be doubted; whether he the said Envoy Extraordinary had to do with the Business or not, or did he need Pro­curation from Sweaden, or was it Intermedling with the Interests of another Crown, to de­mand the Releasement of a Ship Laden upon the Accompt of His Majesties Subjects and Bound for England?

Concerning the Third, Their Defence was against the Transporting of such kind of Goods if Laden and taken in this Country, but this Case was quite otherwise, for that this was a Ship which was driven in by much foul wea­ther that she had met withall at Sea, and so not in the least within the Compass or Question of the said defence, nor lyable by the Treaty [Page 37] between His Majesty and this State to any mo­lestation or search; There are many sorts of Commodities that are prohibited by the Laws of England to be imported into that Kingdome or exported out of the same by the People of this Country; yet such ships as are onely driven in thither by storme, or other necessity, and do not break Bulk, are not, nor cannot be questioned thereupon; and that is this Case, and so that the Defence aforesaid cannot in the least justifie the stopping and detaining this ship.

As to the Fourth, The Master and Others in­trusted with the Lading of the said ship, were here solliciting at the time, of the granting the Order for her Releasement, and went imme­diately away therewith, but coming to their ship, and preparing to set sayle, they were not suffered so to do, but threatned to be shot at, and so were forced to return back to the Hague again.

As to the Fifth, It is not here confessed, that while that Ship was in this Country, they had Advise of the Stopping, and Taking of their Ships in England, and so there needs no more then this their own Confession, to prove who first began to stop Ships in Europe; And what though she were afterwards set at Liberty? The Rupture was begun, and then there were [Page 38] other things also to be Remedied as well as that.

And as to what is said, Page the Sixteenth, concerning the Confiscating of their Ships; There was no Ship Confiscated or Condemned in England, till the first of February, Old Stile, which was long after the Newes was Arrived at London, of De Ruyters having Seized all the English Merchants Ships that he had met with­all; to a considerable Number and Value, and having actually broken Bulk, and taken out their Ladings, and Appropriated them to the Dutch West-India Company.

Concerning the Reglement for the future, the Deputies say, Page Seventeen, The said Envoy knows that they were alwayes ready to go about the making of a Generall Reglement, and Treaty Marine, but that he did alwayes excuse it, and alwayes Declare, when he was Summoned to Confer about this Matter, that he had no Order concerning the same, but onely to stick to the Termes of his Project.

To this he doth Reply, that the Discourse concerning this Matter arose in Conferences with the Deputies of this State about several Injuries done to the English East-India, and African Companies, by the East and West-India Companies of this Country, that thereupon for Prevention of the like for the Future, His Majesty did Command him to tender to this [Page 39] State a Concept of a Reglement, which accor­dingly he did; Nor are there wanting in­stances of particular Transactions of that kind before, between England and this Country, and many things are proper for those Remote Parts which are not applicable nearer Home; That he did daily presse the State for their Answer thereupon, both by Word of Mouth, and in severall Memorialls given in by him from time to time to that Effect: But as to what they say, that he was Summoned to Con­ferre about the same, he doth utterly deny it, much more that he should have refused the coming to Conference about those Matters; nor did he, ever Declare that his Orders were to abide onely by the Terms of the said Con­ceipt, nor ever any such thing Imagined or Intended, but onely that the said Concept should be a Ground-Work to work upon, and that they might make their Exceptions there­unto, and that there should be added thereto, or taken there-from, as should appear reason­able and fitting upon debate; but that he could never make the least-advance therein, nor ever had (as is said in his Memorial) one word of Answer from them concerning this matter.

As to the near Twenty Ships that he had affirmed in his Memoriall to have been taken in few years before the Conclusion of the late [Page 40] Treaty upon the Coast of Africa, only by the West-India Company of this Country, they say in the Seventeenth page, That they are imaginary, as well as that he saith of the Evil Treatments done to the English, Exaggerating them to the Terms of a Romance, with which he must have his Fancy Working at the time he Penn'd that Article, he doth wrong to the Truth when he speaks after that manner; Very severe censures if Justly Charged. Was not the Ship Brother-Hood of London taken upon the Coast of Guiny in the Moneth of February, 1655. by one Cox, Com­mander of a Frygot, called the Gat, and one Yapoone, Commander of the Ship called the Kater, both Commissionated by the West-India Company of this Country; And the Ship Ra­pahanock, belonging to one John Jefferies, and the Company of English Merchants of London taken near Cape Lopez upon the Coast of Guiny about the Eleventh of September, 1656. by two Ships of this Country, the one called Mary of Amsterdam, and the other the Unicorn of Middleburgh, Commanded by one John Scharael of Munekedam. The Ship Sarah belonging to one Anna Lewellin Administratrix of Robert Lewellin Merchant; Humphrey Beane and Company of English Merchants, whereof Arthur Perkins was Commander, taken upon the Coast of Guiny in the Moneth of August, 1656, by two Ships of this Country, the one called the Mary of [Page 41] Amsterdam, and the other the Unicorn of Mid­dleburgh, Commanded by the said Schrael of Munekedam.

The Ship Fortune, belonging to one Constant Silvester, and Company of English Merchants taken about the moneth of August, 1656. near Cape Lopez upon the Coast of Guiny by the said Mary of Amsterdam and Unicorn of Middle­burgh, whereof the said Iohn Schrael was Com­mander.

The Ship, Saint Iohn, belonging to Vincent de la Barre and Company of English Merchants taken in the year, 1658. near the Port of Cal­barine by a Ship of the said West-India Company, and there confiscated.

The Ship Lion, Providence of London belong­ing to Sir William Thomson, and Company or English Merchants taken upon the Coast of Guiny in the Moneth of August, 1656. by two Ships belonging to the said West-India Com­pany, the one called the Mary of Amsterdam, and the other the Unicorn of Middleburgh where­of the said Iohn Schrael was Commander.

The Ship (Brazil Fregat) of London, be­longing to Iohn Bushel, and Company of English Merchants taken between Angola and Farnam­buca in the Year 1657. by a ship of Ulissing, whereof one Quaerts was Commander, called L' Escluse.

The Ship the Leopard, belonging to Nicholas Bauchart of London, and Company of English [Page 42] Merchants taken near Cabo Blanco in the month of October, 1656, and brought up to the Castle of Arangeny at Cape Blanco.

The Ship (Merchants Delight) belonging to one Iohn Young, and Company of English Merchants taken near Cabo Corso in Guiny about the Moneth of August, 1661. by a Ship belonging to the West-India Company of this Country, called the Amster­dam.

The Ship Paragon, belonging to Bernard Spark, and Company of English Merchants taken upon the Coast of Guiny, about the Fifteenth of October, 1661. by two Ships belonging to the West-India Company of this Country, the one called the Am­sterdam of Amsterdam, whereof Aaron Couzens was Master, and the other the Armes of Amsterdam, whereof Nicholas Yole was Commander.

The Ship Daniel, belonging to John Knight, and Company of English Merchants taken upon the Coast of Guiny, in the month of May, 1661. by a ship of Amsterdam belonging to the West-India Company of this Country called the Amsterdam, whereof one Aaron Couzens was Commander.

The Ship, Black Boy, belonging to one Arnold Breames, and Company of English Merchants taken near Comenda upon the Coast of Guiny about the Thirteenth of April, 1661. by a Ship of this Country, called the Graffena, which came from Castel-Delmina.

The Ship Ethiopian, belonging to John Allen, and Company of English Merchants taken upon the Coast of [Page 43] Guiny in the month of January, 1661, by a ship be­longing to the West-India Company of this Country, called the Post-Horse, which carried her to Castel-Delmina.

The Ship Charles, belonging to James Burkin, and Company of English Merchants taken upon the Goast of Guiny, in the month of August. 1661, by a ship belonging to the West-India Company of this Country: called the Amsterdam of Amsterdam, whereof Aaron Couzens was Commander; besides several others taken by them there and else-where: And how is it then that they say, that those ships were but ima­ginary, and it appears (by the respective times of their being taken above cited) that these were all matters of a fresh date; and such as are not blotted out, but reserved by the late Treaty. And as to the evil treatments and Cruelties complained of by him the said Envoy to have been done to the Eng­lish in those Parts, they are pleased to say of them also that they are imaginary, and would make the World believe that all that was but Romances of his inventing; whereas the Depositions taken and sworn in the High Court of Admiralty of England, the 20th. of August, 1662. concerning the Ship Mer­chants Delight, say, That the said Ships whole Company were put into Nasty Holes at Castel-Delmina, by Jas­par Van Huysen (General for the West-India Com­pany of this Country) where several of them famished to death, and the rest that were set at Liberty after a cruel Imprisonment, the most of them never since heard of; The Company of the Ship Paragon after like cruel Im­prisonment [Page 44] turn'd to shift for themselves amongst the Wild Beasts.

The Company of the Ship Brother-Hood, having been stript and plundred of all, turn'd on shore a­mongst the Wild Natives, about Cape Lopez, with­out any thing of relief or sustenance, where seve­ral of them perished for want; and had it not plea­sed God, that after their having been there in a miserable condition 20 dayes, a certain English Ship, called the Happy Fortune, whereof one James Peperel was Master, came thither accidentally, in which they obtained passage, the rest had perished also, nor had it so much as been known what had become of them.

The Company of the ship Black-Boy carried to Castel-Delmina, the English Colours with scorn and contempt trampled under-foot, the men miserably treated, so as that the Master and six of the said Company died (as was verily believed of poison) the rest turn'd on shore to shift for themselves.

The Company of the Ship Brazil Frigot, nine of them turn'd upon a shore that was altogether un­inhabited, and no victuals to relieve them, very few cloaths to cover them (as appears by the De­positions taken in the said High Court of Admiralty, the 16th. day of April, 1663.) and much more of this kind could he instance, done within these few years upon the same Coast, besides what else­where, all transmitted to him the said Envoy Ex­traordinary under the Oaths of many of the per­sons themselves that felt them, to whom, and the [Page 45] rest of their Comrades, the said evil treatments, and cruelties, were more then Imaginations and Romances.

And whereas they say further, Page the 17th.We have never heard of those pretended Cruelties and Barbarisms, nor hath so much as Complaint been ever made, that the West-India Company had taken any one ship that had truly belonged to the English.

He did acquaint the Deputies for the Affairs of England (by whom this Book is Compil'd) with these Cruelties in the Conferences held with them concerning the Lists of Damages, and the said Ships are all particularly mentioned and set down in the English List, so long since delivered by him to them; How is it then that they here pre­tend Ignorance of the one and the other? And whereas, as to the Ships they would Evade under the Notion of the Words, Truly belonging to the English.

This is a very Excellent and easy Evasion, and upon this accompt their Companies may take what they please from Us, and it is but for them to affirm, That it did not truly belong to the Eng­lish.

Those many Families of His Majesties Subjects at London and elswhere that felt those Losses, and many of which are thereby utterly ruined and Banckrupt are Living and too true Monuments to whom the said Ships did belong. And if they could clear themselves upon so easie a Score, VVhy is it that we have been kept off these [Page 46] two years and a half since the Conclusion of the Late Treaty? So as that we have not yet been able to come so farr, as to begin to make out ei­ther our Propriety therein, or the value of the Damages sustained thereby: And whereas these Suggestions are no doubt brought them from their Companies, it may not be amiss here to put the Deputies in minde with what Confidence it was Affirmed and Maintained by the Directors of the East-India Company before them, that the Hope-well and Leopard were designed for Couchin, a place then Beseiged both by Land and Sea, and not to Porca which was not Block't up by Land nor Sea; and yet when it came to the Scanning of those Matters, he the said Envoy made out under the very hand of the Commander in chief of those Ships that stopt them in their Voyage, that he stopt them from going to Porca.

For what they say further, Page the 17th. We know not to what purpose the said Envoy speaks of those said near Twenty Ships. The purpose was very clearly set down in his Memorial, viz. That whereas all the Complaints that were Mentioned in the Resolution of the Estates-General, to which it was an Answer (as to what out of Europe) were only of matters pretended to be done against the West-India Company, thereby to shew what great Reason the English had to be offended with them, and to be the more sensible of the Injuries done to them since the conclusion of the Late Treaty, con­sidering how they had from time to time been [Page 47] handled by those of that Company before the make­ing thereof, having in a few years space (as said) taken near Twenty English Ships in those Parts only, and not only no satisfaction given for the said Ships, but new Injuries heaped upon them, and the same Designes carried on, to the utter Ruine of the English Trade in those Parts.

And whereas Page the 18th. the Deputies would excuse what had been done by the said Company since the conclusion of the said Treaty; for that say they, First, He confesseth Ingenu­ously, that since the Conclusion of the Late Treaty, there hath not been one English Ship taken. Secondly,That all that hath been done is, that they would not per­mitt the English to enter into Places Asseiged by the Armes of this State, or Blocked up by Sea.

And so that that could not Justifie what had been done by the English against Them, especial­ly considering the Resolutions of the Fifth of June and Twenty fifth of September, wherein they had declared that they would cause Satisfaction to be made to the Persons concerned in the Ships, Hope­well, Leopard, Charles, James, and Mary. He ne­ver said or confessed, that no English Ship had been taken since the Conclusion of the Late Treaty, and the contrary is acknowledged Page the Twenty seventh of this very Book; But that which was said in his Memorial, was onely that those of the West-India Company had not taken any in those Parts of Affrica since the conclusion of the Late Treaty; And as to their Pretences, that what they had done as to the hindring of our [Page 48] Ships from Trading there, was onely in places Besieged, and that they had promised Satisfaction; These Allegations and Excuses have been so Fully answered before, that it were but mispence of time to say any more concerning them, but as to that which was the force of his Argument, they Answer not at all, viz. That the Question was not about the Charles, James, and Mary onely, but that what was done to them, was in like manner done to Every English Ship that came upon those Coasts by Men of War, kept there on purpose to that End; Whereby it ap­peared that what was done to them had not been upon some accidental Rencounter, but upon Design, and that this Practice was as cer­tainly Pernicious and Destructive to the Trade of the English, as the Taking of their Ships, and more discouraging to the Merchant (as hath been afore-shewen) and so that either some Course must be taken by His Majesty, not onely for the obtaining of satisfaction for those Individu­all Ships, but for the Securing in General of the Trade of His Subjects in those Parts, or o­therwise that they must give it quite over.

Page the Ninteenth, They say that he should have said in His Memorial; That one must not doubt of the Truth of all he saith concerning these Pretended Hinderances of the English from Trade and Evil Treatments of them; for that the same doth appear by the Complaints he had Order from time to time to make to this State concerning the same.

[Page 49] The Deputies deal here with him as in other parts of their Book, misrecite the words of his Memorial, and then descant upon them after their fashion; the words thereof were not, For the same doth appear, &c. nor did it ever enter into his imagination, that his bare affirmation should be taken for a juridical proof: but his words are, As it doth appear by the Complaints, &c. That is to say, taking them as they were ac­companied with Examinations upon Oath of the Masters and other Officers of the said Ships, and which were also by him produced to the said Depu­ties with other authentick Documents, which were juridical proofs: & so might it not justly be said, that those matters were made appear by him in his Complaints concerning the same? And what occa­sion given for all those reviling expressions which they are pleased here to make use of? But whereas they say, If the Complaints of Sir George Downing could serve for juridical proofs, the Inhabitants of these Provinces had long ago deserved the treatment which they have received from the English, and the hostilities which have been committed against them had been easily justified. If then by this Reply it shall appear (as it will) that nothing was complained of by him, but what was upon good and real ground; it follows by the Deputies own confession, that his Majesty is justified in what hath been done against the people of this Country, and that he hath had sufficient ground and reason for the doing thereof.

Page the 19, Concerning the Remonstrance or Declaration of Valckenburgh, they say, The 14 ofAugust last, the said Envoy presented a Memorial con­cerning [Page 50] the same subject, upon which this State made a very considerable answer the 8 of October following; so that he is in the wrong to say, that satisfaction hath not been given him. It is therein said, that Valckenburgh,Director General for the West-India Company upon the coast of Guiny, doth not conclude in his Declaration to cause all other Nations to be gone out of all those Quarters.'Twas not said by him in his Memorial, that they had given him no answer, but, That a Remonstrance or Declaration had been published as well in the name of theStates General, as of the said Company; wherein was deduced their claim and pretended right to all that whole coast, to the exclusion of all other Nations. And that,The said Declaration was not yet disavowed, nor satisfa­ction given thereupon.

And hath not such a Declaration been publish­ed? And did not he the said Envoy give this State a Copy thereof at their desire? And can they say, that in the forementioned answer it is disavowed? And could it be call'd, giving us satisfaction, that when we complain that a Remonstrance is issued out by a Governour-General, and that not only in the name of the West-India Company, but in the name, and on the behalf of the Estates General themselves, claiming a whole Country wherein we have considerable Forts, Lodges and Factories, and a considerable Trade; and which Remonstrance had been formerly sent and notified by the said Valcken­burgh to the chief Agent of the English African-Compa­ny at their principal Fort, to tell us, that he doth not therein conclude to bid the English be gone? What though he had not therein bid us be gone out of any [Page 51] place? is not such a claim, and the notifying thereof, a great injury, and which His Majesty had just rea­son to complain on, and to expect should be dis­avowed by the State, whereby his Subjects might be put out of apprehension of being disturbed in their quiet and peaceable possessions and Trade? But he doth in the said Remonstrance, not only claim the whole, but therein actually commands the English to be immediately gone out of Tacorari and Cabo Corso, two places in which they had not only a con­stant Trade, but setled Factories, at the very time of the issuing out the said Remonstrance (as is therein confessed) and acknowledged by him the said Valckenburgh) and not only commanded them out of them, but upon those very grounds and argu­ments upon which he therein claimed the whole. And the Deputies will have it thought, that the State hath given them satisfaction, when they say in their deduction aforesaid, That it doth not conclude to cause all other Nations to be gone out of all those Quar­ters. So far from disavowing their pretended right to the whole, or the commanding the English imme­diately out of those two Factories and places, as that they will have it to be judged abundant satis­faction to them, that they have time given them to dislodge by degrees, first out of those places, and not at once commanded to be gone out of all those Quar­ters.

And it is to be remarked, that the said Remon­strance was issued out the 7 of June, 1663. and so long after the conclusion of the late Treaty; whereby it appears, that since the conclusion thereof, His Ma­jesties [Page 52] Subjects were not onely disturb'd at Sea, by the Shipping of the West-India-Company, under the Command, and by the Orders of the said Valcken­burgh their General; but also the whole Country claimed from them, and actually commanded to quit immediately two of their setled and principal Factories. And for what they say that Captain Holmes should have sent to one Henry Williamson Cop, That Captain Holmes had sent three persons of condition to one Henry Williamson Cop that commanded at Cape Verd for the West-India-Company, who said to him from Holmes, that he had express Order from the King his Master to let all know, that the right of Trading upon the coast of Africa, from Cape Verd to the Cape of Bona Esperanza, belonged to him onely, to the exclusion of all other Nations.

We shew this State a formal Writing, and not dis­courses which may fall, and which may possibly not be well remembred, or mistaken, or stretched beyond the intent and meaning of them that said them. And so was this Case: yet what a mighty business did this State make hereof! writing a Letter immedi­ately to his Majestie expresly about it, and causing their Ambassadour to complain highly thereof in an Audience demanded for that effect. If we should make such ado about all the high words and threats in those parts, and in the East-Indies, and elsewhere, of those employed by the East and West-India-Com­panies; we should be able to do little else. Besides, those discourses are here acknowledged to have been upon the 12 of March 1661. and so, long before the conclusion of the late Treaty, and so upon which [Page 53] the Deputies cannot justifie any thing done by them since: whereas this Remonstrance of Val [...]kenburgh was, as abovesaid, long after the conclusion of the said Treaty, and so a new Breach: and above all, it is to be remarked, that the Deputies do here confess, That whatever it was that should have been said by Holmes, or his order, that it was immediately upon complaint, as aforesaid, disavowed by his Majestie, as is here acknowledged, page the 20. which their Lordships having represented to the King of Great Bri­tain, as well by their Letter of the 28 of July 1662, as by word of Mouth by their Ambassadours Extraordinary which were then at London; His Majestie disavowed that Action of Holmes, in his Answer of the 24 of August of the same year. And so suppose such words had been spoken, and that since the last Treaty, yet they would have been so far from being to be imputed to his Majestie, or to be made use of for the justifying of any Hostilities against his Subjects, as that on the contrary, this State had all the reason in the world to be highly satisfied with his Majesties generous and frank proceeding therein; and themselves thereby so much the more condemned, that when such a Remonstrance published in their Name, and which a fresh breach, being since the conclusion of the late Treaty; and having been pressed so often, and for so long time together concerning the same, that yet to this day it is not disavowed by them: on the con­trary, we are told that we ought to take it for satis­faction, that what is therein declared, was not exe­cuted at once: yea, the Deputies will not admit that there was therein so much as an offensive word.

[Page 54] And for what is said of Selwyn's Paper, page the 21. that could not have caused Valckenburgh's Re­monstrance, for that it was written after, and in an­swer thereunto; putting him in minde also of many outragious hostile actions done by him against the English, desiring they might quietly continue in their Trade and Factories, and telling him that they had more reason to bid him quit places he possessed, then he them, for that he did at that very time pos­sess several places which did of Right belong to the English, mentioning the same, and particularly Cabo Corso; and so that if they must come to dislodging, that the English had more reason to expect that the Dutch should dislodge, then they the English.

Page the 21, 22, 23, 24. concerning the business of the King of Fantine, they say, first, That he the said Envoy hath never produced any proofs. Secondly, That he doth not adde any particularities or circumstances that can give the least colour or appearance of truth thereto. What he gave them, was out of an Original Exami­nation taken in the high Court of Admiralty at Lon­don, and sent him by special Order of the King his Master, with command to acquaint the State there­with; and how is it them they are pleased to say, that he hath given them no proofs, or out of a meer loose Paper? Nor was what he gave them (as they are pleas'd to call it, pag. 23.) The saying of one per­son onely, but attested also by one Dobson, a principal person in those parts: and what ground then, or oc­casion for all these most injurious and reproachful terms which they are pleased upon this occasion to lavish out withal, and spend a couple of leaves of [Page 55] paper upon, such as no man would give to his Foot-man? and might they not be retorted in the highest manner, if one took pleasure in sullying his Mouth or Pen?

And as to the Second: Had there indeed been no circumstances to make good the intention of such a Designe, it might have passed like the Stories writ­ten to them by their Officers in the East-Indies, of the designes of the English to besiege Batavia, (which are ridiculous in the very imagination of them.) But could there be more pregnant circumstances then those suggested, viz. First, That the Dutch did actually pay down to the Natives a sum of money for their encouragement? Secondly, That they did furnish them with store of Muskets and Powder from Aga; which the English having notice of, sent Souldiers to a certain Village thereby, who (de fa­cto) did surprise a part of them, and bring them to Cormantine. Thirdly, That the West-India-Com­pany were to block it up by Sea, while attacqued by the Natives by Land, and that accordingly two of their Ships were actually upon their way, and come as far as Cabo Corso in order thereunto; but that hear­ing of the failer of the designe of the Fantiners, they immediately returned.

Page the 24, 25, 26, 27. concerning the business of Cabo Corso, they say,

First, That it was attacqued and taken, not by any rencounter that happened in those parts, and which might have provoked Captain Holmes to those violences; but by express Order of the King of Great Britain, accor­ding to his own Confession and Declaration. Secondly, [Page 56] That the English have not pretended that Cabo Corso did belong unto them, but since that they had carried their Arms thither, and since that they have taken it.

Concerning the first, he hath express and posi­tive Orders from the King his Master to declare, That his Majestie did never avow or say that he had given Orders to Holmes for the taking of that place: That in his Answer of the 5th of August last given in writing to the Ambassadour of this State, there is this following Clause: Concerning Captain Holmes, We have with great sincerity assured the said Ambassa­dour, that he had no Commission to take Cape Verd, nor any other place belonging to the Dutch, or to do any act of Hostility upon any of the Subjects of the United Pro­vinces, that was not for the defence of Our Subjects, and their Trade in those parts. That all he ever said to the said Ambassadour concerning Cabo Corso, was, that he looked upon the Case as to that place, to be very much differing from that of Cabo Verd; and so much, as that if he had given Order for the taking thereof, very much might have been said for the justification thereof. And to the like effect doth he the said Envoy Extraordinary speak in his Memo­rial: That suppose his Majestie hath permitted his Subjects to endeavour to recover the possession thereof, it could not be thought strange, not could this State have had any just cause of Complaint or Grievance threat: for the English had not onely a bare liberty of Trading, or of having a Factory at that place, (as at several others upon that Coast) but one Thomas Crispe, chief Agent for the English Guiny-Company, at the earnest invitation of the [Page 57] King of Fetu, whose Land that was, went thither about the end of the year 1649. and purchased the same of the said King, and paid for it: And after all things were concluded, the Kings Officers sum­mon'd all the Natives thereof by the beat of Drum, both men, women and children, to a very great number; and when they were all come together, publike and solemn Proclamation was then and there made, That the King of Fetu, with the consent of his Officers and Great Men, had sold the Land of Cabo Corso to him the said Crispe. Whereupon the people gave several great shouts, throwing the dust up into the air, and cryed, that that was Crispe's Land. And the said Crispe is yet alive, and now at London, and hath by special Order of the King his Master sent to him the said Envoy the Contents hereof under his own Hand, with the Testimony of others that were then in those parts, and know the same to be true. And some time after, a party of the Natives of that Country falling upon the English House there, and robbing and plundering the same, and so the English re­tiring for the present, the Swedes came thither, de­molished what had been there built by them, and built a Fort upon the ground which the English had purchased. Afterwards the Danes drove out the Swedes, during the late War between those Crowns; and then the Dutch got the place from the Danes. And so the Dutch deriving from the Danes, can have no better Title then the Danes; and the Danes deriving from the Swedes, can have no better Title then that of the Swedes, which was [Page 58] onely Possession, and having built upon the Land of another without their consent; and so the Que­stion is singly, Whether the Land should follow the Fort or House, or the House the Land; and whether a Possession of so late a date, can create a Title against a clear and undoubted Purchase.

And whereas they say, page 26, That they had bought that Fort from the Danes; It is very well known, That the Ministers of Denmark do say and maintain, that the West-India-Company of this Country did nevery buy them out, but onely that during the late Siege of Copenhagen, and in the time of the low estate of that Kingdom, that the Go­vernour-General for the Dutch West-India-Compa­ny, called Van Huysen, did debauch and corrupt one Samuel Smith, (who then commanded the said place for the King of Denmark) to put the same into his hands for a Bribe of seven or eight thousand Gilders: And that this was without the knowledge, permission, or order of the said King. And this is their Title to this place, about which they make so much ado. Nor did they content themselves with the said Fort, but (as in all o­ther places) having once got footing, they fell immediately to the utter expelling of the English from all share or interest there: And whereas they had re-built themselves a House or Factory there, some belonging to the Dutch West-India-Company, and in their Service, did on the first of May 1659. attacque the same, and burn it, with all the Moveables and Merchandizes. And it being afterwards re-built by the English, they [Page 59] hired others to set upon it, and burnt it again, with all the Merchandizes therein; nor would so much as permit them to come and trade there with their Shipping. And the said Deputies Rule is, page 7, That one may retake by Arms, that which hath been gained by Arms. But this Case had been otherwise: for the Dutch having got into the said Fort in manner abovesaid, were a little after dro­ven out by one Jan Claes, who was General for the Natives; and the said Claes having driven them out, and knowing well that the undoubted Right of that place did belong to the English, made a ten­der to their Agent in those parts to restore the same to them: but he was neither provided at that time with men, nor other necessaries for the receiving thereof; and before they came to him from Eng­land, the said Jan Claes died. Afterwards, (and while the Dutch were still out of the possession there­of) the Government of that Country sent a pub­like Minister to Cormantine, to treat with the Eng­lish Agent there, about putting of the said place a­gain into their hands: and a Treaty was perfected and compleated between the Governour of Fetu, and Commissioners sent thither by the said Agent, and a sum of money paid in hand according to the said Conditions. Nor was there so much as any certain knowledge in England that the Dutch had re-possessed themselves thereof, at the time when Holmes his Orders and Instructions were made, nor other News thereof then a report which came a­bout that time out of this Country. And supposing it to be true, yet that could not alter such a Treaty [Page 60] made while out of their hands: and that Case be­ing thus, if his Majestie had given him such Or­ders, what could they have to say against the same? And whereas it had been said by him in his Me­morial, that his Majestie had been so much the more justifiable in letting his Subjects take posses­sion thereof, because of the little effect that the In­stances made here in his Name in other matters had had: The Deputies are pleased to mis-recite the clause in his Memorial, and then descant thereupon after their fashion. The Clause (as recited by them) is, For seeing that his Majestie hath not been able by all endeavours and instances to get out of their hands one Ship, or the value of a peny of Goods since his re­turn to his Kingdom; what hope was there that such a place should have been restored? And they are plea­sed to comment thereupon: This is a strange confi­dence of the said Envoy, to put in writing, and to publish among forraign Princes and Ministers, and to present to your Assembly a thing, of the contrary whereof he hath been so convinced by the Deduction which ye made the 9th of October last, upon the King of Great Britain's Answer in Writing; where your Lord­ships have made clearly appear, by the restitution of the Ship Handmaid, and of the Shaloup taken by Captain Banckert, and by several other particularities, That what the said Envoy saith here, is not true: so that he might have spared the giving occasion to have himself contradicted here. Whereas the words of his Me­morial are, And in truth if his Majestie hath not been able, by all his endeavours and instances, to get out of their hands any one Ship, or the value of a [Page 61] peny of Goods since his return to his Kingdoms, which had been taken by violence from his Subjects, concern­ing which he the said Envoy had made complaint heretofore; what hopes that such a place would have been restored? But their Lordships leave out all the middle thereof, viz. Which had been taken by vio­lence from his Subjects, concerning which he the said Envoy had made complaint heretofore, whereby the sense is quite changed; and then apply instances thereto, which would no wayes sute therewith, taking the intire sentence together. For as to the Ship Hand maid, it is true, that that business did pass his hands, but that Ship had not been taken by violence from the Subjects of His Majesty: The Turks had taken her from the English, and the Dutch only rescued her from the Turks. And as to the Shaloup taken by Banckert, 'twas not a matter whereof the said Envoy had made com­plaint, for that it was a business managed at Lon­don by His Majesties Ministers there, though there was scarce another instance of that kinde that passed not his hands; and he doth here again af­firm the truth of the said Clause in his said Memorial. Whereas in the Letter of the States, of the 26 of January 1664. to the King his Master, their words are, That His Majesty had very often caused justice to be done upon their complaints, since the con­clusion of the Treaty between him and this State.

But as to the second: Did not the Agent Selwyn, in his letter above-mentioned to Valckenburgh, of the 14▪ of June, 1663. remonstrate the right of the English to that place, and protest against the detain­ing [Page 62] the same from them? And did not he the said Envoy Extraordinary, in a conference held with the Deputies of this State, upon the 12 of Feb. 1663. Old stile, deduce and make out the right of the English African-Company to that place? and it was not taken by Holmes till the 9 of May following (as is here confessed, Page the 24.) And how is it then, that they say here, That the English did not claim it till they had got the possession of it?

And whereas Page the 25 they say, He himself did interpose in the said difference between the West-In­dia-Company of this Country, and the African-Company of Denmark, concerning this place, as he hath often in­termedled with several matters, wherein neither He, nor the King his Master, had to do: And in the Memorial which he presented concerning this matter, he backs the pretensions of the Danes, and speaks not at all of those of the English; from whence an infallible argu­ment may be drawn, That the King of England (whom he brings in speaking in his Memorial) did not at that time think that the Fort of Cabo Corso [...] belong to the English, as in truth they did not think it, till they were in possession of it; and that now they judge [...] their best pretence for the excuse of their hostilities [...] ­mitted there. The Memorial given in by him [...] behalf of the Danes, which was of the 8 of Febr [...], 1663. Old stile, was only in general terms, [...] That whereas the King of Denmark had applied himself unto the King his Master, complaining of great injuries, violences and depredations do [...] to his Subjects by the West-India-Company in those parts, that his Majesty held himself obliged to con­cern [Page 63] himself therein; nor is there a word therein concerning Cabo Corso, or any other matter in parti­cular; and there were at that time a great many differences between the Danes and them, viz. the taking of their Ships, hindring others from Trade at places of their own (upon which we had no pre­tence) as Fredericksburgh. And how then is an infal­lible Argument to be drawn from thence, that the English did [...]ot think that the Fort of Cabo Corso did belong un­to him till they were in possession thereof? And the con­tr [...]y before made appear in the Letter of Selwyn above mentioned: and the Conference aforesaid, wherein he the said Envoy had made out the right of the English to the said place, was but within three or four dayes after the date of this Memorial. And whereas they say, That he doth therein back the pretensions of the Danes, and speaks not at all of those of English; Are not the words of the said Memorial, That his Majesty holds himself obliged to intermeddle therein with the same zeal and fervour, and to the same degree, as for the injuries done to himself and his own Subjects in the same parts, and by the same Company? And whereas they are pleased to say, As he hath often meddled in several matters, wherein neither He nor the King his Master had to do; They would thereby insinuate, as if the said Envoy Extraordi­nary had of his own head given in that Memo­rial, whereas it was in pursuance of a Letter from the King his Master to him, expresly com­manding him to do it, and of which he knew nothing, till it was put into his hands by Han­nybal Schestedt, High Treasurer of Denmark, who [Page 64] had procured the same, and brought it out of England with him. And to what is there said, That the King his Master hath nothing to do therein, they know better; and that (as is said in the said Memorial) His Majesty is obliged by all the bonds of Honour, Friendship, Blood, Gratitude and Treaty, to interpose himself in the concerns of that King.

Page the 27 and 28. Concerning the Island of Polerone, their Lordships make no reply to what hath been said in his Memorial, viz. That the said place ought to have been restored to the English, by vertue of a solemn Treaty in the year 1623, and yet we know not to this day that it is restored. And in­deed no answer in such a case was the best an­swer: and it is to be observed, that by the said Treaty it was stipulated, not only that the said Island should have been restored, but the words thereof are, That the same should be restored in the same estate and condition the English had formerly injoyed it. Whereas it was not only not restored, but those of the East-India-Company did cut down, and grub up by the roots all the Nut­meg-trees and Plants in the said Island, and have done the like several times since; whereby in case it should at any time come to be restored, it should be (at least for many years) altogether useless and unprofitable to them.

Concerning the Treaty of 1654. they acknow­ledge, that the said Island was adjudged to be restored to the English by the sentence of the Com­missioners on both sides appointed by that Treaty; [Page 65] but say, that Orders were then accordingly gi­ven to the English for the receiving the pos­session thereof, and so that if they had it not, they had none to blame but themselves: but if giving Orders here in Europe were enough, we had had it long before. And I pray, had not the English East-India-Company again in the year 1660, Orders both from the Estates Gene­ral, and the Dutch East-India-Company, both to the Dutch Governour-General in the Indies, and to the Governour of the Banda Islands (of which that is one) for the delivery of possession there­of to them, and of which he the said Envoy Extraordinary hath Copies by him? but yet when the said Company had put themselves to between twenty and thirty thousand pounds sterling Charge, in sending Men and Necessa­ries accordingly for the receiving the same, and the said Orders were tendered to the said Go­vernour-General, together with His Majesties Commission to the like effect, he laught at them; nor would give them any Order to the Gover­nour of the Banda-Islands for the delivery there­of; notwithstanding to take off all pretence of failer on their part, the English continued their Voyage from Batavia to Po [...]erone, and did there demand the said Island, with their Letters to the Governour and Council over the Banda-Islands; but answer was made them, that they should not have it, and Souldiers were drawn up along the shore, and they were let know, that [Page 66] if they offered to come on shore they would fire at them.

And whereas it is said, page the 28, That the Revolution which happened in England by the Re-establishment of his Majesty, did so change af­fairs, that what had been only stipulated in the name of Protector could not be any further executed; that there must be another Adjustment made with his Ma­jesty, before new Orders could be given for the ac­complishment thereof. And so would upon that accompt excuse the non-rendition thereof, till the conclusion of the Treaty in the year 1662. Whereas those Letters were written about se­ven months after the Return of his Majesty to his Kingdoms; and in that of the Estates Gene­ralto the Governour and Council of the Banda-Islands, there is express mention and reference made to the aforesaid Award of the Commis­sioners: The Letter being to this effect: Where­as the Governours and Directors of the English East-India-Company are now intended to go and take possession of the Island of Polerone, so we have found it expedient by these presents, to write unto you, that according to the Award given up by the Commissioners on both sides, those who shall come to appear from the aforesaid English Company with due Authority and Qualifications in the Islands ofBanda, ye shall give place, and deliver over the aforesaid Island of Polerone. Whereupon we rely­ing,&c. In the Hague, the 17 of December, 1660.

[Page 67] And it is to be remarked, that the Deputies in reciting (page 27) the clause of his Memorial concerning Polerone, wholly omit that part there­of relating to these Orders.

Concerning the Treaty of 1662. they say,'Twas he himself that delivered to this State a Let­ter from the King his Master, of the 22 of Janua­ry 1663. in which His Majesty saith expresly, That he was intirely satisfied with their procedure in this matter.

By the fifteenth Article of the said Treaty, it was agreed, That immediately after the Rati­fication thereof, Orders should be given by the States General, and the Dutch East-India-Com­pany, for the delivery of the Island of Polerone to the English East-India-Company: whereup­on, after the Ratification thereof, His Majesty wrote to the States General, demanding the said Orders; which being accordingly sent hence for London, as His Majesty had demanded the same by Letter, so He was pleased by ano­ther Letter to acknowledge the receipt there­of, and that with very civil and obliging ex­pressions; well hoping that for the future, all things would have gone after another man­ner, then before the conclusion of the said Trea­ty. And this is the Letter here mentioned: nor doth it contain any more in relation to this business, nor indeed could it, being writ­ten not above fourteen weeks after the con­clusion of the said Treaty, being dated White­hall [Page 68] the 22 of January 1662. Whereas the De­puties say in this their Book, That it was da­ted the 22 of January 1663. which is above fifteen months after the conclusion of the Trea­ty; whereby they would have it thought, that this Letter had been written upon some fur­ther procedure in relation to this business, and upon some advice out of the Indies concerning the same. Nor will the excuse of New stile or Old stile serve the turn; for if they had meant New Stile, then it must have been dated the first of February 1663. and not the 22 of Janu­ary 1663. And the King his Master doth by no means understand this manner of proceeding with him.

And now, I pray, doth this Letter contradict or interfere, in the least, with what had been said by him in his Memorial? Had he therein said, That they had not given Orders for the delivery thereof, or more then that, Yet we do not know to this day, that the said place is resto­red.

And was not that then true? And what ground or occasion given for them, to say, Page the 28, The said Envoy doth hereby make ap­pear the wrong he doth, in forming Complaints up­on a matter, concerning which the King himself had thanked the State? Had he complained, that this State had not given Orders for the restoring that place; or said more then as above-said, That we did not yet know [Page 69] that that place was restored? and can any of them say yet to this day, that it is restored? But if he had thought he should have been ta­ken up so short, he would have added (as he then could) that the said Orders, together with His Majesties Commission, under his Great Seal of England, had been actually [...]endred and deli­vered to the Dutch Governour-General at Batavia; and that he had made sport therewith, as with the Orders of the year 1660. asking how he could know that piece of Wax from another piece of wax? and how he could know the King's Pi­cture and image thereupon from another? with many vaunting and insolent expressions; though he did acknowledge that he knew of the conclu­sion of the said Treaty; and that thereby the said Island was to be restored, and that the Orders by them presented, as from the Estates General, and East-India-Company, were really their Or­ders; and that they who tendred them, were the Factors and Servants of the English East-India-Company, and so that there could be no questi­on, but that it ought to be delivered to them. And so, what though His Majesties Commission should not have been kept so perfectly clean, that could raise no question: but it's a signe how exact the Deputies informations concerning this matter are, and what credit is to be given there­unto; for that they call it a Paper, Page the 28. Presenting to them a Paper that was so foul: where­as it is very well known, that the Broad-Seal of [Page 70] England is never put to Paper, but to Parch­ment only: nor do themselves alleadge, that the Orders of the Estates General, or Dutch East-India-Company were sullied, or those of the English East-India-Company. And when they had spent much time in descanting upon the Commission and Orders, then the said General would have them to give an Acquittance, wherein should be inserted such a Clause as was directly repugnant to the Treaty, and no way in their power to signe, and wherein they must in writing give thanks for the restoring of the said Island to them, as if of grace, and not a thing agreed by Trea­ty to be done, and of due, and which had so ma­ny years been unjustly kept from them, and now to be delivered with the trees again utterly wa­sted and destroyed, whereas at the time of its taking it was well planted; and what other or further Devices may afterwards be made, either there, or by the Governour and Council of the Banda-Islands, Time must shew: we have cause to fear the worst; and if it be not delivered, it will appear to have been caused upon such ac­count, and not (as is here suggested) upon the want of Shipping, or other necessaries on the side of the English for the receiving thereof, though they had no great encouragement to be over-forward in providing them, considering what the like Orders had cost them in the year 1660, and to what effect.

[Page 71] And whereas they say, That the aforesaid Letter of the 22th of January was delivered to this State by him the said Envoy; The Depu­ties have very much forgot themselves: the said Letter was not delivered by him, nor could be, for that he was at that time in England, nor had been in Holland some months before, nor returned thither till several months after.

Page the 29 and 30, concerning the business of New Netherlands, they argue,

First, from the signification of the word Octroy,which, say they, Is onely an Advantage accorded to some particular Subjects, to the general exclusion of all other Subjects of the same Soveraign, but which doth not at all oblige the Subjects of other Princes and States.

Secondly: And though the Octroy or Patent which the King of England had given to his Subjects, did comprehend New Netherland, yet that could not give the English any Right to the Places and Lands which the Subjects of this State had possessed peaceably for fourty or fifty years, and which they had occupied whilst it was deserted and uninhabited.

Thirdly, As to what was alleadged of their endeavouring to usurp still more upon the Eng­lish, and to impose their Laws and Customs upon them, and to raise Contributions from them: They say, We judge that this is a producti­on of his Imagination, and dare say that there is nothing of truth therein.

[Page 72] Fourthly: That if his Majestie had thought that his Subjects had any pretence to this place,would not his Majesties Commissioners, during the whole time that the Ambassadours of this State were inEngland, have spoken one word concerning this mat­ter? however, since they have not done it, it ought to be put among the number of those that are mortified by the said Treaty.

As to the first, He doth reply, That he did not argue in his Memorial from the Grammatical signification of the word Octroy, but from the matter and substance of the Octroys, Patents or Charters granted by his Majesties Royal Ance­stours concerning those parts. The Deputies sup­pose that they must be after the Model of the Octroys of the Dutch East-India and West-India-Companies, which do not give the Soveraignty of all the Lands within the limits thereof to the said Companies, but onely certain Priviledges therein, to the exclusion of the rest of the Sub­jects of this State: And some such there are in England also, as of the English East-India, Tur­ky, African, Moscovian Companies, &c. but these are quite of another nature; they do grant the Soveraignty of the Lands within their Limits to the Grantees, under a certain Model and Form of Government, and under certain Pow­ers and Jurisdictions therein set down and pre­scribed.

[Page 73] And as to the second, the Deputies doe not deny that this Land called New Netherlands is within the Patents granted by his Majesty, to his Subjects, and he the said Envoy doth affirme that it is.

And let those of the West-India Company produce an antienter Patent for the same, but he doth not be­lieve they can produce any at all, other then that ge­nerall Octroy (which as abovesaid) grants not the Soveraignty of all Lands within the Limits there­of: And as to the point of Possession, there is nothing more cleare and certaine then that the English did take possession of and inhabit the Lands within the Limits of the said patents, long before any Dutch were there. 'Tis not to say, (nor is it requisite that it should be said) that they did inhabite every Individuall Spot, within the Limits of them. It is enough that their patent is the first, and that in pursuance thereof, they had taken possession, and did inhabite and dwell within the same, and made considerable Towns, Forts, and Plantations therein before the Dutch came to dwell there: Is it to be imagined that the Dutch East-India-Company have fully Peopled and cultivated the Island of Ceylon, and other their great Colonies in the East Indies, and yet if the English should upon such pretence, endeavour to settle there without their consent. Would they approve thereof, or suf­fer the same? or accompt their Title there to be good, or other then Precarious; and the setling of the Dutch in New Netherlands (so called) was upon permission graunted them by the English for their Shipping, to take in Wood, and Water, there, and other Provisions for their reliefe, [Page 74] when they should come into those Parts, but the English did never grant unto them the So­veraignty thereof, but that the said Company (as they doe elsewhere) did upon this precarious admissi­on and connivance, incroach from time to time upon the English.

But whereas they say Page 29. The said Envoysaith, that the Dutch ought every year to demand the confirmation of their possessions, and descant there­upon:But we have above observed, that there is very little to be built upon what he saith, that it ought not to be believed but upon very good proofe.

It is very hard measure, that the Deputies still take to themselves the Liberty of misreciting the Words, and Clauses of his Memorial, and make it speak what it never did, and yet withall fall upon him with reproachfull, and disdainfull Language, for having said and Written that which is no where (that he knows of) to be found but in this Book. The clause in his Memorial was; That those Hollanders which were there, did dwell there simply by permission, and not by any Right that they could pre­tend to that place, and that that had been declared to them from time, to time, and from year to year. And is not there a great difference between, That it had been declared to them from year to year, that they had no right to dwell there, and That they ought every year to demand the confirmation of their posses­sions. And are not the very next words of his Me­morial, But so as that the English were content to have suffered them to dwell there, provided they would have demeaned themselves Peaceably. So far from hav­ing [Page 75] said that the English did expect that they should every year demand a confirmation of their possessions, as that on the contrary what he said was, that though their possession was but procarious, yet that the English were contented to let them live there and enjoy the same, upon condition of their demeaning themselves quietly; And was it not so that about the year 1654, the English were about granting them certain Limits, and the same had taken Effect and been ratified; if their continued New Insolencies had not diverted the same: yet it shall be far from him to retort any such unhandsome Expressions. And as to the Argument whereby they would prove that they were more then few in Number, for that It is not probable that a few Hollanders should have so fallen upon many English.

That they were but few in comparison of the English is a fact too known to need proving; but the argument may be thus well Retorted, How great was their pre­sumption, to have attempted those Insolencies, which they did from time to time attempt, being so few in Number, and how great the patience of the English who are so Numerous and strong in those parts, being able to bring many scores of thousands of able fighting men into the field, that they should yet so long have suffered the same. And this lead's me to the third particular, It would have been a boldness and a pre­sumption indeed in him the said Envoy to have fained these Allegations, & endeavoured to have imposed them upon their Lordships and the world, that they had from time to time injur'd the English, and usurped upon them in those parts if it had not been so; But I pray was not One How, sent by His late Majesty of Blessed [Page 76] Memory into those parts about twenty five years agone, and did not the Dutch there seize him and his Company, and keep them Prisoners, and were not great com­plaints thereof brought to the Court of England, and which were highly resented? And did not the Dutch about twenty years agone come to an English Town called Stanford, where none but English lived, and sum­moned them to come under their obedience and pay them contribution, and set up the Dutch Armes there, and all along the late times of disorders in England, were there not continually high complaints brought over against them? did they not send armed Men to an English Town called Greenwitch, and force the English there to come under them? And was not one Deyer sent in Cromwell's time to stop their Insolencies, and who did Free the English of them in severall places. Moreover did not the last Governour of New-Amster­dam (so called) lately come with Armed men to a certain English Town called West-Chester, within the bounds of the English Colonies, and where they had bought the Land of the Natives (as is their Custome, not to settle any where in those parts without first con­tracting with them) and by force compelled them to come under their obedience, and to pay them contri­butions, or else to quit their dwellings in two Month's time, and Named the place Oostdorp. And about three years ago, upon fresh complaints of their Usurpations by Land, and moreover that they did stop and hinder the English Shipping from their Trade in those parts, Was not one Scot sent to warn them to live quietly, and not to injure the English, or otherwise that some other Course should be taken with them, and yet the [Page 77] Deputies would have it thought that there hath been nothing of this kind, and that what hath of late been done to the Dutch in those parts, should have been a sur­prize without any thing of provocation, or occasion given.

And as to the fourth Particular more needs not be said, then what is in his Memorial, viz. That the English had by their Charter Jura Belli in those parts, without appealing first into Europe; but if it can be made good that they have done any injury to the People of this Country, His Majesty will be al­wayes ready to see that right be done. But where­as their Lordships doe in severall places of this Book, say, that His Majesty should have confessed, that the taking of New Netherland, (so called) should be done by his order. He is commanded to say, that his Majesty never said more concerning this, then con­cerning Cape Corse, and that he did never say to the Ambassador of this State, that he had given any such Order: Nor did he give it, nor was the said place taken by any Order of his. And if the Deputies had pleased to have minded the Answer of the States Ge­neral of the ninth of October last; given to His Majesty by their Ambassador, They would therein have found, that the said Estates doe not impute the taking of New Netherland to His Majesty, but to his Sub­jects in those parts, the words being, That their Lord­ships have made complaint, that His Majesties Sub­jects in New Netherland, had with Violence driven the Subjects of this State out of their Possession.

And this was after De Ruyter was actually gone for Guiny, nor was so much as any thing known in [Page 78] Europe concerning the taking of Cabo Corso, till a­bout the same time. And how then these matters, and His Majesty having said that they were done by his Order throughout this Book, produced to justify the sending him thither.

Pag. 30, and 31. Concerning what had been said by him the said Envoy Extraordinary, that the 15th Article doth onely Mortify matters of Piracy, and the like, and not of Rights and Inheritances of Lands. They say, It is hard to say whether the said Envoy doe faign the ignorant or be so in Effect. And for the disproving of what had been said by him, they pro­duce the instance of the Island of Polerone, concern­ing which they say, That it being stipulated by the said Articles, that the said place should be restored, that consequently all other matters of that kind must be there­by mortified; for that Exceptio firmat Regulam. And add this harsh expression, A strange blindness, if it be not willfull; Whereas that clause of the Treaty run's, that by the restitution of the said Island, all actions, and pretensions for losses, injuries, and offen­ces committed upon each other in India, and known in these parts, the 10/ [...]0 of January 1658/9 should cease, be extinguished, and annulled: Moreover the Deputies offer no answer to the instance given by him in his Memo­riall concerning the case of Sir William Lower, which was a Case depending in their own Courts of Justice, concerning an Inheritance of Land long before the years 1654, or 1659, (which are the respective times of the generall abolition in the said Article) and yet since the conclusion of the late Treaty, that case hath not been abolished but still proceeded in, [Page 79] and continued as before. And how many other cases and actions are there of the like nature up­on disputes concerning the Inheritances of Land depending in the Courts of both sides, as also concerning Morgages, and other reall Engagements, and concerning Wills, and Testaments, Bonds, Obli­gations, and Merchnts accompts of antienter Date then the tearms prescribed in that Article. Let but the Deduction of the States Generall of the ninth of November last be looked upon, and they will find therein enough of this kind; and how strange and monstrous an Article would that have been, that should have abolished all Men's actions of these kinds. And further to shew that it was the meaning of those that made the Treaty, at the time when they Penn'd it, that that Article should not have so vast an extent, but only to reach to matters of Piracy and the like. The Deputies might have remembred, that during the Negotiation thereof, this very Objection was made by the Ambassadours of this State, upon the debate of this matter, viz. that it might be of too large and generall extent, and his Majesties Com­missioners did returne to them for answer as follow­eth; Their Excellencies have already seen a Catalogue of the complaint, of divers of His Majesties Subjects for injuries done to them by the Dutch, so that if they please to call the same to mind, there can be no such incerti­tude in the Article concerning Commissioners, as their Papers would seem to intimate. Moreover it will ap­peare, that this Article of Commissioners is not desired for businesses of Lands and Houses, but for matters of Pi­rateries, and Merchandizes taken by force, which we desire [Page 80] should be so Examined and determined, for the avoiding the charge and delay of Juridicall Proceedings. And upon this account His Majestey did not, nor needed not make mention of this businesse during the Negoti­ation of that Treaty, and upon the same account His Majesty did not think fit to insert in the List of Dam­mages this pretence of His Subjects thereto, nor to the Fort of Cabo Corso, though as to the spoile and burning of their Goods there, he did cause that to be put into it.

Besides (as hath been shewen above) there were ve­ry many and great provocations done in those parts call'd New Netherlands to the English since the con­clusion of the late Treaty, and so though the Treaty were to be construed as they would have it, yet it doth not help them concerning the businesse of Guiana. They say Pag. the 31. The Digression which the said Envoy makes as to the business of Guiana is from the pur­pose, for that say they, he hath nothing to doe to trouble himself how this State will make off this matter with France; he did not mention that business as intermed­ling betwen the French and them, but if at this time they have sent a Minister into France, to decry the King his Master, and his Affairs, and to stirre up that Crown against him, and particularly upon the account of his having (as they pretended) given Orders for the taking Cabo Corso, and New Netherlands (to which His Majesties Subjects have so clear and undoubted a Title) Was it from the purpose for him to say, that suppose His Majesty hath given such Orders, can any Prince think it strange, or be surprised thereat, much lesse the most Christian King (as the words of his Memorial) [Page 81] seeing it hath pleased the same King that very year to Order or suffer his Subjects to repossesse themselves in the same manner by Armes and force, of a certain place called Guiana, which they pretend to have been unjustly posses­sed and detained from them by the said West-India-Company. And if that were a Digression, the Depu­ties must give him leave to make another of the like kind, and to put them in mind of the late Edict, where­by all the Shipping of this Country in the Havens of that Kingdom, were arrested and seized, upon the single ac­count of the having seized in this Conntry, two Ships belonging to the French East-India-Company, and though the said Ships were built here and but newly bought, and that the pretence of seizing them, was the Service of the State and payment proffered, and that the dispute about them had been but of a few weeks standing. Pag. 32, 33. concerning the business of Cabe verd, and the Ships of the West-India-Company taken by Captain Holmes on the Coast of Guiny, Whereas he the said Envoy had said thereto, First, that His Ma­jesty had not only disavowed his having given him a­ny Order for the doing thereof, but also disowned the Acts themselves; Secondly, that by the 14th Article of the late Treaty, 12 Months time is given for the do­ing of Justice upon what should happen either by Sea or Land upon that Coast since the conclusion of the late Treaty.

To the First, the Deputies say, that His Majesty had in like manner before disavowed the taking the Fort St Andre by the said Holmes, but yet that nothing followed thereupon. This is fully answered before, and thereby made appear that it is to themselves, and not His Majesty, to whom it is to be imputed, that no further Progress had been made in that matter; [Page 82] Yet it may not be amiss (since the Deputies do so of­ten make mention of this business, and make so great Outcry concerning the same) to add how little the Concern of this State is therein, or in what had been done concerning it; For that that Fort did not belong to the West-India Company of this Country, but to the Duke of Courland, and that they had but lately shufled themselves into it, (as they do into the Possessions of every one under one pretence or other) Nor were they in it upon their own account but His, and under pretence to keep it for him, and so that the cause of complaint was not properly by them, but the said Duke, and though all possible Endeavours have been since used by them to draw him to their Party, they have not been able to prevail therein, but the said Duke hath applyed himself to the King his Master, and His Majesty and He, are come to an Agreement, concerning the same, and the said Agreement conclu­ded and sealed, and so neither the West-India Compa­ny, nor the State, have any thing to do therein. And whereas they say, that His Majesties answer was onely in Generall Terms, but that he doth not po­sitively promise restitution and reparation: could more be said by him upon the first complaint; yea (as is said in his Memoriall) could any further answer have been expected from the meanest of their own Courts of Justice in any Case that should come before them? And were it not injustice to condemne the most crimi­nall person before he were heard, or at least a compe­tent time given for his appearance; and did not His Ma­jesty say withall, that Holmes had order to return, and was expected very speedily in these parts, and that so soon as he should be returned, he would cause the matter to be examined, Justice done, and the Offen­dors [Page 83] punished. And however the Deputies would in­sinuare as if that had been but an Elusion, yet did he not return accordingly, and upon his arrivall, was he not immediately by his Majesties speciall Order carri­to the Tower of London (a place where none are put for any private disputes, or for any Offences, but wherein the King Himselfe is concern'd) in order to his examination about these Matters.

But whereas the Deputies would have it be believed that the said Holmes is so Monstrous a Person, and that all he had done had been without any provocation, It may not be amiss to give here a touch of what he doth alleadge for his own justification.

And First, as to the Fort St Andre, he saith, that comming in the year 1661, into the River of Gambia to trade there, (as formerly the English had done) that those of the said Fort fired at him, and would not permit him to pass up the said River. Whereupon he fell upon them

As to the business of Cabo Verde, he saith, that comming again upon the Coast of Africa, and going to the River of Gambia near Cabo Verde, he was infor­med that a little before his arrivall there, one that was Commander of the Ship Black Eagle, and an Agent for the Dutch West-India Company in those parts, had stirred up and engaged the King of Barra to make War against the English, and had actually joyned himself and Ship with the said Kings Forces for the compleat­ing of his designs, and this was confessed to the said Holmes by the said King of Barra (as he hath to shew under the Hands of many credible Witnesses who heard the same) Moreover that the said Agent had endeavour­ed by summes of Mony, and other Rewards, to corrupt [Page 84] the Officers of the Royall Company to deliver into his Hands, for the use of the Dutch West-Indiae Company, the Places, and Factories then in the possession of the English in those Parts, and that hath been since made good by the Oath of some of the said Officers, lately taken before the Lord Mayor of London. Moreover that at a certain place called Ventam he had told Captain Manuel Vasse de Fraiula Commander in Chief for the King of Portugall in the River of Gambia, and Manuel Alves de Britto, and divers other Portugall Merchants, that they were resolved to beat out the English; That hereupon he went to Cabo Verde, not with design to attaque the same, or commit the least Hostility against it, but onely to speake with the Governour of that place, and to endeavour to compose matters for the present and untill finall Order should be taken concer­ning the same here in Europe; but comming thither, (without the least provocation given by him) he was immediately shot at from the said Fort, whereupon he fired at them again, and severall shot having passed between them, whereby his Ship was much dammaged, his Mast shot through, and much weakned, his Master, and severall of his Men wounded and kill'd, he drew off to a further distance, where being enforced to come to an Anchor for the repairing of his Ship and Mast, without any thoughts of returning thither again, or pursuing the matter any further, while they were mending their Mast, the Governour hung out a white Flag, and sent a Boat on board him, tendering the Surrender of the said Place; that passing thence and calling at Lestus, he was there informed by the King of the Country, that a certain Holland's Ship called the Unity had been there but some days before, and endeavoured [Page 85] to perswade him to expel the English from trading there, and that he having refused to consent thereunto, that the Captain of the said Ship had seized all the said Kings Subjects that were come on board him, to trade (according to the Cu­stome of that Country) as also all such Fishers as they found upon the Coast, making them Slaves, and carrying them a­way. Moreover that the Dutch comming to severall places, had put out English Colours, and having thereby inticed the Natives on board them, carried them away and made them Slaves, leaving the Odium upon the English, that sailing thence to Anta, where the English had then a Factory, he found that one Captain Frome belonging to the said Dutch West-India Company, had but a little before compelled the English there to take in the English Colours that were wont to be displayed there; that sailing forward on the Gold Coast, he found, that not onely those Ships of the Royall Company had been hindered in their Trade, concerning which complaint had been come to England before his departure thence) but that Valckenburgh, Generall of the West-India Company there, had, and did, continue hindring every Ship of the said Royall Com­pany from Trade there, That he had published the Declarati­on above mentioned, wherein he claimed the whole Coast and the whole Trade thereof, and wherein he had commanded the English to quitt immediatly two of their principall Facto­ries, viz. Tacorari, and Cabo Corso as above said. Moreover that he was informed by the Natives all along the Coast, that the said Valckenburgh had proffered to them a Bendy of Gold for every English Man's head that they should bring unto him, and greater summs for such as were Commanders a­mong them. That thereupon he sailed to Castel delmina to speak with him, where he found one Captain Cubit Com­mander in chief of a Squadron of the Royall Companies Ships upon that Coast, who told him that he had already written to him to the same effect, and desiring that they might live [Page 86] and Trade peaceably each by the other, but that he had utterly refused to hearken to any thing of that kinde; whereupon Sailing thence to Cabo Corso (where the English had a Factory) and where also on the other side of the Water the Danes had a Fort call'd Fredericksbergh, and having no in­tention of annoying the Dutch, nor offering them the least of­fence, nor so much as going ashore on that side that they were, but on the other side where the Danes were, and with whom the English were in a perfect good understanding, and had a Free Trade, that the Dutch within the Fort of Cabo Corso did severall times shoot at him, and very much endan­ger him; that hereupon (and not upon the account of any Orders from His Majesty, which he denyes that he ever had) he call'd a Councell of War, where it was resolved to attaque the said Fort. He saith further, that having sent for the Go­vernor of Inashang (an English Factory) to come to him to Cormantine, that being to passe by a place call'd Aga, the Dutch there shot at him and wounded severall of his Company. Moreover that sending a Drum with a Letter to Anna Ma­boa, a Garrison of the Dutch, that they most inhumanly fell upon the Messenger under the Wall of their Castle, and con­trary to the Laws, and Customes of most Barbarous Ene­mies, cut him, mangled him, and stript him, leaving him dead upon the place.

Concerning the second, viz. the 14th Article, they say Page the 33. The said Envoy gives a Sence thereof according to his mode, but that the Article saith the quite contrary to that he pre­tends to infer; Whereas in truth he barely repeated that clause of the said Article, which saith that twelve months time shall be given for the doing of Justice upon any Complaint of any thing done upon the Coast of Africa by Land or Sea, since the conclusion of the said Treaty, as was the business of Cape Verde, and what else complained of against Holms, without making any construction thereof at all, nor did there need any, the words [Page 87] being of themselves as plain & full as words could be made for the purpose they are cited by him, that is to say, to shew that ways of Force were not to be made use of in such cases, till the Expiration of twelve months time after Complaint and Demand of Justice; But the Deputies do here repeat a clause of the said Article, Viz. That it saith, that if any one doth any Vio­lence, that he alone shall be punished and no other; And do make a construction thereof, and such a one as whoever would take upon him the liberty of retorting, might well say a Sence there­upon according to their Mode, and that the Article saith quite the contrary, &c. For say they, That is to say, that the party offended or hurt, cannot resent it or revenge himself but only against him that hath done the hurt or offence, & that Letters of Reprisal which may reach to others as well as the parties offending, cannot be given till the Expiration of a year after complaint. Whereby they do infer from the said Clause, that indeed as to Letters of Reprisal which do Extend beyond the persons that had committed the of­fence, that those cannot be granted till a year after complaint, but that as to such way of force as reacheth only to the persons that had committed the offence, that the party offended might in the mean while make use thereof, and so nothing in this Ar­ticle that derogates from or restrains the Law of Nature, which teacheth to repell Force with Force; Whereas nothing can be more clear, then that the true intent and meaning of the said Article is, not only that no Letters of Mart can be granted du­ring the twelve Months therein mentioned, wherby others then the persons offending may come to suffer, but that during that time the offendors themselves are not to be proceeded against by force and Violence; but in a Judiciary way, the words thereof being, That twelve Months time shall be given for the doing of Justice and giving of Satisfaction: and it follows immediately after in the said Article, In case the offendors against this Treaty do not appear and submit themselves to Judgment, and give satis­faction within the time above expressed, that then their Estates, Goods and Revenues whatsoever, shall be confiscated for the inju­ries [Page 88] and wrongs by them offered, and be lyable to further personall punishment, so that the said twelve Months is given, not for sending Fleetes and Armies to Fight against them, but for their appearance and submitting to Judgement, and for the giving of satisfaction, not the taking of it by force, and then if it be not thus given (and not before) their Estates, Goods and Revenues in generall liable to be seized, but not by the Arbitrary and Violent proceedings of Vice Admirals, but by a lawfull sentence by way of confiscation, the words being, Their Estates, Goods and Revenues whatsover shall be confiscated for due and full satisfaction of the injuries and wrongs by them offred; And if there be a failer herein and that Justice is either denyed or delayed, then, and not till then, is the door open for wayes of Force against them.

And whereas they say Pag. the 34th, That it is not easie to make pass for the injuries of particular persons, such Hostilities as have been done with the Armes, and under the Pavilion of the So­veraign. It is true that the 14th Article doth reach only to such matters as should be done by the Subjects and inhabitants of either side, and not to such things as should be done by His Majesty on the one side, or this State on the other; but suppose an offence be committed under the Flagg of either side, that a­lone is not a sufficient argument to make it to be an act of the Government of either side: for example, Enno Doedestarre took the Charles aforesaid in the year 1660, in the Road of Mar­tins in France with three Men of War of this State, and un­der their Flagg. And Captain Banckert of Zeland did since take in the Channell with one of their Men of War under their Flagg, His Majesties Shaloup aforementioned then in his service. And the East and West-India-Companies of this Coun­try do proceed and act in the Name of the States General, and Valckenburg's Declaration was in their Name, yet hath the King his Master charged any of these actions upon the State as done by them, meerly because done under their Flagg, or be their Authority in generall? No more can Holmes his acti­ons by upon that account imputed to His Majesty, that were done without His Order.

[Page 89] And whereas they say, pag. 33. that then The same Article would authorize these violences, which is pretends to hinder.

Is there no medium between authorising of them, and the forbidding the having recourse to force for a certain time? Is the submitting them for a certain time to a course of Justice, an authorising of them? And when entail'd with so severe a punishment in the issue, as the Confiscation of their whole Estate, declaring their persons to be enemies, and further personal punishment, and an Obligation upon him whose subject he is, for the taking care that Justice be accordingly done, for that otherwise the 23 Article of the same Treaty, gives them liberty of having recourse to force.

And for what is said, Pag. 34. It is not enough to disa­vow an action, and to protect him that hath done it.

Is insisting that the person offending be proceeded a­gainst according as it is set down in the Treaty, a protecting of him? By the same Rule, the maintaining of any Courts of Justice, or form of proceeding against Criminals, and the not suffering them to be taken in a violent manner out of their hands, and tumultuarily fallen upon, may be called a Protecting them. His Majesty was alwayes farr from protecting of Holmes; on the contrary, he alwayes de­clared that so soon as he returned He would have him punished in case it should appear he had done amiss; and if they would have had the patience to have expected the fruits of H [...]s Majesties Justice, but that it ought to be done according to the way in the Treaty; that is to say, that he ought to have a time to appear, and submit himself to Justice, and not a Fleet sent immediately to fall upon him Right or Wrong. And if it shall be Objected, That great inconveniencies might follow, if this rule should be kept to. With their favour it is reciprocal, and so as much danger [Page 90] to the one as the other, and yet the King his Master hath kept up himself Religiously thereto; He did not, upon the complaints made by his Subjects to him, concerning the injuries done to them in those parts, or the East-Indies, since the late Treaty, send a Fleet to those Coasts, to fall upon the Subjects of this State, and yet the Argument Of fear of other Violences and Pirateries to follow without end, was much more strong on his side, then it could be on theirs (considering how his Subjects have been from time to time treated in those parts) but made and continued his complaints here, and expected their doing him Justice ac­cording to the said Article. And suppose such an Article had not been made, would not the inconveniences and dan­gers have been greater on the other hand? the Govern­ment on both sides, being then lyable to be engaged upon every complaint and suggestion, to the sending of Fleets and Forces to the attacquing and falling upon the ships, and Subjects, and Possessions of each other; and so it would be impossible at any time to continue six Months in Peace with one another: Or though it should be true, that the inconveniencies might be greater with this Article, then without; yet the Treaty being now ratified, there is no place to object the same. But under favour, this Objecti­on lies not at all against the said Article, nor doth at all reach the case in dispute; for the Article doth not hinder the providing against future Violencies and Robberies: It doth not forbid the sending Force to protect and defend for the time to come, as was also declared by his Majesty to the Ambassadour of this State, and that such, and such only were his Orders to Holmes: all it forbids is, that if any injuries have been actually done, that force cannot imme­diately (nor till the expiration of 12 Months) be sent for the revenge thereof, or for procuring Right thereupon, of which nature were the Orders of this State to Van Cam­pen, and De Ruyter.

[Page 91] Whereas they say, Pag. 33, & 34. If Sir George Downing would take the pains to look over his Memorial, and to hearken to reason, he would not have the boldness to give here an Explanation directly contrary to the Maxime which himself avowed in his Memorial of the 13 of Febr. 1664. Wherein he endeavours to justifie the action of Five English men of Warr that had taken since the conclusion of the late Treaty, a Dutch Ship called the Arms of Amster­dam,which he pretended to be an English Ship, and to have been taken by those of the West-India Company of this Country before the Treaty, and saith, that it is not strange, that they had endeavoured to retake by force, that which had been by force unjustly taken from them.

The Estates General had written a long Letter to the King his Master, dated the 26 of January 1664. N. S. making a very long complaint to him concerning the ta­king of a certain Dutch ship belonging to the West-India Company of this Country, called the Arms of Amster­dam: Moreover, they had communicated the said Com­plaint to him the said Envoy Extraordinary, with a large deduction concerning the same, making a huge noise about it; which he the said Envoy Extraordinary, ex­amining narrowly, and looking into the business found out that the said Ship called the Arms of Amsterdam, was in truth an English ship belonging wholly to English Mer­chants of London, and that her true Name was the Mer­chants Delight, and that having sailed from Dover in the year 1660. upon a trading Voyage to the Coast of Guiny, under the command of one C. Bonner an Englishman, she had been there seized in an hostile manner, by a certain ship be­longing to the said Company called the Amsterdam, where­of one Aaron Cousens was Commander, in or about the Month of Aug. 1661. and carried by her to Jasper van Huy­sen, [Page 92] then General for the said Company at Castle Delmina. And although the said Bonner did declare to the said Van Huysen, that himself and Company were English, and that the ship with her lading belonged to one John Young, and other Merchants of London, and verified the same by authentick Writings and Papers; yet that he kept the said ship and lading, evilly treated the men, altered and new named the ship, calling her the Arms of Amsterdam, that thereby she might be the less subject to be known wherever she should be met by the English, and that he had order long before from the King his Master in Coun­cil to complain to the States General concerning the ta­king of that very ship from his Subjects, and for which yet no satisfaction had been made: Hereupon he took the liberty to inform them of the truth of the matter in his said Memorial, and to tell them that the Case was not so strange and ill as they put it, viz. That the English had taken a Dutch ship, but only that they had by force retaken an English ship that had been by force taken from them▪ thereby to excuse à tanto. And what can now be said for the justification and defence of the sending Van Campen and De Ruyter for Guiny. Was not the business of Cabo Verde, and what else complained of, matters hapned since the conclusion of the late Treaty, and so directly within the compass of that Article? And was not the resolution for the sending of Van Campen (as is said in his Memorial) taken within about 6 or 7 weeks after complaint made by this State to his Majesty, concerning the taking of Cabo Verde, and the actual sending De Ruyter within a little af­ter, and doth it not appear by the express words of Van Campen's Instructions, that his being sent thither, was not only upon the defensive, to perserve the places and ship­ping of this Country in those parts, but in direct and down-right terms to fall upon his Majesties Subjects, and at­tacque [Page 93] them, revenging themselves by force against such whom they pretended to have done them hurt. Nor is it therein said that they might fall upon Holmes only, who was the only person complained of; but the words are ge­neral and dubious, viz That those to whom the Command of the said Fleet was given, in case that upon the said Coast they should find, or rencounter any ships or Subjects of his Majesties, that they should take care not to endammage them, or to trouble, or incommodate them in their Traffique; pro­vided they had not already, or did not then do any dammage to this State, or its good Inhabitants. Whereby it is left in their construction and discretion whom they are to fall upon, viz. whomever they should judge to have done, or to be doing any hurt to this State, or any of their Subjects. And this Resolution is put into his Majesties hands by the Ambassadou [...] this Country, and not only so, but given to several other Kings of Europe, his Friends and Allies. And its withall declared that this Fleet shall pass the Chan­nel before his Ports, and that under the Convoy of a nu­merous Fleet of Capital ships of War under the Com­mand of the Lieutenant Admiral of this State. And was it possible for his Majesty longer to sit still and to remain without doing any thing. Hitherto the dispute had been only between the Subjects and Inhabitants of both sides, but now this State had hereby engaged it self: whereby the Dispute was come to be immediately between the King his Master and them; and though while this State intermeddled not, neither did the King his Master upon the other hand interpose, but with patience expected ju­stice to be done by them to his Subjects, according to the terms of the Treaty; but they on the other hand▪ upon the first complaint of any injury done in those very parts to their Subjects, breaking through the Rules and Bonds of the Treaty; what now remained, but the opposing of force to force.

[Page 94] And whereas the Deputies would have it thought no indignity or affront to his Majesty, for that Fleet to have passed, for that, say they, The Sea is open to all the World. It may not be amiss to mark that however they plead so much for the the Seas being free in these parts, yet that the contrary is practised where the people of this Country have the power: witness the late Declaration of the Dutch East-India Company (not yet disavowed by this State) wherein they claim a whole great Sea to themselves. And witness the usage, of the West-India Company at Cape Blaneo upon the Coast of Africa, where they will not suffer any Nation to fish in the open Sea without their permission, and paying them the tenth fish, and the Governour there within these few years, seized and con­fiscated an English ship called the Leopard, for having fished there, but here in this Case there was no que­stion about their Liberty of passing the Sea, but about their passing with such a Resolution and to such an End. And could a greater affront be done to a King, then when he had done what was possible for the satisfaction of this State and more then requisite, that notwithstanding there­of, he shall be told by them, that they are resolved to fall upon his Subjects, and not naming whom, whereby not any of them were in surety, especially considering they questio­ned our trading even at our own Factories in those parts (as hath been afore shewn) and call it a hurting them. Moreover it is to be considered that at the very time when this resolution was put into his Majesties hands, there were just Reasons to surmise and believe, that De Ruyter was a­ctually already gon, or upon the point of going to Guiny, and so that all this declaring of their intent of sending Van Campen was but a meer Grimasse, whereby to colour the preparing so considerable a Fleet, as they were then gathe­ring together under the Notion of Van Campen's going to [Page 95] Guiny and the convoying of him, but that in truth the real intent and meaning was to make use thereof nearer home; for it had been said and written by this State to his Maje­sty, That De Ruyters imployment was to be against the Pi­rates of Algiers and those parts, and not a word of the sen­ding him to Guiny; and the Deputies say, pag. 36. That it had been very rediculous to have made known his Order.

From whence it must necessarily follow, that it was ne­ver intended to send Van Campen thither upon the same ground, because this State did declare and give out that he was to go thither: And yet it is not to be imagined that this State would have been at the charge of preparing such a Fleet as this for nothing, or without some proportionable design▪ and so his Majesty had just reason of jealousie, that as they had sent De Ruyter to fall upon him in Guiny, that in truth this Fleet was designed to have fallen upon him in these parts, as was done in the beginning of the late War with England, if he had not in time provided for his own safety and defence, which was no sooner done, but the noise of Campen's going to Guiny was immediately out of doors, and the great Fleet which they had so long kept to­gether separated. And let the words of the instruction to Van Campen aforementioned be considered, and it will ap­pear that the same did reach as well to these parts as the Coast of Africa, the words being, In case that upon the said Coast, or in their way thither, they should find or rencounter any ships or subjects of his Majesties, that had already done, or were then doing any hurt to this State or its subjects: So that the said instruction reached to his whole way, viz. from the Maes to Guiny, and so was no other then a decla­ring of War against His Majesty as well in Europe as upon the Coast of Africa.

And as to the reproach cast upon this State, upon the accompt of their sending De Ruyter to Guiny, viz. that they [Page 96] had invited His Majesty to send a Fleet to act with theirs against the Pirates of Algiers and those parts, &c.

They say pag. the 35th. He supposeth as if there should have been some kind of Treaty or Promise to act conjoyntly against the Pirates of Barbary, but it will not be found that there was any Treaty to that effect, nor yet any Negotiation conducing thereunto. Is not this Clause in their Letter of January, 1664. N. S. wherein they invite His Majesty to send his Fleet to act with theirs, viz. That their Fleet should stay in the Mediterranean Sea and thereabouts, until it had cleared the same of all those Pirates that ruined the Negotiation and the Trade there. And doth it not follow in the said Letter? We are intirely resolved so to do, and not to recal our Fleet until we have reduced them to reason. And did not His Majesty by word of mouth, and He his Envoy Extraordinary, after by his Order declare unto them in his Memorial of the 3d. of February, 1663. O. S. his acceptance of that their invitation, and his sending Sir John Lawson with a Fleet against those Barbarians, and that it should act with all good correspondence with theirs? and did they not do it accordingly until the time of De Ruyters quitting those parts? and yet the Deputies would have it thought as if there had been nothing of a promise on the part of this State to continue De Ruyter against those Pirates, and that there had been nothing of any Negotiati­on or Espece of Treaty or Promise concerniug that matter: And had they so much upon any accompt to say against the King his Master, as he hath to say against the Estates General in this, as well upon the accompt of the unhand­somness, as of the unwarrantableness of the action, what an Out-cry would they make? and what accompt is here­after to be made of any of their Declarations as to the im­ployments of their Fleets?

And whereas it follows, pag. the 35th. That the English [Page 97] have made two different Treaties with those Pirates, without giving notice to this State. The first Treaty was made long before the writing of that Letter; yea the said Let­ter refers thereunto: And for the second Treaty, it was not made till long after De Ruyter had abandoned that work, and was gon for Guiny; and how then could His Majesties Fleet communicate with him? and as to any o­ther Princes of Christendom His Majesty was under no en­gagement concerning that matter with any of them.

They say further, pag. 35. It would seem that it was the intention of the English, to imploy the Forces of this State alone against those Pirates, while they carried their Armes upon the Coast of Africa, there to ruine the Commerce of the Inhabitants thereof.

Whereas (as appears by the fore-said Letter) His Ma­jesty did not put this State upon sending against the said Pirates, but they put him upon it; so that if there were any designs, it must be in them by vertue of that their solemn Letter and Engagement, to put his Majesty out of all man­ner of jealousies or suspicion of their diverting that Fleet, that so it might the more securely steal away for Guiny: Nor is it altogether unworthy the remarking▪ that there were laid up before hand in readiness about Cadix, all man­ner of Provisions and Necessaries for such a Voyage. And (I pray) whereas it is said in the Resolution of the Estates General of the 20th. of September last, That the reason of the communicating to him their intention of sending Van Campen was, That His Majesty may be intirely assured of the sincerity of their intention for the conservation of peace, and of all good understanding with him. Yet when at the same time His Majesty prest to know whether De Ruyter was gone, (who was in truth the person design'd thither) no­thing would be made known to him or confessed concer­ning the same: Yea, the Deputies say as aforesaid, It [Page 98] would have been a ridiculous action to have let the same to be made known, and that the Ambassador of this State him­self had no knowledge thereof. And when they had as a­foresaid, sent out a considerable number of Ships of War to his Majesties Coasts, presently after the Estates Gene­ral write to him, to keep in his Fleet, and they would keep in theirs, and press vehemently by their Ambassador an im­mediate answer; and if His Majesty had yielded thereto, he had been their catcht also.

They say further, pag. 36. concerning the instruction of De Ruyter, That he is sent onely to punish the Authors of these Violencies and Hostilities: whereby it is also avowed concerning him, as well as Van Campen, that his sending to Guiny was not upon the defensive, but also to fall upon His Majesties Subjects. But whereas the words are, That he should fall upon onely the Authors of these violencies. And Monsieur Van Benningen in his late Paper published here in Print, intituled, The substance of what Monsieur Van Ben­ningen Envoye from the States General to the most Christian King, had represented to him in his Audience of September, 1664. saith, That the States had sent a Fleet to Guiny, not to attacque reciprocally the Forts, Ships, and Goods of the Subjects of England, but to re-take that which had been un­justly taken from them. Whereas no sooner was De Ruyter come into those parts, but finding there 8 Merchants ships that had not been arrived there above 7 or 8 dayes before, and had no hand nor share in any thing done against the People of this Countrey, yet he immediately seized them, broke bulk, unlading them, and appropriating their Car­goes to the use of the West-India Company. And in stead of declaring, That they would punish De Ruyter for the do­ing thereof, he is since the coming of that News advanced from being Vice-Admiral of Amsterdam, to be one of the Lieutenant Admirals of Holland. And the Deputies say [Page 99] here, We judge that there is no body that will not praise and commend the prudent conduct of this State, and that excel­lent design that they had to cause De Ruyter to go from the Streights to Guiny. Nor is there any thing said for his be­ing designed for the Coast of Guiny onely; and so he may be designed for the attacquing of His Majesties Subjects in other parts of the World as well as there.

And now what occasion was there for the inserting of all those calumnies and reviling expressions in the Deputies Remarks, much less for the State to have owned them, and stamped their Authority upon them. Is there so much as one incivil or indecent word challenged in any part there­of to have been in his Memorial, and doth it not now ap­pear that there was also nothing therein but what was ac­cording to truth.

And can it now be doubted by any who hath been the Aggressor and the Cause of all the present Disorders be­tween the Nations. First, as to what before the Treaty, to say nothing of the Bonne Esperanza and Bonne Adventure, and how His Majesty hath been dealt withal in relation to them (that having been already Printed and Published at large.) As to the Lists of Damages, 'twas as appears near 24 moneths after the Signing of the late Treaty ere he the said Envoye could obtain the Exchange thereof, and then coming to the Examination of them according to the 15 Article. Whereas the English List was so soberly Penn'd, that but one Exception was made thereunto. The Dutch List on the other hand was so composed, as that scarce an Article thereof but liable to exception. And that they had excepted against in the English List was at the next Con­ference expunged, and so the said List agreed, and ready to be proceeded upon. On the contrary, as to the Excep­tions made against theirs, to this day no answer returned, whereby it remains at their doors, that no farther proce­dure [Page 100] hath been for the adjusting and determining those matters. And as to what hath hapned since the Treaty, the Hope-well, Leopard, Charles and James, &c. had not only been stopped and defeated in their Voyages, before any thing attempted by Holmes, but the news thereof was come into England before he went thence; nor was any thing done by him upon the Coast of Africa, till it plainly appea­red by the stopping of every other English Ship that came upon these Coasts, that what was done was not done by accidental rencounters, but out of design; nor till Valken­burgh had actually commanded the English out of Cabo, Corso, and Tacorary, two of their principal Factories, under a penalty of a great sum of money for every moneth that they should remain there after the said notification; and this done in a Declaration, wherein he deduced the Right of this State to the rest also, and so that the English could not but believe that the next News must be the com­manding them to quit intirely the whole Coast. Yet (as he saith for himself) he did not go about to take upon him the revenging thereof, nor had done what he did but upon immediate Attacques and Provocations upon the re­spective places occasioning the same; and suppose it had been otherwise, yet upon complaint made by this State, can they say that His Majesty did by them as they did by him in the business of De Ruyter, viz. give them no answer at all, or such a one as they gave him in the busi­ness of the stopping the said Ships and of the said Declaration; yea, did he not immediately disavow what had been done by the said Holmes, and declare that he had no Orders from him for the doing thereof, and that so soon as possible matters could be examined, he would do therein according to Justice and Reason; yet contrary to the Express Letter of the 14 Article, which gives a twelve Moneths time upon complaints in those [Page 101] parts, this State within 6 or 7 weeks after complaint re­solve to send a Fleet of Men of War of their own thi­ther, and within about as many weeks more put a Resolu­tion into his Majesties hands; whereby it appears, that their Orders were not to be upon the Defensive only, and to convoy and protect their Subjects and shipping from further injuries; but to attacque and fall upon his Ma­jesties Subjects, and not some one or more of them by Name; but under such general words, as from the reach whereof none of them were secure: and that not up­on the Coast of Africa only, but even here in Europe, in the Channel before his own Ports. And what though there had been no other Provocation but this very Reso­lution? was not this alone enough to have warranted his Majesty to have fallen upon them, both in Europe and else­where? If any King or State send a Declaration to another King or State, letting them know that they have prepared a Fleet, and have actually given orders to the Commanders thereof to fall upon their Subjects, and that it appears that nothing but wind and weather hinders the execution there­of: suppose the said King or State to whom such intima­tion hath been given, shall thereupon (and while God Al­mighty by his Providence hinders the execution of the said Orders) attempt something against them or their Subjects; Shall not yet the other that gave the said Denunciation be looked upon as the Aggressor? Yet his Majesty remained still only upon the defensive doing nothing against them: yea whereas 12 Months were now expired since the Com­plaints made by his Majesty concerning the Charles and James, &c. and nothing of satisfaction given; whereby the said Article, upon that account, was also expresly broken by them, and his Majesty at liberty to have righted himself: yet notwithstanding he did not do it, and that though they on the other hand, had (as aforesaid) in relation to their [Page 102] pretences, broken in upon the said Article, indeavouring to right themselves by force within the time limited con­trary thereunto: Nor did his Majesty intermeddle or give order for the offering the least offence to their Subjects, till he certainly knew that De Ruyter had quitted that Coast and work he was sent hence about; and that his Majesty had a­gain & again demanded of the Ambassadour of this State, residing in his Court, to be satisfied whether he was gone, and upon what design, which he had reason to demand and expect to be satisfied in: First, because the work was not then done with those of Algiers, and that this State had (as is above shewn) engaged to his Majesty that that Fleet should continue there till an issue thereof: And secondly, because that being in such a manner gone away, 'twas not to be imagined, in that conjuncture of Affairs, that it could be upon any other account then to go to Guiny to fall upon his Subjects there. Nor is it an answer to say, That their Ambassadour did not know it: He was their Ambassadour, and his Majesty did demand it of him, and if they did not think fit, either by him, or otherwise to satisfie his Ma­jesty concerning the same, and considering their Resolu­tion that they had put into his hands concerning Van Cam­pen, and yet in which they make such Protestations to his Majesty, of proceeding so frankly with him; what could he then conclude, but that while they were here amusing him under the notion of Van Campens going to Guiny, that De Ruyter was gone thither to execute what was threatned to be done by Van Campen. Moreover, that themselves had actually begun the stopping of ships in those parts, stop­ping the ship from Gottenburg, bound for London: and now, and not till now, did the King his Master intermed­dle by way of Force; and yet only stopping and seizing their ships, and that only till such time as he should come to be satisfied concerning the designes and acting of De [Page 103] Ruyter, as was several times declared by him to the Am­bassadour of this State: Nor was any disposition made of any of the said ships or their ladings, or any of them de­clared Prize until the first of February, O. S. which was long after his Majesty had certain News that De Ruyter was arrived in Guiny, and had taken a whole Fleet of Mer­chants ships of his Subjects, unladen the Goods, and which were ships that had not done any thing against this Coun­trey; and the said ships were seized upon the 13 October, O. S. and upon the 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, of the same Moneth, he did unlade the same into his own ships: whereas his Majesties order for the seizing of the ships of this Country, was not till the 9 of November following, of the same stile, nor any ships stopped or seized thereupon till a day or two after; so that De Ruyter had actually seized and unladen a whole Fleet of English ships, long before his Majesty had so much as given order for the intermed­ling with any ships of this Countrey, or doing any thing against them: Nor were any Letter of Mart granted by his Majesty, till long after they had been granted by this State against his Subjects; nor Trade prohibited between both Nations by him, till the like first done here. And whereas the Deputies do so often in this Book charge his Majesty with having done what he did, without any pre­ceeding Denunciation or Declaration, he did not denounce before hand to them, the doing of what was done by Holmes, nor what was done in New Netherlands; nor could he, these being actions done without his Order; but as to what was done by his Order, viz. the taking and seizing of their ships in these parts, to say that this was done without any preceeding Denunciation, is like the rest of the Ca­lumnies in this their Book. Not to mention what passed between his Majesty and the Ambassadour of this State upon this account: was not the Memorial of him the said [Page 104] Envoye to the States General of the 27 of July last, as fol­loweth:

His most Sacred Majesty of Great Britain, &c. being desirous to omit nothing that may in any wise contribute on his part, for the prevention of any misunderstanding or breach between Him and this State, hath by His last Post expresly commanded him His Envoye Extraordinary, to de­clare to their Lordships the Estates General of the United Provinces; that His Majesty hath given order to examine the Complaints that have been made unto him in their Name, against one certain Captain Holmes, for matters al­ledged to be done by him on the Coast of Guiny, and will upon full information and hearing of both parties, do according to Reason and Justice. But if their Lordships shall not think fit to expect the doing thereof, but contrary to the stile and practice of all Nations, and particularly of his Majesty to­wards them, whom yet (to say no more) He hath not found over-quick in the dispatch of Justice towards his Subjects, and expresly against the letter of the Fourteenth Article of the late Treaty with Him, having made their complaint, shall think fit immediately to have recourse to Force for re­medy, they might as well have spared the labour of making their Complaint, and the King his Master will hold himself obliged to oppose Force to Force.

G. Downing.
FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.