THE HISTORY OF DUTCH SEA FISHERIES. 147 



the College's yoke was easy upon them so long as they 

 abstained from curing herring, and therefore were not 

 competitors of the Grand Fishery. In 1663, according to 

 v. d. Lely, they were " suspected " of curing herring ; whence, 

 in the said year, the college inserted a clause against such 

 curing into the oath to be taken by steersmen from the 

 coast previous to receiving their licence. The proceeding 

 was clearly an encroachment, as the law did not prohibit the 

 coast fishermen from curing their herring. But it has been 

 shown in Chapter I. that the College did not usually shrink 

 from extending the law to their competitors' prejudice. In 

 this instance they actually conferred on themselves a very 

 important monopoly, which was afterwards the object 

 of much controversy and one of the main features of 

 herring legislation ; but which, when first claimed, was not 

 based on any law. 



It appears that this monopoly was not always observed 

 to the letter. In 1735 and 1736, coast fishermen from 

 Katwijk were found to cure herring caught by them in the 

 Deepwater, on the plea that a very warm season made it 

 impossible for them to preserve their herring uncured till 

 they should have reached the coast and brought the fish to 

 the smokery. The proceeding, as they argued, was for the 

 benefit of the smoked-herring industry ; for if they had not 

 cured the earlier part of their catch they would have been 

 obliged to smoke it some time after capture, whereas no 

 herring above two days old was now carried to the smoke- 

 house, and Dutch " deepwater " bucking thereby maintained 

 its excellence over the Yarmouth bloater.* But the grand 

 Fishery would not hear of admitting competitors into the 

 cured-herring business upon a plea based on the smoked- 

 herring interest ; and once more prohibited the coast 

 * Ned. Jaarboeken, 1751, p. 1043, sqq. 



