CHARLES I. : THE NAVY 311 



on international law than the operations of Northumberland's 

 leet, and in particular the amount paid by the Dutch herring 

 shermen for the king's licenses ; and so far as appears, the 

 2count given here is the first that is authentic and correct. 

 Ithough Northumberland's Journal is preserved among the 

 lational records, only one author seems to have quoted from it, 

 lamely, Evelyn, and he deliberately misrepresented it. Under 

 le hands of various authors the sum of money gradually 

 scame swelled to 30,000, or even to 100,000, and it was 

 ^presented as a rent paid by the Dutch for permission to fish, 

 md played an important part in all later controversies and 

 legotiations. 1 



The Dutch themselves appear to have acknowledged a payment of 20,000 

 florins (Muller, Mare Clausum, 274). Rap in (Hist. d'Angleterre, vii. 455) and 

 \Vagenaar ( Vaderlandsche Historic, xi. 260) placed it at 30,000 florins ; Larrey 

 (Hist. d'Angleterre, d'Ecossc et d'Mande, iv. 126) states that the Dutch concluded 

 treaty with Charles by which they agreed to pay him " dix mille ecus par an," 

 which is equivalent to the same thing ; Hume (Hist, of England, ch. lii. an. 1636) 

 ays: "The Dutch were content to pay 30,000 for a license during this year." 

 lie error is found in the earlier English historical writers. Eushworth (Collec- 

 V. ii. 322) also states the sum as 30,000, and adds that the Dutch were 

 willing to pay a yearly tribute for a like liberty in future. Frankland (.4 nnals of King 

 James and King Charles the First, 477 (1681)) says that Northumberland with his 

 " sixty gallant ships " " commanded the Dutch busses to cease fishing until they had 

 obtained permission from the King, which they seeming not willing and ready to 

 do, he fired amongst them, sunk some and seized others, until they were forced 

 to fly into his Majesty's harbours, and desired the Lord Admiral to mediate to 

 lis Majesty for his leave for this summer, and they would pay unto his Majesty's 

 treasury therefor the sum of 30,000, which they did accordingly, and professed 

 their readiness to become suppliants to his Majesty for a grant, under the con- 

 iition of a yearly payment therefor for the future." This writer seems to have 

 onfused Northumberland's operations with those of Blake's fleet in 1652 (see p. 406) 

 with the onslaught of the Dunkirkers in 1635. Kennet (A Complete Hist, of 

 England, iii. 85 (1719)) repeats the mistake and puts the sum at 30,000, and so 

 vith almost all the historians, as well as the naval writers. Thus, Burchett (A 

 Complete Hist, of the Most Remarkable Transactions at Sea, 379 (1720)) and Lediard 

 (The Naval History of England, 526 (1735)) give the statement of Frankland ; 

 Sntick (A New Naval History, 438 (1757)) drops one of the ciphers and makes the 

 im 3000, but otherwise retains the false account. Admiral Colomb, in his 

 scent excellent work on Naval Warfare (p. 33), no doubt founding on these naval 

 ithors, also refers to the " non-payment of the 30,000 annually, which had been 

 fixed by Charles as license dues." The writers of minor books embellished the 

 error. In a mendacious treatise published in 1664 (The Dutch drawn to the Life, 

 146) it is said that Northumberland " sqoured the seas of the Dutch busses, seizing 

 some, sinking others, and enforcing the rest to flee ; so reducing all to the pre- 

 carious condition of entreating the favour of fishing by the King's commission, 

 which he was the readier to indulge them, because he looked upon them as the 



