166 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEA 



the nature of a merchant voyage, and that the fishermen had 

 no right to pay any such assize, which had never been craved 

 of them before. 1 



Notwithstanding this decision of the Privy Council of Scotland, 

 James in 1614 again granted the assize-herrings of the North 

 Isles, on this occasion to the Duke of Lennox, who was his 

 Admiral in Scotland and one of the chief noblemen of the 

 time. In ordinary course the grant came before the Privy 

 Council for confirmation, and the Council at once informed the 

 Convention of Burghs, requesting them to make it known to 

 the burghs that the Duke of Lennox had obtained a gift from 

 the king of " ane excyse to be tayne of all heyring to be tayne 

 be north of Buqhan Nes" (Buchan Ness, Aberdeenshire), so 

 that they might lodge their defences. The commissioners for 

 Dundee, St Andrews, Dunbar, and the burghs on the coast of 

 Fife, were accordingly appointed to proceed to Edinburgh to 

 give reasons to the Council against the " gift." 2 After hearing 

 the representatives of the burghs and the agents of the Duke 

 (one of whom was " Maister Johnne Browne," the central figure 

 in the dramatic episode in 1617, referred to later), the Lords of 

 the Council indited a long letter to the king. They cited the 

 decision in Mason's case two years before, and the reasons for 

 it. They expatiated on the great decay which had occurred in 

 all trades and commerce in Scotland, and stated that the fish- 

 ings would also decay if the duty was levied. In plain words 

 they told the king that the fisheries should rather be encour- 

 aged for the general welfare of the country, the increase of 

 customs, the inbringing of bullion, and providing work for the 

 poor. In face of the decree in Mason's case, the Duke's agents 

 had to admit that they could not levy the tax from the burghs, 

 but they craved leave to exact them from the native fishermen 

 of Orkney and Shetland, and from the foreign fishermen who 

 fished there. On the former point the opinion of the Council 

 was clear. They upheld the contention of the burghs that the 

 native fishermen were only their servants, since they paid 

 wages to them for their labour, and that the herrings, being 

 cured and barrelled on the sea, were exempt from assize duty, 

 which could be exacted only on herrings brought fresh and 



1 State Papers and Correspondence of Thomas, Earl of Melros, i. 130. 



2 Reg. Privy Council Scot., x. 231. Rcc. Convent. Roy. Burghs Scot., ii. 540. 



