JAMES I. I DISPUTES WITH THE DUTCH 167 



" green " to land. 1 The Council evaded giving an opinion on 

 the point of chief importance, the proposal to levy the tax on 

 the foreign fishermen, all of whom cured their fish on board 

 their vessels. There were, they said, according to information 

 supplied by the burghs, " some strangers, especially of Holland," 

 who claimed the liberty and privilege of fishing " by his Majesty's 

 patent granted in their favour to fish in his Majesty's waters " ; 

 but the tenour of this patent was obscure and not known to 

 them, and they had no record of it. They suggested that the 

 king should ask his ambassador at The Hague to procure an 

 authentic copy of it, to be sent to Scotland for inspection and 

 consideration. 2 



Evidently the Council in Scotland were at this time as 

 cautious as the Council in England in doing anything contrary 

 to the treaties with the Netherlands. Had they sanctioned 

 offhand the request of the Duke to exact the assize-herrings 

 from the Hollanders, they would have taken the responsibility, 

 without direct authority from the king, of an act which they 

 knew might have serious consequences. They had no sympathy 

 with the foreign fishermen, for complaints regarding them from 

 the burghs were frequent. In 1611 the city of Edinburgh 

 represented to them the " inconvenience " which was sustained 



1 The Lords of the Council to the king, 17th May 1614. Melroae Papers, i. 

 130. " It wes fundin," wrote the Lords, " by vniforme voices and consent, without 

 ony kynd of contradictioun, that the assise dewytie aucht onlie to be payit for 

 the hering brought freshe and greene to land, and that the hering whilkis ar 

 maid, sal tit, and barrellit vpoun the sea, and maid recldye for the transporte, hes 

 nevir bene in vse to pay ony dewytie." 



2 Loc. cit. The "patent" was the treaty of 1594. See p. 81. It may be 

 mentioned that Mason, in his petition to Charles I. (see p. 153 note), stated that in 

 1611 he collected "some part" of the assize-herrings, but that upon the marriage 

 of the Princess Elizabeth (February 1613) "the States ambassador made suit 

 to the king for the remission of the said assize-herrings due by their nation, which 

 was granted." We have discovered no other evidence of this. Loose statements 

 were often made on the subject by English writers and certain foreign authors, as 

 Rapin (Hist. d'Anglet., vii. 58), and Wagenaar (Vaderl. Hist., ix. 318) following him, 

 that the Dutch agreed to pay an annual sum for liberty to fish on the British 

 coasts. The error was elaborated by others, as by Lediard in his great work 

 (Naval History of England, i. 420), who says: "In the year 1608 (sic) King 

 James published a proclamation prohibiting all foreign nations to fish on the 

 coast of Great Britain. This prohibition, though general, was designed against 

 the Dutch ; and it occasioned the Treaty the year following whereby they engaged 

 to pay an annual sum for leave to fish an evident acknowledgment of the English 

 Dominion of the Seas." 



