174 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEA 



only refused to release the Dutch ships, but said their masters 

 would be detained in prison until the offending commanders 

 had been sent as prisoners to England, there to receive such 

 justice as their case merited. This request was most unpalat- 

 able to the States, and they raised various objections to it, 

 founded both on law and privilege; and although they were 

 assured by Carleton that the only punishment the offenders 

 would receive would be " the crossing and re-crossing the seas," 

 they begged that some other means might be found of settling 

 the matter. James, however, who had submitted the case to 

 counsel as to the legality of his demand, remained obdurate. 1 

 Finally, after much negotiation and debate, the States, in 

 February 1618, resolved to send over the two captains to 

 receive the personal rebuke of the king. Albertsz, the chief 

 offender, fell ill and died, but Tlieff did actually come to 

 England in April. Notwithstanding letters of recommenda- 

 tion from the States-General, Sir Noel Caron, and Sir Dudley 

 Carleton (with whom Grotius had interceded), he was "very 



1 Brit. Mus. Lansdovme MSS., 142, foL 398, 400. "The State of the Case 

 between his Majesty and the States of the United Provinces, touching the re- 

 manding to his Majesty of a Delinquent," 19th November 1617. In Caesar's 

 handwriting. It describes the circumstances of Brown's capture. The counsel 

 whose opinion was obtained were " W. Byrde (? Sir Wm. Bird, Dean of the 

 Arches), H. Marten, and Hy. Sty ward." "Brown, his Majesty's subject of the 

 Kingdom of Scotland, was by authority from that State sent in a pinnace of the 

 King to the subjects of the United Provinces, who were then fishing for herrings 

 upon the coasts of Scotland, to demand a certain acknowledgment claimed by his 

 Majesty, as due unto him in the right of that crown ; " that " while delivering his 

 errand he was arrested and carried prisoner to Holland by the Dutch commander, 

 who pretended he had warrant and commission from the Lords the States so to do ; 

 that his Majesty (having represented this indignity by his ambassador there to the 

 Lords the States, the latter disavowed the act of the captain) requireth the 

 offender there, to be remanded unto himself here to receive as to justice shall 

 appertain. The Question Whether this offender ought to be sent herein to his 

 Majesty as is required. Answer There are good authorities that if a subject of 

 one State commit a heinous crime within the territory of another State (though 

 against a private person), the subject so offending ought to be remitted to the 

 place where the crime was committed, if it be requii-ed." There were also opinions 

 to the contrary, but " two very particular circumstances about this offence seem 

 necessarily to enforce the remission of the Dutch captain to his Majesty (1) taken 

 from the person of Brown, who was a public messenger sent by the State of 

 Scotland on the affairs of the Prince, and ought to have been inviolable by the 

 Law of Nations, and therefore a wrong and abuse done to him was contra jus. 

 gentium ; (2) taken from the manner of the wrong done, which was nomine publico 

 viz. , by a pretended commission from the Lords the States." 



