JAMES I. I DISPUTES WITH THE DUTCH 199 



aggerated and was far less than the king supposed so little 

 indeed that they would be quite unable to carry it on if any 

 " innovation " were made. 1 



The embassy of six persons arrived in London towards the 

 end of January 1621. At their first audience with the king 

 they spoke only of the affairs in Germany and the seizure of 

 the Palatinate, desiring it to be understood that this was the 



o 



principal matter to be considered ; and when they met the 

 Council they raised the question of a warlike alliance between 

 the two countries against Spain. But the herring fishery had 

 not been forgotten by the English, and when the subject was 

 mooted the Dutch begged that it might be allowed to rest for 

 a time, pleading in particular that the expiry of the truce with 

 Spain would leave them face to face with a powerful foe. The 

 Council reminded them of the promise given, and James 

 bluntly expressed the hope that they had come on this oc- 

 casion fully empowered to treat of the business of the fishery, 

 which had been suspended at the conferences two years before. 

 While disclaiming any wish to diminish their legitimate profits 

 from the fishery, he warned them that the question touched 

 his honour and sovereignty so closely that it could not be 

 always left undecided and in dispute; and that he would only 

 agree to further delay when he was informed at what time it 

 would suit the States to conclude an agreement both about the 

 fishing on the coasts of Great Britain and at " Greenland." 2 

 After many conferences and much negotiation it was arranged 

 that another embassy should be sent by the States before the 

 lapse of a year, and the Dutch commissioners quitted London 

 on 16th April. 



In accordance with this understanding, still another embassy 

 came to London, in November 1621. On this occasion the am- 

 bassadors were provided with full powers to settle the East 

 Indian disputes, and with less ample authority to deal with the 

 Spitzbergen fishery question. But, astonishing as it appears, 

 they were again sent without any power to negotiate any 

 treaty about the herring fishery. That the States, after so 

 many delays and evasions, in the face of so many protests from 

 the king, should again break their promise, shows both the great 



1 Muller, op. cit., 172, 178. Aitzema, Saken van Staet, i. 13, 17. 

 '- Muller, op. cit., 174, 178. 



