500 
Sir William Temple’s Commentary en- 
tirely deftroys the original text of the 
Treaty. Theacknowledgment of refped, 
and the acknowledgment of dominion, are 
things of a quite different nature, and as 
diftant from one another in their proper 
worth and value, as a feather in a cap ts 
from the beft jewel in the crown. It is 
the latter, viz. an acknowledgment of the 
Crown of England’s Dominion of the Sea, 
refpe&ting which De Witt was fo inflexi- 
ble, as before mentioned. But the Dutch 
are eafy as to the fermer, viz, an ac- 
knowledement of the King of England’s 
right to have his flag refpeéted. But De 
Witt would no more yield the Dominicn 
of the Sea to the Crown of England, or to 
any other Crown whatfoever, than he 
would. the Dominion of Amilerdam.— 
When the Dutch ftrike their fiag to the 
flag of England, they only, by that-aét, 
teflify their acknowledgment of a pre- 
ference of order and degree in a Crowned 
Head before that of their Commonwealth: 
but to acknowledge the Dominion of the 
Sea in the Crown of England, is to re- 
cognize the King of England, in right of 
his Crown, to be the Sovereign Lord 
and Proprietor of that Sea. The Dutch 
at Jand, by their Ambafladors, will yield 
the preference and precedence to the Am- 
bafiadors of Crowned Heads, and confe- 
quently to thofe who are reprefented in 
their perfons ; and yet by this conceffion 
they furely do not mean to acknowledge 
a right of fovereignty or jurifdiétion in 
any Crown over them. In like manner 
at fea by their fhips, they obferve a de- 
ference and refpe&t to the flag and con- 
iequently to the Crown of England, 
without acknowledging thereby the Do- 
minion of the Sea inherent in that 
Crown. 
I wifh with all my heart, the author 
had penned the article in the Treaty with 
the fame expreffions as contained in the 
Memoirs, and had paffed it with the word 
Dominion, rather than Re/pec?. No 
reward could have fufficiently recompenfed 
fuch a fervice. My fear only is, that if 
the Marquis de Frezno, who was the Ple- 
nipotentiary of the States General in this 
‘Treaty, had agreed to it in thofe terms, 
the States would have difowned his ed- 
mifiion, alleging .that he had exceeded 
his inftructions. But the Marquis tor the 
States, or the States fdr the Marquis, 
have craftily inferted the word Re/peé?,- 
which was never before in any of the ar- 
ticles, on purpofe to elude the pretence of 
Dominion; and have thereby. -tiade the 
rite or ceremony of the flag bare ac- 
Objervations on the Dominion of the Sea. 
(Jan. 1, 
knowledgement or expreffion of Refpe, 
not of Dominion. If the obtaining trom 
the Dutch an acknowledgment of the King 
of Great Britain’s right to have his flag 
refpected, and that in the Seas ONLY be- 
tween Cape Finifierre and Vanftaten, be 
the ‘* carrying the flag to all the height 
his Majefty could wifh,’’ as exprefled in 
Sir William Temple’s Memoirs; I will 
venture to fay, there were fome of his Ma- 
jefty’s loving fubjects who could have 
found in their hearts to have wifhed bet-. 
ter for him than at that time he did 
Sor binfelf. | 
T now come to the third and laft inquiry, 
viz.— 
Whether any new point was gained, 
any new advantages acquired, to the 
Crown of England, by this article of the 
flag in the Treaty of 1673, and thofe of 
great weight and moment? “Seale 
Whoever cafts his eye over the articles 
in the preceding Treaties, will prefently 
fee, that the three fiift are one and the 
fame in fubftance, and there is no other 
variation of words than what is ab‘olutely 
neceflary to adapt the refpeétive articles to 
different times and perfons: but the 
fourth and laft is caft in a new mould, 
with material additions and alterations: 
the former are penned in boofe and ge- 
neral words—That ‘the Dutch  fhall 
ftrike their flag and lower their topfails, 
without declaring for why cr for what, 
and confequently we were left to put our 
own conftruétion upon the intention of the 
Dutch in this conceffion. This fourth 
article requires the fame ceremony, but 
then fuperadds an interpretation upon it, 
and makes it to be ** a due acknowledg-~ 
ment, on the part of the Dutch, of the King 
of Great Britain's right to have his flag re- 
SpeGied.”” And whereas all the former 
Treaties require this falutation by the 
flag in the Britith feas, the laft Treaty 
changes the word ‘* Britifh Seas” into the 
Seas. between Cape Finifterre, and the 
middle point of the Land Vanftaten in 
Norway, which additions and alterations 
furnifh the Dutch with two convincing 
arguments to prove, that the falutation 
was not intended, no, not by us, much 
lefs by them, to be an acknowledgment on 
their part of the crown of England*s Do- 
niinion of the Sea, and that it has no re- 
lation whatever to it. _ 
' 4. The article is its own interpreter, 
and leaves no liberty to any others to put 
‘aconfiru€tion upon it different from what 
itfelf declares, and it admits no implied 
fenfe or meaning to be fubftituted in the _ 
room of it. It can never be faid, that the 
4 acknow- 
