Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/559

 1920 DUTCH MISSIONS TO ENGLAND IN 1689 651 vaisseaux et Marchandises doivent etre jugez et condamnez.' The Dutch proposed to substitute the formula : seront reputez de bonne prise par les amirautez dont ceux qui ont fait la prise auront receu leur commission, tout sur le pied et conformement a ce qu'en est convenu par le traitte dernierement conclu pour la conjonc- tion des deux flottes. This the British commissioners would not accept. They promised a further discussion, and said that in the meantime they were ready to substitute ' le juge competent ' for ' les amirautez ' ; ^ but their next step was to produce an uncompromising legal opinion. The two chief justices, the judge of the admiralty court, the attorney-general, the solicitor-general, and another unani- mously answered in the negative the question put to them by the privy council : whether it be consistent with the Law of England for the King to make it an article in a Treaty with another Kingdome or State that in case Prizes be taken by the Privateers of the one Kingdome or State and brought into the ports of the other, they shall in Cases be judged by the respective Admiralties of that Kingdom or State to which the Privateers belong and shalbe permitted to go thither from out of these Ports for the purpose. ^ This the Dutch contested as contrary to the terms of the treaty for the union of the fleets ; but the English refused to give way, and finally the Dutch agreed to the small amend- ment of inserting the words ' les juges competents '. Although the treaty was thus made out in accordance with the English view, the Dutch seem to have received an assurance that ships captured by their captains would be allowed to the jurisdiction of their own admiralty colleges.^ The practice during the war does not, however, seem quite to have followed this promise. At any rate there were one or two further disputes about the extent of British jurisdiction over prizes brought in by the Dutch, though it is possible that some British interest in the cargoes may have distinguished these cases from the majority.* The fourth in date, which is also the last and least important of the conventions concluded in 1689, deals with a question of detail in maritime warfare, but yet illustrates some of the general problems of the alliance. It regulates the distribution of the booty, or rather the reward to be given to the captor, when prizes, I Seer, dispatch of 2/12 July. " Privy Council Register, 1 July 1689. The answer is printed in R. G. Marsden, Law and Custom of War at Sea, i. 125. Memorial of 27 July 1692) and Nostra Signora della Consolazione (Foreign Entry Book, 69 : Memorials of 28 August and 16 November 1695 with correspondence on them ; cf. Res. Stat. Gen., 17/27 October 1695).
 * Dispatches of 30 August/9 September.
 * Cases of the Lion of the North (State Papers, Foreign, Foreign Ministers 21 :