¹ See Groenveld, S. and Leeuwenberg, H. L. P., De Bruid in de Schutt. De consolidate van de Republiek, 1609–1650 (Zutphen, 1985)Google Scholar. Cf. two articles by Israel, J I. ‘Frederick Henry and the Dutch political factions, 1625–1642’, English Historical Review, XCVIII (1983), 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Holland towns and the Spanish-Dutch conflict, 1621–1648’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, XCV (1980), 461–91Google ScholarOn Henry, Frederick see Blok, P. J., Frederik Hendrik, pris van Oranje (Amsterdam, 1924)Google Scholar; Poelhekke, J. J., Frederik Hendrik, Prins van Oranje Een biografisch drieluik (Zutphen, 1978)Google Scholar. The dates given in this article are in New Style where possible

² On English foreign policy: Howat, G. M. D., Stuart and Cromwellian foreign policy (London, 1974)Google Scholar; Jones, J. R., Britain and Europe in the seventeenth century (London, 1966)Google Scholar. On Spanish foreign policy see Elliott, J. H., Imperial Spain, 1469–1716 (2nd edn, Harmondsworth, 1970)Google Scholar; Israel, J. I., The Dutch Republic and the Hispanic world 1606–1661 (Oxford, 1982)Google Scholar and The count-duke of Olivares (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Loomie, A.J., ‘Alonso de Cardenas and the Long Parliament, 1640–1648’, English Historical Review, XCVII (1982), 298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Journals of the House of Lords (LJ) IV, 157, 10/20 February 1641: Charles I to the lords. The king had expressed himself in similar terms to Aerssen a year earlier: The Hague: Algemeen Rijksarchief (ARA), States General Records (Archief Staten-Generaal) 8386, report by Aerssen van Sommelsdijck 6 November 1639 to 26 March 1640, at 10 March 1640.

⁴ This interpretation of the facts surrounding the marriage of William II of Orange to Mary Stuart differs greatly from that of Geyl, Pieter in his Oranje en Stuart 1641–1672 (2nd edn, Zeist, 1963) PP. 13–39Google Scholar. Geyl sees the marriage in purely dynastic terms and therefore reproaches Frederick Henry with pursuing a pro-Stuart and anti-Dutch policy in subsequent years. In emphasizing the political intentions behind the marriage, I do not, of course, wish to deny that it had dynastic advantages for the House of Orange, merely to point out that these were not the primary consideration. See Groenveld, S., ‘Verlopend Getij. De Nederlandse Republiek en de Engelse Burgeroorlog 1640–1646’ (Doctoral dissertation, Dieren, 1984), pp. 91–100Google Scholar. I intend to present my views on this point in more detail elsewhere.

⁵ Hexter, J. H., The reign of King Pym (3rd edn, Cambridge, Mass., 1968)Google Scholar; Underdown, D., Pride's Purge, Politics in the Puritan revolution (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁶ Journals of the House of Commons (CJ) II, 599–600; LJ v, 97–9. Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart Constitution 1603–1688. Documents and commentary (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 244–7Google Scholar.

⁷ CJ II, 729. LJ v, 316–17. ARA, Loketkas States General 12576.51.

⁸ CJ II, 780; LJ v, 372.

⁹ ARA, States General Resolutions (RSG) 1642, fo. 562r.

¹⁰ Groenveld, , Verlopend Getij, pp. 122–6Google Scholar.

¹¹ Henry Vane junior, for example, continued to support such a union: Junge, H-C., Flottenpolitik und Revolution. Die Entstehung der englischen Seemacht während der Herrschaft Cromwells (Stuttgart, 1980), p. 164Google Scholar. The English attempts to secure a union are also discussed, too briefly to reveal a continuous policy line, in Mitzukuri, G., Englisch-Niederltändische Unionsbestrebungen im Zeitalter Cromwells (Tübingen, 1891)Google Scholar.

¹² LJ VI, 329–32, 452–4. Calendar of State Papers Domestic (CSPDom) (London, 1888), 1644, pp. 19, 25, 26Google Scholar.

¹³ CSPDom 1644, p. 32. On Cunningham, see Courthorpe, E. J. (ed.), The journal of Thomas Cunningham of Camphere 1640–1654 with his Thrissels Banner and explication thereof (Edinburgh, 1928)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The report on this embassy by Willem Boreel and Johan van Reede, lord of Renswoude, may be found in ARA, States General Records 8396 and 8397. On the mission, see Groenveld, , Verlopend Getij, pp. 111–20Google Scholar and the opposing view of Geyl, in Oranje en Stuart, pp 29–34Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Jessup, P. C. and Deak, F., Neutrality. Its history, economics and law, I, The origin (New York, 1935), 30–81, 105–17Google Scholar and Van Hamel, J. A., ‘De betekenis van kaapvaart en blokkaderecht in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden’, Varia Juris Gentium: Liber Amicorum aan J. P. A. François (Leiden, 1959), pp. 140–59Google Scholar. Oudendijk, J. K., ‘Blockaded seaports in the history of international law’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, XLII (1974), 1–22Google Scholar. van Aitzema, L., Saken van Staet en Oorlogh in, ende omtrent de Verenigde Nederlanden (7 vols. The Hague, 1669–1672), I, 83–6Google Scholar. The concept of ‘siege’ in its limited sense was laid down for the first time in a treaty between the Netherlands and Sweden in 1614 following the practice employed in the Swedish siege of Riga the previous year.

¹⁶ On this trade see in particular Kepler, J. S., The exchange of Christendom. The international entrepot at Dover 1622–1641 (Leicester, 1970)Google Scholar; Taylor, H., ‘Trade, neutrality and the “English Road”, 1630–1648’, Economic History Review, second series, XXV (1972), 236–60Google Scholar; Baetens, R., ‘De havenbeweging te Oostende (1635–1662)’, Annalen 43e Congres St Niklaas-Waas. Federatie voor Oudheidkunde en Geschiedenis van België (1974), pp. 119–23Google Scholar; de Smet, J., ‘Tables du commerce et de la navigation du port de Bruges 1675–1698 avec en annexe des tables de la navigation du port d'Ostende 1640–1655’, Bulletin de la Commission Royale d'Histoire, XCIV (1930), 103–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ CJ II, 377. LJ IV, 511, 513. ARA, Lias Engeland (LE) 1642, 12 January: Joachimi to the States General.

¹⁸ Groenveld, , Verlopend Getij, pp. 135–41, 145–70Google Scholar. de Boer, M. G., Tromp en de Duinkerkers, 1640–1647 (Amsterdam, 1949)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ ARA, States of Holland Resolutions (RSH) 1642, pp. 226–240, 242; cf RSH 1651, p. 125. Formerly, to quote Tromp, the position was such that ‘the ships of these provinces seldom being the weaker, they are accustomed to make some sign of courtesy on their part, by firing some shots or lowering the flag’. See also ARA, Lias Admiraliteit (LA), 1651: 9 March, report by Tromp. Medemblik municipal record office (GAM) RSH as noted by Nicolaes Stellingwerff, no. 112, at 17 and 27 September 1642.

²⁰ Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S. (eds.), Acts and ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660 (3 vols. London, 1911), I, 9–12 and 33–6Google Scholar. CJ II, 805–6, 813–14, LJ V, 398, 408–10. British Museum, Thomason Tracts (BM, TT), E 123 (22).

²¹ Firth, and Rait, (eds.), Acts, I, 42–4Google Scholar.

²² CJ III, 303–4, 308, 313, 314, 320, 323–4, 324–5. LJ VI, 318, 690–1. Firth, and Rait, (eds.), Acts, I, 347–51Google Scholar. BM, TT E 77 (11) and E 7 (31).

²³ Larkin, J. F. (ed.), Stuart royal proclamations, II, Royal proclamations of King Charles I 1625–1646 (Oxford, 1983), 825–6Google Scholar. BM, TT, 669 fo. 5 (114).

²⁴ Larkin, (ed.), Proclamations, II, 932–5Google Scholar and 961–5. BM, TT, E 75 (5) and 669 f 7 (52).

²⁵ Larkin, (ed.), Proclamations, II, 1034–6Google Scholar. BM, TT, 669 f 9 (5)

²⁶ On the Parliamentary fleet see Junge, Flottenpolitik; Oppenheim, M, A history of the administration of the Royal Navy and of merchant shipping in relation to the navy, I, 1609–1660 (London, New York, 1896)Google Scholar; Powell, J. R., The navy in the English civil war (London, 1962)Google Scholar; Powell, J. R. and Timings, E. K. (eds.), Documents relating to the English civil war 1642–1648 (London and Colchester, 1963)Google Scholar; Rodger, N. A. M., The Admiralty (Lavenham, 1979)Google Scholar. On the New Merchants see Brenner, R., ‘The civil war politics of London's merchant community’, Past and Present, LVIII (1973), 53–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Farnell, J E., ‘The Navigation Act of 1651, the First Dutch War and the London merchant community’, Economic History Review, second ser, XVI (1963–1964), 439–54Google Scholar; Junge, , Flottenpolitik, pp. 38–72, 127–84Google Scholar; Pearl, V., London on the outbreak of the Puritan revolution. City government and national politics, 1625–1643 (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar. Junge, , Flottenpolitik, pp. 52–7Google Scholar is able to point to 40 ships as the property of New Merchants, to which 20 can be added from judgments of the High Court of Admiralty (P.R.O., HCA 34/1). Cf. Groenveld, , Verlopend Getij, pp. 180–96 and 342–3Google Scholar note 46

²⁷ Groenveld, , Verlopend Getij, pp. 203–10Google Scholar. Cf. Coate, M., Cornwall in the great civil war and interregnum 1642–1660 (Truro, 1963), pp. 117–20 and 184–6Google Scholar; Messervy, J. A. (ed.), Journal de Jean Chevalier (Jersey, 1907)Google Scholar; Hoskins, S. E., Charles II in the Channel Islands (2 vols., London, 1854)Google Scholar. Early in 1644, the parliamentarian Admiral Warwick estimated the number of royalist ships at 260. This would have included the privateers: LJ VI, 419. Examples of royalist letters of marque and reprisal may be found in ARA, LA 1645: that of John Dasset, dated 27 January/6 February 1645; Jan van Haesdonck dated 20/30 December 1643; Elia la Doue, 20 January 1645; Sir Nicholas Crisp 8/18 May 1644; Richard Whiting 8/18 October 1644; Nicolaes de Wit 19 February/1 March 1645 (cf. LJ VII, 369–71) and Folckert Folckerts of Dokkum 23 July/2 August 1645.

²⁸ Johnsen, O. A., ‘L'acte de navigation Anglais du 9 Octobre 1651’, Revue d'Histoire Moderne, XI (1934). 5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Bruijn, J. R. in Maritieme Geschitdenis der Nederland (Bussum, 1977), II, 200Google Scholar.

³⁰ ARA, LA 1643, ‘Memorie van die Schepen varende uijt het Vaderlant’ by a certain Jan Hart, 27 November 1643.

³¹ GAM, RSH Stellingwerff 112, 28 June 1642; ibid. 115, 19 December 1642. ARA, LE 1642, 5 August: States General to Joachimi.

³² Dat a on this to be found in ARA, RSG; RSH; LA; LE, and in P.R.O., HC A 13/61: Examinations January 1648 to June 1649; 34/1: Sentences 1643–50.

³³ This refers to the trials from the beginning of 1644 onwards, when the register of judgments (HC A 34/1) started. See Groenveld, , Verlopend Getij, pp. 192–3 and 354, note 127Google Scholar. A total of 268 judgments were made in the years in question, most of them concerning ships from royalist ports.

³⁴ This estimate is based on P.R.O., HCA 4/4: ‘Appraisements and sales 1648–1654’.

³⁵ Groenveld, , Verlopend Getij, pp. 210, 366–7 notes 69 an d 70Google Scholar.

³⁶ Ibid. pp. 210–17.

³⁷ The vessel Discovery, fitted out by them, was granted no fewer than 27 prizes between May 1645 and June 1646: P.R.O., HCA 34/1. Thomas Cunningham, the Scot who joined Strickland in The Hague on a diplomatic mission and in everyday life was the agent of the Scots staple at Veere in Zeeland, was a business associate of the New Merchants; between February and November 1644 he made £1,273 4s from the operations of a squadron of which he was a part-owner: Cunningham, Journal, pp. 73–4. Of the 268 judgments made by the High Court of Admiralty between January 1644 and October 1646, approximately half enriched individual English shipowners.

³⁸ Groenveld, S., De Prins voor Amsterdam. Readies uit pamfletten op de aanslag van 1650 (Bussum, 1967)Google Scholar; Groenveld and Leeuwenberg, Bruid; Kernkamp, G. W., Prins Willem II (Amsterdam, 1943)Google Scholar; Poelhekke, J.J., De Vrede van Munster (The Hague, 1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Underdown, Pride's Purge. Worden, B., The Rump Parliament 1648–1653 (London, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Koninklijk Huisarchief, The Hague (KHA), Diaries of Willem Frederik 1648, 2/12 July, 12/22 September, 27 November/7 December. I intend to examine Anglo-Dutch relations between 1646 and 1652 in a sequel to my book, Verlopend Getij.

⁴¹ See, inter alia, KHA, Willem II, xi D3: autograph list of letters received by William II in 1649; xi D5: 8 November 1649, William II to Charles II; viii 15: 16 July 1649 and 31 January 1650: Hyde to William II; X1A3: Henrietta Maria to William II. See also William II's correspondence in van Prinsterer, G. Groen (ed.), Archives ou correspondence inédite de la maison d'Orange-Nassau, second series, II–IV (Utrecht, 1858–1859)Google Scholar and the correspondence of his secretary, Constantijn Huygens in Worp, J. A. (ed.), De briefwisseling van Constantijn Huygens 1608–1687 IV, 1644–1649 (The Hague, 1915), 491, 495–6, 497–8Google Scholar. Bodleian Library, Oxford (Bodl. L.), Carte MSS 24, fos. 35ir, 130, 222r–223r, and 240r–241v. Hoskins, , Charles II, II, 212–28, 260–75Google Scholar. Geyl, , Oranje en Stuart, pp. 48–52Google Scholar.

⁴² ARA, RSG 1649, 22, 23 and 29 January. GAM, RSH Stellingwerff 146, 13 March 1649.

⁴³ Groenveld, , Verlopend Getij, p. 312, n. 128Google Scholar. On his return to The Hague talks immediately turned to a close alliance; according to Nani, the Venetian envoy in Paris, France feared this because England and the Netherlands could then join with Spain against France. CSP Venetian 1643–1647, p. 311.

⁴⁴ ARA, RSG 1648, fo. 912r–v. Dorislaus' credentials in LE 1648: 20/30 June 1648. Cf CJ v, 603, 607, 608, and CSPDom 1648–1649, pp. 132, 135.

⁴⁵ ARA, LE 1648, 2/12 August.

⁴⁶ ARA, LE 1649,18/28 May: Dorislaus to Joachimi. CJ vi, 212, same date: ‘for settling a more near and firm Union between the Two Nations’. As early as 6/16 March, when parliament still had numerous arrangements to make, the Commons expressed their intention ‘to endeavour that a good Correspondency and nearer Union may be affected and preserved between the Two States’, in response to a letter of 21 February/2 March 1649 from Strickland. A letter to this effect was written to the states general on 12/22 March: Rijksarchief in Zeeland (RAZ), annex to minutes (Bijlagen bij de Notulen) no. 2124. Dorislaus was killed before he could present his credentials to the states general: Cary, H. (ed.), Memorials ofthe great civil warfrom 1642 to 1652 (London, 1842) II, 131Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ GAM, RSH Stellingwerff 147: 13, 20 and 27 July 1649; 2, 4 and 9 September; ibid. 148: 26 November, 21 December. ARA, RS H 1650, pp. 16–17.

⁴⁸ This very forceful letter of 25 September 1649 is in ARA, L E 1649.

⁴⁹ ARA, RSH 1650, p. 331.

⁵⁰ ARA, RSG 1651, fo. 16r. Further developments to be found at fos. 32–59 passim.

⁵¹ CSPDom 1651, pp. 15, 17, 19–20, 21, 22. The Mercurius politicus was pressing for this between 2/12 and 9/19 January, see pp. 508 and 512.

⁵² CJ VI, 527–8, 535. The manuscripts of His Grace the duke of Portland preserved at Welbeck Abbey, Historical Manuscripts Commission (London, 1891), 1, 557–8Google Scholar. Geyl's, statement (Oranje en Stuart, p. 73)Google Scholar that this instruction is missing is incorrect.

⁵³ Worden, , Rump Parliament, pp. 237–62, particularly p. 253Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ CJ VI, 528.

⁵⁵ No. C 129 of the Rawlinson Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library is the ‘Journal of the Proceedings of St John and Strickland, ambassadors of the Commonwealth at The Hague, March–June 1651’, probably written by John Thurloe, secretary to the embassy. As far as I know, this important document has never been used, and I intend to compile an edition of it in the Nederlandse Historische Bronnen series (Dutch historical sources), which is published by the Nederlands Historisch Genootschap. The reference to Dutch neutrality may be found on folio 17 V and 21 V. Cf. Bodl. L., Tanner MSS no. 54, fo. 30 V.

⁵⁶ On Oliver St John see Pearl, V., ‘Oliver St John and the “middle group” in the Long Parliament, August 1643–May 1644’, English Historical Review, LXXXI (1966), 490–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar: idem, ‘The “royal independents” in the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, XVIII (1968), 69–96. Also Keeler, M. F., The Long Parliament, 1640–1641: a biographical study of its members (Philadelphia, 1954)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ ARA, RSH 1651, p. 326.

⁵⁸ Bodl. L., Rawlinson MSS C 129, Journal, fo. 58r.

⁵⁹ The principal sources in Dutch archives on this mission are ARA, RSG 1651; Resolutiën van de Grote Vergadering van 1651; LE 1651; RSH.

⁶⁰ ARA, RSH 1651, p. 336.

⁶¹ ARA, Loketkas States-General 12589.62: secret letter from Cats and his companions to the states general, dated 10 February 1652. Correspondence of Cats et al. no. 28131¹, 17 May 1652.

⁶² For this embassy see ARA, states general records, 8460–8462, Report of Cats and his fellow ambassadors; RSG 1651, 1652; Secret resolutions of the states general; LE 1651, 1652; Loketkas 12589.53, 12589.55, 12589.56, 12589.57, 12589.61, 12589.62; RSH 1651, 1652. CJ VII. Bachrach, A. G. H. and Collmer, R. G. (ed.) L. Huygens, The English journal 1651–1652 (Leiden, 1982)Google Scholar; Edmundson, G., Anglo-Dutch rivalry during the first half of the seventeenth century (Oxford, 1911)Google Scholar; Mitzukuri, Unionsbestrebungen; Tideman, M. C., De zee betwist. Geschiedenis der onderhandelingen over de zeeheerschappij tusschen de Engelse republiek en de Vereenigde Provinciën voor den eersten zee-oorlog. (Dordrecht, 1876)Google Scholar.

⁶³ Portland MSS 1, 361 2. ARA, LA 1646, 14/24 May, annex to a letter from the admiralty of Rotterdam to the states general (26 October) about Boswell.

⁶⁴ Chevalier, , Journal, pp. 250–1, 340–1, 394Google Scholar. An Irish letter of marque issued by Ormonde in ARA, LA 1646, annex dated 24 April/4 May 1646 to a letter from the admiralty of Rotterdam to the states general of 24 September 1646.

⁶⁵ Calendar of the Clarendon state papers (3 vols., Oxford, 1869–1876) 1, 376, 378Google Scholar. Hoskins, , Charles II, 11, 142–51Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Junge, , Flottenpolitik, pp. 125–6Google Scholar. Bigby, D. A., Anglo-French relations 1641–1649 (London, 1933) PP. 131–52Google Scholar. Knachel, P. A., England and the Fronde. The impact of the English civil war and revolution on France (Ithaca, New York, 1967), pp. 127–30Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ P.R.O., SP 18/9, fos. 305 r–307r: list of prizes brought into Ostend by royalist privateers between 3/13 March 1649 and 16/26 August 1650. It lists 54 ships, and goods from 3 others. For the prize court, see Cunningham, , Journal, pp. 233–4Google Scholar; the case mentioned there does not appear on this list.

⁶⁸ Hyde, E., earl of Clarendon, , The history of the rebellion and civil wars in England (Oxford, 1843), p. 673Google Scholar. This was not always successful: ARA, RSG 1648, fo. 869r, States of Holland executive committee (Gecommitteerde Raden), 3003, 23 October 1648.

⁶⁹ Prestage, E., The diplomatic relations of Portugal with France, England, and Holland from 1640 to 1668 (Watford, 1925), pp. 111–17Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Firth, and Rait, (eds.) Acts, 11, 9–13Google Scholar: ‘An Act for encouragement of Officers and Mariners, and Impresting Seamen’. CJ VI 147–50. On parliment's policies to build up a fleet see Junge, Flottenpolitik, passim.

⁷¹ Firth, and Rait, (eds.), Acts, 11, 66–75Google Scholar. CJ VI 184–8, 202, 204.

⁷² Firth, and Rait, (eds.), Acts, 11, 75–8Google Scholar: appointment of Commissioners for the Sale of Prize Goods. Ibid. 78–9, the Court of Admiralty's sentencing methods.

⁷³ Ibid. 157. CJ VI, 243.

⁷⁴ Ibid. 379–82. Earlier restrictions on trade: ibid. 1, 1224–6. Cf. LJ X, 554. On the war between England and France see Knachel, , England, pp. 122 ffGoogle Scholar. Firth, and Rait, (eds.), Acts, 11, 239–40Google Scholar; cf. CJ VI, 286.

⁷⁵ Firth, and Rait, (eds.), Acts, 11, 445–7, 449–51Google Scholar. CJ VI, 491, 493.

⁷⁶ Pearl, V., ‘London's counter-revolution’, Aylmer, G. E. (ed.), The interregnum: the quest for settlement 1646–1660 (London and Basingstoke, 1972), pp. 29–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Brenner, , ‘Civil war polities’, 85–105Google Scholar. Junge, , Flottenpolitik, pp. 103–7, 127–84Google Scholar. Farnell, ‘Act of Navigation’. Farnell, J. E., ‘The politics of the City of London 1649–1657’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ For the initial talks, see P.R.O., SP 25/123 (see note 81 below), p. 184: 20/30 December 1649.

⁷⁸ Ibid. pp. 194, 195, 204, 210, 213, 252, 258, 329, 344, 356, 414–15, 420–1, 445–7, 456. Cf. Farnell, ‘Act of Navigation’ and Junge, , Flottenpolitik, pp. 147–84Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ The document is in Firth, and Rait, (eds.), Acts, 11, 425–9Google Scholar. Cf. CJ VI, 474, 478. Consideration appears to have been given to taking the same measure against Ireland in 1648: ARA, LE 1648, 24 April: Maerten Mazuere in London to Albert Joachimi.

⁸⁰ CJ VI, 489–90: petition by the Council of Trade. Firth, and Rait, (eds.), Acts, 11, 444Google Scholar.

⁸¹ CSP Dom 1651, p. 300, quoted by Junge, , Flottenpolitik, pp. 156–7Google Scholar. This shows that consideration was also given to using the same measure in the war to subjugate Scotland. The text of the Navigation Act in Firth, and Rait, (eds.), Acts, 11, 559–62Google Scholar. Cf. Farnell, ‘Act of Navigation’; Clark, G. N.: ‘The Navigation Act of 1651’, History, VII (1922–1923), 282–6Google Scholar and Wilson, C., Profit and power. A study of England and the Dutch wars (2nd edn, The Hague, 1978)Google Scholar. Other views on the Act, with a more political angle, may be found in Hinton, R. W. K., The Eastland trade and the common weal (Cambridge, 1959)Google Scholar. While the order book of the admiralty committee has a lot to say about the passing of the act of October 1650, the Navigation Act is not mentioned in the subsequent volumes, on 1650 and 1651. It must have been drafted by the council of trade, which comprised pardy the same members as the committee and partly business contacts of the New Merchants. The admiralty committee order books are not in the P.R.O. in London but in the Bodleian Library: Rawlinson papers A 225 (21/31 October 1650–7/17 August 1651) and A 226 (to 25 November/5 December 1652).

⁸² Worden, , Rump Parliament, pp. 265–98Google Scholar.

⁸³ Sources: ARA, RSG; LA; LE; Loketkas; RSH; Incoming and outgoing letters Holland. P.R.O., HCA 13/61–5, 249, 250: Examinations; 34/1, 2, 4: Sentences. The total number of ships brought into port is less than the number of detentions because in 1647, 1648 and 1649 respectively 1, 2 and 11 ships were captured by parliament after having been detained by the royalists. The values mentioned here, as elsewhere, are based on the purchase price of ships and cargoes and not the sale price, which was probably 3 or 4 times higher.

⁸⁴ The merchantmen requisitioned: ARA, RSG 1649, 24 June. LE 1649, 18 June: Joachimi to states general; 8/18 June: council of state to Walter Strickland.

⁸⁵ The herring boats: GAM, RSH Stellingwerff 147, 17 September 1649.

⁸⁶ GAM, RSH Stellingwerff 144, 31 July 1648.

⁸⁷ ARA, RSG 1648, fos 651r–653r. Parliament's criticisms: CSPDom 1648–1649, p. 312.

⁸⁸ On this mission, see ARA, RSG 1649; LE 1649; RSH 1649. P.R.O., HCA 13–250: Examinations on commission, 10–20 August 1649.

⁸⁹ ARA, RSH 1650, p. 34; 1651, p. 156. On 6 January 1651 the 28 ships which had recently been brought into port in the islands were discussed: RSG 1651, fo. 12v.

⁹⁰ Tromp's instruction is in ARA, LA 1651, 9 March.

⁹¹ Powell, J. R., Robert Blake, general-at-sea (London, 1972), pp. 108–33Google Scholar.

⁹² On this mission see Groenveld, S., ‘Het gewest en de unie. Het Hollandse gezantschap van Gerard Schaep Pietersz. naar Engeland, 1650–1651, als fase in de Nederlands-Engelse betrekkingen’ (unpublished master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1965)Google Scholar. Schaep's instructions may be found in ARA, RSH 1650, pp. 28–30.

⁹³ Knachel, , England, p. 132Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ GA Purmerend, RSH kept by Sybrand Claesz. Schot V, 29 November and 1 December 1650.

⁹⁵ ARA, RSH 1651, p. 203. Cf. RSG 1651, fo. 223V on the attacks of Dutch merchantmen off the Portuguese coast.

⁹⁶ Bodl. L., Rawlinson MSS A 226, Order book admiralty committee 1651–2, fo. 27r.

⁹⁷ GA Amsterdam, resolutions of the Vroedschap 19, 8 December 1651. ARA, RSH 1651, pp. 592–3; RSG 1651, fo. 880v. On 15 December the states general received an application from the admiralty of Rotterdam for exemption for a fleet which was ready to leave for Scottish ports and which would not carry any prohibited goods. The application was refused: RSG 1651, fos. 897r, 899 r; as was a similar application from the admiralty of Amsterdam: fos. 913r, g18r.

⁹⁸ E.g. GAM, RSH Stellingwerff 144, 31 July 1648; 147, 26 and 31 August 1649.

⁹⁹ ARA, RSH 1651, p. 22.

¹⁰⁰ ARA, RSH 1652, pp. 56, 73–4, 176–7.

¹⁰¹ ARA, RSH 1652, pp. 83, 97. The salute was clearly becoming a problem at this point; see ARA, RSG 1651, fos. 715V, 733V. RSH 1651, pp. 541–7. In Tromp' s instructions of March 1651 (RSH p. 125; LA 1651, 9 March) parliament is referred to as the government of England, to be treated in the same manner as the king had formerly been.

¹⁰² Powell, , Blake, pp. 139–54Google Scholar. Oudendijk, J. K., Maerten Harpertszoon Tromp (2nd edn, The Hague, 1952), pp. 101–5Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Baetens, R., ‘The organisation and effects of Flemish privateering in the seventeenth century’, Acta Historiae Meerlandicae, IX (1976), 48–75, esp. 62–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Stradling, R. A., ‘The Spanish Dunkirkers, 1621–1648: a record of plunder and destruction’, Tijdschrifi voor Gescteedems, XCIII (1980), 541–58, esp. p. 547Google Scholar. It appears that valuations made in Dunkirk were somewhat lower than those made in England: for example, income from the 140 ships taken in 1628 amounted to approximately 1.4 million guilders, or some 10,000 guilders per ship.

¹⁰⁴ ARA, LE 1648, 5 May. The Anglo-French war referred to was that of 1627–9.