^{page 209 note a} Hakluyt thus writes in his account of the capture: “I cannot but enter into the consideration and acknowledgment of God's great fauor towards our nation, who by putting this purchase into our hands hath manifestly discouered those secret trades and Indian riches which hitherto lay strangely hidden and cunningly concealed from vs; whereof there was among some few of vs some small and vnperfect glimse onely, which now is turned into the broad light of full and perfect knowledge, whereby it would seeme that the will of God for our good is (if our weaknesse could apprehend it) to haue vs communicate with them in those East Indian treasures, and by the erection of a lawfull traffike to better our meanes to aduance true religion and his holy seruice.” Ed. 1599, vol. II. part ii. p. 198. The direct mercantile communication between England and the East Indies commenced in the year 1600, when a company was incorporated by royal charter, by the name of “The Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies,” who had the monopoly of the East Indian trade until the year 1636, when a second company was formed. The two associations effected a junction in 1650. Under the Protectorate in 1655 a third company was started, which, however, united with the old corporation in 1657. In 1698 a fourth company was incorporated; but both associations were united by the authority of government in the present East India Company under the denomination of “The United Company of Merchants trading to the East Indies.”

^{page 210 note a} A short review of the origin of these mercantile adventures, or privateering expeditions, may not be uninteresting. One of the elementary principles of “Prize Law” is that all prizes belong to the sovereign, and consequently, although according to the law of nations it is lawful in time of war for any subject to seize the ships and cargoes of enemies of his country, yet the goods so taken belong to the Crown. This royal prerogative was at a very early period waived in certain cases; and licences, denominated letters of Marque and Reprisal, were granted by the sovereign to subjects who had been injured by those of a foreign country, and where justice had been denied by the State to which the oppressors belonged. These letters of Marque and Reprisal were, by the law of nations, held sufficient to justify the holders in an attack upon and seizure of the property of the aggressor nation, without the hazard of being condemned as robbers or pirates.

The earliest notice which I have found of letters of Marque being issued in this country occurs in the year 1295, in the case of Bernard Dongressilli, a merchant of Bayonne, who, proceeding with goods towards England, anchored on the coast of Portugal, where, notwithstanding it was in time of peace, he was forcibly taken by the Portuguese and carried to Lisbon, and his cargo seized and sold, the king receiving a tenth part of the produce. Dongressilli, asserting that he was injured by this lawless act to the extent of 700l. sterling, applied to John of Britany, the king's viceroy or lieutenant in Gascony, to obtain “licentiam mercandi homines et subditos de regno Portugalliae, et specialiter illos de Ulixbon, et bona eorum per terram et mare ubicumque eos et bona eorum invenire possit, quousque de prædictis bonis sibi, ut dictum est, ablatis, integram habuisset restitutionem.” The licence, which was subsequently confirmed by King Edward I., was granted by John of Britany by letters dated from Bayonne, “die Martis ante festum beati Barnabæ apostoli, anno Domini MCCXCV;” the words of grant being as follows: “Dedimus ipsi Bernardo et concessimus, et adhuc damus et concedimus eidem, suisque hæredibus, successoribus et ordinio licentiam, quod ipse gentes de regno Portugalliæ et specialiter illas de civitate Ulixbon prædictâ et bona earum ubicumque ea invenire poterit, infra districtum domini nostri Regis et Ducis et extra, possit marchare, retinere, et sibi appropriare ilia; quousque ipse Bernardus, et hæredes sui, vel successores, aut ejus ordinium, bonis suis prædictis, ut dictum est, sibi deprædatis, vel ipsorum valore supra declarato cum expensis, quas rationabiliter iliâ occasione fecerit, fuerit integrè restitutus. Præsentibus per quinquennium vel quamdiu prædicti domini nostri Regis et Ducis aut nostræ placuerit voluntati duraturis.” (Rot. Vascon. 23 Edw. I. m. 22; Fœdera, edit. 1816, vol. I. part ii. p. 828.)

Marque and Reprisal is referred to in the statute of the 27 Edw. III. cap. 17, as an established usage, “q si noz ligez gentz, marchantz ou aut's, soient endamagesp' ascuns Seign^rs destranges t'res ou leur subgitz, et les ditz Seignours duement requis faillent de droit a noz dites gentz, nous eions la lei de Mark et de rep'sailles, come ad este use devant ces heures, saunz fraude ou mal engin.”

In the reign of Henry IV. a petition was presented to the king in Parliament praying for letters patent to take Marque and Reprisal of all French subjects (having no safe-conduct of the King of England), to a certain value for ships and goods taken by them in time of truce. (Rot. Parl. vol. III. p. 643, No. 26.) In the succeeding reign a statute (4 Hen. V. cap. 7) was passed, which sets forth, that if any subjects of the realm should be oppressed in time of truce by any foreigners, the king would grant “marque en due forme “to all who felt themselves aggrieved; and the Act provided for the manner in which the licence should be sued out.

It soon, however, became manifestly the policy of the government of this country, especially before the establishment of a large royal navy, to encourage merchants and other adventurers to fit out armed ships with a view to their harassing the enemy. Accordingly we find the original design of the letters of Marque and Reprisal extended, and Commissions issued to merchants and owners of ships authorizing them to make captures of the vessels and cargoes belonging to the enemy; the prizes so taken, with certain deductions, becoming the property of the captors. Commissions of this nature were very frequently issued in Elizabeth's reign, and, as stated in the text, the Queen herself did not hesitate to join in many of the adventures so undertaken.

It would appear that the waiver by the Crown of its privilege to prizes in favour of those subjects holding commissions, induced many adventurers to furnish forth vessels without obtaining the necessary licence from the Crown; for in the year 1605–6 an Order in Council, dated 6th March, was issued, specifically declaring that all enemy's ships and goods casually met at sea and seized by any vessel not commissioned should belong to the Lord High Admiral. (Pritchard's Admiralty Digest, p. 147.)

In later times the Lords of the Admiralty have been empowered in time of war by various Acts of Parliament, and sometimes by proclamation of the Sovereign in council, to grant commissions, which still bear the name of letters of Marque and Reprisal, to the owners of ships, and the prizes captured by them have been directed to be divided between such owners, the captains and crews of the vessels paying only the customary duties to the Crown. In order, however, to guard as much as possible against piratical spoliation or clandestine fraud by these privateers, the law of England, since the reign of Charles II., has required that, before any division is made, the ships and goods captured shall be condemned in the Court of Admiralty as a “lawful prize.”

page 210 note * John of Britany was fourth son of John duke of Britany and Beatrice Plantagenet, daughter of Henry III. of England, consequently nephew to Edward I. whose viceroy he was, and by whom he was created Earl of Richmond 15 Oct. 1306; ob. circa 1334, s. p.

^{page 211 note a} Ralegh to Lord Burghley. Strype, vol. iv. p. 182.

^{page 211 note b} Vide Letter from Ralegh to the Lord Treasurer, printed in Strype's Annals, Ox. ed. 1824, vol. iv. p. 181.

^{page 212 note a} Sir John Burgh was a younger son of William fourth Baron Burgh or Borough by his wife Katharine, daughter of Edward Clinton, ninth Baron Clinton and first Earl of Lincoln, K.G., and Lord Admiral of England. Sir John was twice knighted, first by the Earl of Leicester in the Netherlands, and secondly by King Henry IV. of France. His attacks upon the enemy's ships were not always attended with so successful a result as that in the narrative, for two years afterwards (17th March, 1594) in an attempt to capture a Spanish carrack he was killed, being then in the 32nd year of his age. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, where, in St. Andrew's Chapel, a tablet with a Latin inscription records his exploits, and the manner of his death.

^{page 212 note b} Printed from the original at Hatfield in Murdin's State Papers, fo. Lond. 1759, p. 653.

^{page 212 note c} See note, p. 225.

^{page 212 note d} Hakluyt, ed. 1599, vol. ii. part ii. pp. 194–5.

^{page 213 note a} The well known Charles Howard, K.G., second Baron Howard of Effingham, and created in 1597 Earl of Nottingham, ob. 1624.

^{page 213 note b} Life of Sir Walter Ralegh, 5th ed. 1844, p. 118.

^{page 213 note c} Ed. 1759, p. 663.

^{page 213 note d} Life of Sir Walter Ralegh, p. 119.

^{page 214 note a} Birch's Memoirs of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 4to. 1754, vol. i. p. 79.

^{page 214 note b} Vide Letter from Frobisher to Lord Burghley. Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 30. Hakluyt, vol. ii. part ii. p. 195.

^{page 214 note c} It is not very clear what division of the ships took place, but the following is as perfect a list as I can furnish:

^{page 215 note a} Hakluyt, ed. 1599, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 195.

^{page 215 note b} These two vessels, together with a third ship and a pinnace, set sail from Dover Roads on the 12th February, 1591–2. A narrative of the adventures of the expedition will be found in “Hakluyt,” ed. 1600, p. 567.

^{page 215 note c} Vide Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 96; ib. No. 115, art. 90, being a statement delivered to Lord Burghley by the owners of the “Golden Dragon” and “Prudence,” of the services rendered by those ships at the taking of the Carrack; as also a petition to Sir Robert Cecil and Sir John Fortescue, Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the Lord Treasurer appears to have referred the claim which the owners made for a share of the prize.

^{page 215 note d} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 98. Sir John Burgh states that he received letters from the Lord Treasurer and the Lord Admiral by Captain Ellis to stay about the islands for the intercepting of the carracks.

^{page 216 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 91. Ib. art. 98.

^{page 216 note b} Letter from Frobisher to Lord Burghley. Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 30.

^{page 216 note c} Hakluyt, vol. ii. part ii. pp. 198–9.

^{page 217 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 27 (printed in Wright's Court of Queen Elizabeth, vol. ii. p. 418.)

^{page 217 note b} It need scarcely be stated that the Earl of Cumberland who has been before referred to, and is here mentioned by Sir John Burgh, was George Clifford, K.G. third Earl of that family. He had applied himself to sea-service, and in some of his adventures was assisted by the Queen. In the Fœdera (edit. 1727, vol. xvi. p. 208) there will be found a commission granted 28 May 1593, empowering him to collect ships' companies and appoint captains, and to take up, levy arms, and victual ships, against the King of Spain; and he was authorised to take under his command two of the Queen's ships, the Golden Lion and the Elizabeth Bonadventure, and such other ships of his own and others as he should appoint, not exceeding six in number. In all prizes that might be taken in this expedition the Earl had absolute authority given to him to agree with parties willing to adventure with him in the expedition, and also to make distribution amongst the adventurers of the prizes which should be taken, “saving so much as shall apperteyne to us in the right of the tonne and tonnage of our said twoe shippes, with the privitie and allowance of our Highe Tresorer and our High Admirall of England, proportionalle with the rest of the fleete aforesaide, and all other dueties and customes due unto us upon all goodes brought into any of our domynions.” On other occasions, as on the present, the expedition was conducted solely at the Earl's cost and risk. He was one of the parties named in the charter issued for the incorporation of the first East India Company. Vide ante, p. 209.

^{page 217 note c} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 91.

^{page 218 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 98.

^{page 218 note b} Ib. art. 96.

^{page 219 note a} Vide Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 94; also Lansd. MS. No. 115, art. 9.

^{page 219 note b} Ed. fo. Lond. 1925, vol. iv. p. 1145.

^{page 219 note c} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 26.

^{page 220 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 32.

^{page 220 note b} Letter from Ralegh to the Lord Treasurer, dated 17th Sept. 1592, printed in Strype's Annals, vol. iv. p. 178.

^{page 220 note c} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 35. Letter from Richard May to the Lord Treasurer, dated 10th Sept. 1592.

^{page 220 note d} Ib. art. 33.

^{page 221 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 49, being a copy of the proclamation which was “geven at the citie of Oxenford the xxiij daie of September, 1592.”

^{page 221 note b} The allowance of “pillage “appears to have been of ancient practice both in this and other countries. The Admiralty Ordinances of France of May 1584, quoted in Robinson's Collectanea Maritima, 8vo. Lond. 1801, [page 115,] recognise it in the 45th article, which declares, “que nulle chose pourra estre dit pillage, qui excede la valeur de dix escus.” The right to “pillage “is also admitted by the following article from “The Black Book of the Admiralty:” “Item.—En cas que aucune nef ou vessell enemy soit pris par aucune de nostre flote, adonqes les preneurs auront a leurs ceps toutes maneres des biens et harnois trouvez sur les haches, ou sur le tilat, ou calfatour des ditz vaisseaulx, et aussi tousiours sauvées les auntiens customes et usages de mer.” Lansd. MS. No. 318, p. 151. Hargrave MS. No. 185, p. 10. In the reign of Charles II. (anno 1661), an Act was passed for the better regulation and discipline of the Navy, in which the right of pillage is incidentally mentioned, the Act directing “that nothing shall be taken out of a prize ship till condemned; that an entire account shall be given of the whole without fraud, on pain of such punishment as the Court Marshall or Admiralty Court shall inflict, except every thing above the gun deck” but arms, ammunition, tackle, furniture or stores, which are not to be touched.

^{page 221 note c} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 43.

^{page 222 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 46.

^{page 222 note b} Ib. art. 36.

^{page 222 note c} “Quintal,” a weight in France and Germany of 100 pounds avoirdupois; in England 112.

^{page 223 note a} See Letter, MSS. Lansd. No. 70, art. 42

^{page 223 note b} The plague was about this time raging so much in London that the Queen issued a proclamation, prohibiting the keeping of Bartholomew Fair, and limiting the time for the sale of horses, &c. in Smithfield.—Fœdera, vol. xvi. p. 213.

^{page 224 note a} Purchas' Pilgrims, fo. ed. Lond. 1625, vol. iv. p. 1145.

^{page 224 note b} Vide Letter to Lord Burghley from Sir Francis Drake, William Killegrew, and Thomas Myddelton, Lansd. MS. 70, art. 44.

^{page 224 note c} 8vo. Lond. 1830, p. 482.

^{page 225 note a} The following sketch pedigree (verified by reference to the Devon and Cornwall Visit^s, in Coll. Arm. marked D 7 and C 1, respectively,) will shew the family connexion existing between Sir Walter Ralegh, Sir John Gilbert, and several of the Devonshire “Sea worthies,” who flourished during Elizabeth's reign.

^{page 225 note b} Life of Ralegh, p. 122.

^{page 225 note c} Printed in Murdin's State Papers, page 657.

^{page 225 note d} This ship, which was built by Sir Richard Hawkins, and subsequently purchased of him by his father Sir John Hawkins, was named, on her launching, the “Repentance,” and “being put in perfection, and riding at Deptford, the Queenes Majesty passing by her, to her palace of Greenwych, commanded her bargemen to row round about her, and viewing her from post to stemme, disliked nothing but her name, and said that shee would christen her anew, and that henceforth shee should be called the ‘Daintie.’” Hawkins' Voyage, A.D. 1593, 8vo. Lond. re-printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1847.

^{page 226 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 39.

^{page 226 note b} Ante, p. 225.

^{page 226 note c} Memoirs of Sir W. Ralegh, p. 92.

^{page 227 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 59.

^{page 227 note b} The Mr. Candish here referred to was no doubt Mr. Thomas Candish, or Cavendish, of Trimley St. Martin, in the county of Suffolk, who in the years 1586–7 and 8, with 3 ships, viz. “The Desire,” of the burthen of 120 tons, “The Content,” of 60 tons, and “The Hugh Gallant,” a bark of 40 tons, having on board 123 persons, made a voyage to the South Seas, and from thence round the world. During his voyage, viz. on 4th November 1587, he took a ship belonging to the King of Spain, called “The Sancta Anna,” of about 700 tons burthen, laden with gold, silk, satins, damasks, &c. a large portion of which treasures he brought to England. Purchas' Pilg. fo. Lond. 1625, vol. i. part ii. pp. 57–65.

^{page 228 note a} Letter from the Mayor and Officers of the Port of Portsmouth to Lord Burghley, dated 11th Sept. 1592. Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 37.

^{page 228 note b} See Letter from Mr. Waad to Lord Treasurer. Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 47.

^{page 228 note c} Vide Letter from Sir John Hawkins to Lord Burghley, dated 17th Sept. 1592, Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 43.

^{page 229 note a} Vide Letter from Mr. Richard Young, one of the London Commissioners, to the Lord Treasurer, dated 25th Sept. 1592. Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 55.

^{page 229 note b} Letter from the London Commissioners to Lord Burghley, dated 26th Sept. 1592, Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 56.

^{page 229 note c} Lansd. MS. No. 115, art. 91. From which it appears that Sir John retained from the spoils which came to his hands “a Tent for the Lord Admirall and a Table Guylt for the Lord Treasurer.”

^{page 229 note d} There appears to have been an anxiety on all hands to obtain some of the goods taken from the “rich Carrack.” The Countess of Bath, in a letter (Add. MS. Brit. Mus. No. 12. 506, fo. 88) to Sir Julius, then Dr. Cæsar, regrets, as will be seen, her inability to secure a portion of the prize.

“Good Mast. docter Cesear, had longe agone geuen you grate thankes for your late curtecie in granting my requst with I desiered. It geues me grate caus to see howe much I am beholding to you, and assure your slef you shal find me as thankefull, it shal not faile to be broughte in by the yeres end: for your large libertie shall not be abused, for in so doeing they shall doe me ingure. I send your wife a smale token in showe of a thankful rememberanc: but had I had any thing by this riche carike she should have perseued it by my token, but my Lor howse is fure of and so lited of nothing: and this I lave to God, desirieng to retayne your good disposicion still to me, thought I can not sufficiently be thankfull as it desarueth: but rest you of a sured mind redy: and this from my Lor howse the ii of febru.

Your frend assured,

Elyza: Bathon.

Superscription,—” To my very good frinde Mr. Doctor Cesar geve these.”

Indorsed,—“11 February 1592.—The Countesse of Bathe. An acknowledging of my love to her and desire of cōtinuance.”

The writer of this letter was Elizabeth Countess of Bath. She was daughter of Francis Russell Earl of Bedford, and wife of William Bourchier, Earl of Bath, and Lord Lieutenant of the county of Devon, to whom she was married in St. Mary Major's Church in Exeter, on 7 August 1583; “on which occasion,” says Izacke, “the city of Exeter presented a bason and ewer of silver gilded, and also made them a triumph in Southernhay, in honour of their said marriage.” Memorials, p. 137.—Lady Bath died in 1605, and lies buried in the beautiful church of Tawstock, where, on the north side of the altar, is a monument with a long eulogistic epitaph to her husband, and a brief mention of her ladyship, wherein she is described as “a most accomplished woman.”

“My Lor howse” was Tawstock Court, the seat of the Bourchier family, situate about two miles from the town of Barnstaple, in the northern division of the county of Devon. Of the original house, which was destroyed by fire in 1786, nothing but the gateway remains. Tawstock is now the property of Sir Bourchier Wrey, Bart, who holds by descent from the Earls of Bath.

^{page 230 note a} Vide Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 56.

^{page 230 note b} Letter dated 29th Sept. 1592, from Commissioners to Lord Burghley, Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 61.

^{page 230 note c} Lansd. MS. No. 115, art. 91.

^{page 230 note d} A bearing-cloth was the mantle or cloth with which a child was usually covered when carried to the church to be baptised, or produced among the gossips by the nurse. Shakespeare refers to it in the following passage:

“Here's a sight for thee: look thee, a bearing-cloth for a squire's child!

Look thee here: take up, take up, boy open't.”

Winter's Tale, Act iii. sc. 3.

The Duke of Glo'ster also, in the first part of Henry VI. addressing the Bishop of Winchester, mentions it:

I will not slay thee, but I'll drive thee back,

Thy scarlet robes as a child's bearing-cloth

I'll use, to carry thee out of this place.

Act i. sc. 3.

^{page 231 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 62.

^{page 231 note b} Ib. art. 61.

^{page 231 note c} Vide ante, p. 229. Letter from the Commissioners to Lord Burghley, dated 27th Sept. 1592. Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 61.

^{page 231 note d} Lansd, MS. No. 70, art. 43.

^{page 232 note a} Hakluyt, vol. ii. part ii. p. 197.

^{page 232 note b} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 56.

^{page 232 note c} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 47. Letter from Mr. Waad, Clerk of the Council, to the Lord Treasurer.—In this Letter, opposite the allegation as to the sale made at Harwich, Lord Burghley has written, “Thompsō is therfor a k.”

^{page 232 note d} Vide Letter from Mr. Richard Young to Lord Burghley, 25 Sept. 1592. Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 55.

^{page 232 note e} Examination of Thomson. Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 56.

^{page 232 note f} Ib. art. 54.

^{page 233 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 62.

^{page 233 note b} Letter from Ralegh to Lord Burghley, printed in Strype's Annals, vol. iv. page 178.

^{page 234 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 61.

^{page 234 note b} Letters from Ralegh to Lord Burghley, printed in Strype's Annals, Ox. Ed. 1824, vol. iv. pp. 177–8.

^{page 234 note c} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 74.

^{page 235 note a} Letter from Ralegh and Hawkins to Cecil. Harl. MS.

^{page 235 note b} Letter from Ralegh to the Lord Treasurer, Strype's Annals, vol. iv. p. 181.

^{page 235 note c} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 89.

^{page 237 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 70, art. 90.

^{page 237 note b} Sir John Fortescue was the eldest son of Sir Adrian Fortescue, K.B. who was attainted of high treason and beheaded in 1539. He was distinguished for his classical attainments, which are said to have introduced him to the notice of Queen Elizabeth, whose studies he assisted, and by whom he was appointed Master of the Wardrobe. Sir John represented the town of Buckingham in the Parliament which met in 1586, and he was elected one of the Knights of the Shire in 1588–9. The Queen appointed him a Privy Counsellor, and on the death of Sir Walter Mildmay in 1589 he succeeded as Chancellor and Under-Treasurer of the Exchequer, which appointment he held during the remainder of Elizabeth's reign. At the date of the narrative he had again been elected to represent the county of Buckingham in Parliament. James I. on his accession, continued Sir John Fortescue in his offices, except that of Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was exchanged for the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, an appointment which he retained until his death, which happened on the 23rd December, 1607. Sir John seems to have been a very prudent man, of great probity, assiduous and faithful in the discharge of his offices, not mixing in any of the party intrigues of the day, nor interfering in any matters which were not referred to him. These qualities obtained for him the unbroken confidence of both the Sovereigns whom he served. So high did he stand in the estimation of Elizabeth, that the conduct of his younger brother Sir Anthony Fortescue, who, like his father, was convicted of high treason, did not in any manner affect his position; and James I. on his return from meeting his Queen on her way from Scotland rested a night with his Royal Consort at Sir John Fortescue's house at Salden in Buckinghamshire.

^{page 238 note a} Vide note, p. 239.

^{page 238 note b} 3d Series, vol. iv. p. 99, et seq.

^{page 239 note a} Hakluyt, vol. ii. p. 195.

^{page 239 note b} Vide Sir Walter's “Cause for the Carrack—Drawn up by himself.”—Strype, vol. iv. p. 179.

^{page 239 note c} Letter from Ralegh to Lord Burghley, dated 16 Sept. 1592, printed in Strype's Annals, vol. iv. p. 182.

^{page 239 note d} In Queen Elizabeth's time the precise division of a prize taken by the ships of commissioned privateer merchants seems, in ordinary cases, to have been regulated (subject to the payment of the custom duties) by agreement between the adventurers and their crews. In reference to capture by commissioned private ships not in the king's pay, the Black Book of the Admiralty sets forth as follows:

“Item se hors de gages du Roy aucunes biens par Gallioters, ou autres, soient pris sur la mer, donques le Roy ne chalengera nul droit, ne proprement aura nul part; mais iceux qui gaignez les auront, forspris que l'admiral en aura deux shares, en chacune nef come dit est, c'est a dire, autant comme deux hommes, l'une share avec la mayne, et l'autre avec la vitaile et la nef.” Vide Lansd. MS. No. 318, p. 149, and Hargr. MS. No. 185, p. 7.

These proportions appear however to have varied at the king's pleasure, and Sir Matthew Hale states, that in his time the admiral had one third of the goods taken by private men of war as his fee, but in right of the king. In later times the statute of 4 and 5 William and Mary, cap. 25, gave to Privateers four-fifths of the prize cargo, and to the king one-fifth, the captured ship, ammunition, tackle, and furniture, belonging to those interested in the privateer: and, as a further encouragement, it was thereby enacted, that privateers destroying any French man of war or privateer should receive for every piece of ordnance in the ship so taken 10l. reward. The entire beneficial interest was first given to the captors in the year 1708, by the statute of 6 Anne, cap. 13, intituled, “An Act for the better securing the Trade of this Kingdom by Cruizers and Convoys, and for the Encouragement of Cruizers.”

^{page 240 note a} Lansd. MS. No. 115, No. 80.

^{page 240 note b} Ibid. art. 81.