mitted to oblivion; and that no person, whosoever he be, shall enter any action on that account, or molest, disturb, or vex the said Dutch company, or any Dutchman on that pretext. And on the other hand, we also decree and ordain that the said Dutch company shall pay here in London, before the first day of January next ensuing, 7001. sterling to William Towerson, nephew and administrator of the effects of Gabriel Towerson, late of Amboina, deceased; to William Coulson, brother of Samuel Coulson, &c., administrator in like manner of his effects, 4507.; to James Bayles, administrator of John Powell, 3501.; to Anthony Ellingham, administrator of the effects of William Grigg, 2001.; to the administrators of the effects of John Weteral, 2001.; to Jane Webber, administratrix of the effects of George Seharoch, 1507.; to John and Elizabeth Collins, the children and heirs of Edward Collins, 4657.; to the administrators of John Beaumont, 3007.; to Jane Webber, widow and administratrix of the effects of William Webber, 2001.; to James Baile, administrator of the effects of Ephraim Ramsey, 3501.; to the executors of the will of Thomas Radbrosee, 501.; and to Thomas Billinsby, administrator of the effects of Emanuel Thompson, 2001. "All which sums added together make the sum of 3,6151. sterling, to be paid here at London before January next ensuing, and on this condition we insist that their actions or suits be altogether set aside and cancelled so as never to be revived hereafter by any person whomsoever.

"In witness whereof. we, John Exton, William Turner, William Thompson, Thomas Kendal, Adrian van Aelmonde, Christian van Rodenburg, Lewis Houwens, and James Oysel have subscribed these presents and sealed them with our seals the 30th of August, the English style, in the year 1654.

"This sentence or award was signed and sealed in manner as follows:

"Convention between Oliver Cromwell, Protector of England, and the high and mighty States General of the United Netherlands, for constituting a congress at Amsterdam of commissioners, to be nominated on both sides, for determining all the remaining complaints, without limitation, in the award and arbitration passed the 30th August 1654, upon their controversies.

"Whereas, by the 30th article of the late treaty between the most serene lord protector of the republic of England, Scotland, and Ireland and the high and mighty lords the States General of the United Netherlands, it was agreed that the commissioners or arbitrators should be nominated and appointed, with full and absolute power and authority to examine and determine all those losses and injuries which the one party laid to the charge of the other from the year 1611 to the 18th of May 1652, O. S., and which each party ought to have exhibited before the 18th of May 1654, which said day, nevertheless, by consent of both parties, was put off till

the 30th of the said month; and if the said commissioners did not agree concerning the said losses and injuries within three months after that day, the said complaints should be referred to the Protestant Cantons of Swisserland, who should be desired to nominate and appoint commissioners for examining and determining the aforesaid complaints within six months after the expiration of the former three;

"And whereas the commissioners of both republics assembled at London, and received sundry complaints to them delivered within the time aforesaid, and examined and determined some, as expressed in the award and arbitration of the aforesaid commissioners, published under their hands and seals the 30th day of August, 1654 O. S.;

"And whereas several yet remain undetermined, which, according to the 30th article aforesaid, ought to have been referred to the above-mentioned protestant Canton, of Swisserland, in order for decision by certain commissioners to be by them nominated and appointed; which nomination and appointment was not made by them within the term of six months aforesaid, and yet it is necessary that the said complaints should be decided, and all private grudges removed, and that every shadow of discord may be for the future taken away:

"It is therefore agreed and concluded between the most serene lord protector and the high and mighty lords of the States General, that all complaints exhibited within the time aforesaid, viz, the 30th of May 1654, and not included and determined in the above-mentioned award and arbitration, shall be referred and submitted to the judgment and determination of the aforesaid commissioners, who published the said award and arbitration, or of others who shall be nominated and constituted on both sides; and that they shall meet again at Amsterdam, in Holland, furnished and invested with the same full power and authority as before; and that they shall proceed in the same order and manner, and with the same method, and consequently determine all the complaints aforesaid within three months after their first congress, which shall be on the 26th of July 1655. And that public notice thereof shall be given to the people of both republics, and that all things which the aforesaid commissioners shall determine within the three months aforesaid shall bind both parties. In witness of all and singular the premises, both we, the commissioner of his highness, and I, the ambassador extraordinary of the united provinces of the Netherlands, have signed these presents with our hands and sealed them with our seals. Done at Westminister May 9, O. S., anno 1655."

The Netherlands and Portugal.—The Dutch and the Portuguese concluded August 6, 1661, through the mediation of England, a treaty of peace and alliance. Disputes, however, arose as to its ratification, and it was not till July 30, 1669, after the Dutch had made considerable conquests in the Portuguese colonies, that a definitive peace was signed at The Hague.2 Among the questions raised in regard to the treaty of 1661, there was one relating to the payment by Portugal to the Netherlands of the sum of 4,000,000 cruzados, for which the salt of Setuval was pledged. This question having formed the subject of an unyielding disagreement, it was

1 Dyer, Modern Europe, III. 68; Dumont, Corps Diplomatique, VI. 366. 2 Dumont, VII. 114.

referred in 1669 to the arbitration of Sir William Temple, then British ambassador at The Hague, by whom an award was duly rendered.1

The sentence of Sir William Temple recites certain conferences with the ambassador of Portugal and the pensionary De Witt, in regard to the manner of paying 2,500,000 cruzados, due from Portugal to Holland, for which the salt of Setuval was pledged. The Portuguese ambassador proposed that the payment should be made by assigning all rights to the salt for the term of seventeen or eighteen years. De Witt proposed an assignment for a term of twenty-two or twenty-three years. Difficulties also existed as to the manner of paying the interest. Sir William Temple proposed that Portugal should assign to Holland all rights as to the salt for the space of twenty years in satisfaction of the entire debt, unless the debt should be discharged sooner. The Portuguese ambassador took time to consider this proposition. The pensionary accepted it on condition that, if the salt rights should not yield in any year the sum of 150,000 cruzados, Portugal should supply the deficiency in the following year, and that Portugal should not raise the price of the salt for Hollanders nor lower it for others. The Portuguese ambassador accepted the proposal of Sir William Temple, and also the condition in regard to raising or lowering the price of the salt, but rejected the other condition proposed by the pensionary. After further conferences with Sir William Temple, the Portuguese ambassador and the pensionary, being unable to agree, decided to submit the matter to the decision of Sir William as arbitrator, provided that the Portuguese ambassador consented that the value of the salt should be regulated entirely by cruzados.

"In virtue of this convention," so reads the sentence, “the said English ambassador, having maturely considered all that has been recited, as well as the interest of the two nations and that of their neighbors and allies, that this long contested matter should be amicably terminated so as to remove any ground of future dispute, declares and adjudges that the first plan proposed by the said ambassador, touching the period of twenty years, having been already accepted by the two parties, shall remain firm and valid, with these conditions, that Holland shall be obliged to extract from Setuval in all the years during said term as much salt as she has taken away in any of the ten years lately passed, but that, in case the salt rights in Setuval shall not amount to 150,000 cruzados in any year of the said term of twenty years, Portugal shall supply what has fallen short of the said sum in the following year, provided the said deficit does not exceed the value of 30,000 cruzados.

"The said English ambassador also adjudges it to be equitable that

I Works of Sir William Temple, II. 59. The title of the arbital sentence is, "Sentence donnée sur l'affaire du Portugal et de la Hollande, par l'ambassadeur de l'Angleterre, à qui les deux parties ont remit la décision finale de leurs différences, non pas comme ambassadeur d'Angleterre, mais comme Chevalier Temple." The date of the sentence is given in the works as "August 1669." It seems, however, to have been rendered in July, as the substance of it is embodied in the treaty of July 30, 1669. Courtenay, Memoirs of Sir William Temple, I. 373, refers to this sentence as evidence of the high estimation in which Sir William Temple was held.

Holland shall not claim any other satisfaction for the debt besides the salt rights of Setuval for the said term of twenty years.

"That the value of the salt shall be computed in cruzados, without regard to any other money, since no mention is made in the treaty of any other kind.

"And in case Portugal shall offer to discharge part of the debt by other means, Holland shall reduce the said term in proportion."

2. ARBITRATIONS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

International commissions in relation to rivers.-We have heretofore referred to certain treaties beween the United States and Mexico in relation to the Rio Grande where it forms the boundary between the two countries.' These treaties refer, however, to boundary questions, rather than to questions of navigation; but by a series of European treaties provisions have been made for the regulation of the navigation of international streams by means of mixed commissions.

The "navigation of the Rhine, from the point where it becomes navigable unto the sea, and vice versa," was, by the Peace of Paris of May 30, 1814, declared to be "free, so that it can be interdicted to no one;" and it was provided that at the congress to be held at Vienna "attention" should "be paid to the establishment of the principles according to which the duties to be raised by the states bordering on the Rhine may be regulated, in the mode most impartial and the most favorable to the commerce of all nations." And it was further stipulated that "the future congress, with a view to facilitate communication between nations, and continually to render them less strangers to each other," should "likewise examine and determine in what manner the above provisions can be extended to other rivers which in their navigable course separate or traverse different states."

By the Treaty of Vienna of June 9, 1815, the powers whose states were "separated or traversed by the same navigable river" engaged “to regulate, by common consent, all that regards its navigation," and for this purpose to name commissioners who should adopt as the bases of their proceedings certain principles, the chief of which was that the navigation of such rivers, "along their whole course, from the point where each of them becomes navigable to its month shall be entirely free, and shall not, in respect to commerce, be prohibited to any one," subject to regulations of police. In order to assure the application of this principle, articles were inserted expressly regulating in certain respects the free navigation of the Rhine; and it was provided that "the same freedom of navigation" should “be extended to the Necker, the Mayne, the Moselle, the Meuse, and the Scheldt, from the point where each of them becomes navigable to their mouths." And in order to "establish a perfect control" over the regulation of the navigation, and to "constitute an authority which may serve as a means of communication between the states of the Rhine upon all subjects relating to navigation," it was stipulated that a central commission should be appointed, consisting of delegates named by

1 Supra, II. 1359.

the various bordering states, which commission should regularly assemble at Mayence on the 1st of November in each year. Regulations for the navigation of the Moselle and the Meuse were to be drawn up by those members of the central commission whose governments should have possessions on the banks of those rivers.1

By the treaty between Austria and Russia of May 3, 1815, the navigation of the rivers and canals of the ancient kingdom of Poland was declared to be free "so as not to be interdicted to any inhabitant of the Polish provinces, subject to either the Russian or Austrian Government." It was agreed, however, that a tonnage duty should be levied for the purpose of maintaining the rivers and canals in question in a navigable state, and that commissioners should be appointed for the purpose of regulating this and other matters of navigation. Similar provisions were embodied in a treaty concluded on the same day between Prussia and Russia touching ancient Poland.

By the treaty between Prussia and Saxony of May 18, 1815, provision was made (Art. XVII.) for the creation of a commission to regulate the navigation of the Elbe, in accordance with the general principles adopted at the Congress of Vienna. By the treaty of June 23, 1821, between Austria, Denmark, Great Britain, Prussia, Saxony, Hanover, MecklenburgSchwerin, Anhalt-Bernburg, Coethen and Dessau, and Hamburg, "the navigation of the Elbe, from the point at which that river becomes navigable down to the open sea, and vice versa (as well in ascending as in descending)," was declared to be "entirely free with respect to commerce." To secure this end various stipulations were made, including a provisiou for the appointment of a commission of revision, whose members should be appointed by the bordering States, and whose object and powers should be "to watch over the due observance of the present convention; to form itself into a committee for the settlement of any differences which may arise between the States bordering on the river, and to determine upon the measures which by experience may be found to be necessary to the improvement of commerce and navigation."

A treaty between Austria, Modena, and Parma, of July 3, 1849, to which the Pope acceded February 12, 1850, declared the navigation of the Po to be free and open to all persons, and committed its regulation to a commission.2

By a treaty signed at Bucharest, December 3-15, 1866, between Austria, Russia, and the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, the navigation of the Pruth was declared to be free and open to all flags; and

1 Among the stipulations embodied in the treaty there was one to the effect that in the event of war breaking out among any of the states of the Rhine the collection of customs should "continue uninterrupted, without any obstacle being thrown in the way by either party," and that "vessels and persons employed by the custom-houses" should "enjoy all the rights of neutrality."

2 The Treaty of Vienna, June 9, 1815, Art. XCVI. provided that the general principles adopted by the Congress in regard to the navigation of rivers should apply to the Po, and that commissioners should be appointed by the States bordering on it to regulate all that concerned its navigation.