Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:19:53.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English Practice with Regard to Reprisals by Private Persons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Groves Clark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At Bayonne, on Tuesday before the Feast of St. Barnabas the Apostle, in the year 1295, John, lieutenant in Gascony of the King of England, signed a letter addressed to all the officers of the King. At Canterbury, on October 3 of the same year, John's uncle, Edward I, King of England and Duke of Acquitaine, put his seal on a document addressed to his officers, in which he included John's letter in full and ratified its provisions subject to two briefly-stated conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 1933 , pp. 694 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The document is Vaseon. Rolls, 23 Ed. I, m. 22. It is in Thoma, Rymer,Foedera, Conventiones, Literae, 2d ed., etc.,London, 1727, Vol. II, p.691, Google Scholar and in Marsden, R. G., editor, Documents Relating to Law and Custom of the Sea, printed for the Navy Records Society, 1915-16, Vol. I, p.38.Google Scholar The quotations used here are from Marsden's translation. Hereafter these two collections of documents will be cited as Rymer and Marsden.

2 The usage of the words “ reprisal” and “marque,” often associated, is discussed infra, p.700 et seq.

3 A concise summary of the ten requirements and three assumptions is given at the end of this discussion, infra, pp. 722-723.

4 Cf. John de Waghen v. The Leydenese, infra, p. 707.

5 The word “ reprisal” does not appear in the original Latin, the phrases of which, significant for our purposes here, are “Dedimus ipsi Bernardo, & concessimus, & adhue damns & concedimus … licentiam, … possit marchare, retinere, & sibi appropriare ilia.” The word “marchare,” as used here, means: to seize as a pledge, and, according to the New English Dictionary, is related to the word “marque.” Cf. infra, p. 700

6 Cf. Nicholai et al. v. The Subjects of Count Virtutus, infra, p. 711.

7 Cf. authorization for issuing letters of reprisal in connection with the Endeavor case, issued by Cromwell and the Council of State of the Commonwealth in 1658. Thomas, Birch, A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, Esq. Thomas Woodward, London, 1742. 7 vols. Vol. VII, pp.544-45.Google Scholar The Thurloe papers are cited hereafter simply as Thurloe.

8 This seems to have been done by the Duke of Holland in the summer of 1309, when he was negotiating with the English King for an agreement to end the constant seizures back and forth between the Dutch and the English. Cf. infra, p. 709 for a discussion of this case. Cf., also, instances of such payments by Edward III, cited in Vol. I, p. xxviii; Marsden, R. G., editor, Select Pleas in the Admiralty Court, edited for the Selden Society. Quaritch,London, 1894.Google Scholar

9 See infra, p. 705 et seq .

10 Cf. documents discussed, infra. Also: Instructions of the Admiralty Court, Dec. 19, 1649, relative to reprisals. Marsden, Vol. II, p. 404.

11 Cf. the various documents cited, infra, for specific illustrations of the acceptance of these assumptions. The relevant treaty provisions are given on p. 709 et seq. A typical statement of the responsibility of the King, and of the conception of reprisals as final measures for securing justice, is given in an opinion handed down in 1626 by Henry Marten, sitting as judge in the admiralty court, in response to certain questions submitted to him. He said: “ It must bee remembered that this commission [to take reprisals] is not of grace, but of justice; for it is intended that none have the is Letters of Reprisall but such as have received losse and damage and wronges; to whome his Majestie, beeing not able otherwise to minister right and redress of the wronges and losses (a duty incident to his royall function), doth in this kind, and by this meanes, affoord justice and due satisfaction.” Marsden, Vol. I, pp. 427-428.

12 See infra, p. 712 for discussion of this case.

13 Marsden, Vol. I, p. ix.

14 Librairie Hachette et Cie., Paris, 1873. Cited hereafter as Littré.

15 Edited by Sir James A. H. Murray. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Vol. VI published 1908; Vol. VIII published 1910.

16 Cf. this usage in the 1295 document discussed above. Supra, p. 696, note 5.

17 The source given is Act. 27, Ed. Ill, Stat. 2, c. 17. This is the earliest use of the word reprisal which the writer has been able to locate in any of the English documents.

18 Cf. numerous documents in Marsden and Rymer. Also Thurloe, Vol. I, pp. 164-65, where the English admiralty judges use droit de marque and reprisals in close association in a discussion of the legality of reprisals in a certain case.

19 Cf. Marsden, Vol. II, pp. 158, 171, 184, 288, 304, 378.

20 Cf. ibid., Vol. II, pp. 75, 255.

21 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 246.

22 Cf. Nieholai Colyng v The Subjects of Count Virtutus, infra, p. 711 for further discussion of this document.

23 The document is Rymer, Vol. VII, p. 777, and is Franc. 18 Rich. II, m. 11. This 1394 document does not bear directly on our subject here, since it contains nothing indicative of the conditions under which reprisals by private persons were authorized. It is, however, exceptionally interesting, for it contains the text of a very early multipartite treaty which specifically states the responsibility of the King, as the head of the state, for insuring justice to foreigners who come legitimately into his realm. Among the parties to the agreement, were the English, French, Scottish and Portuguese Kings, the Duke and Commune of Genoa and various others of lesser prominence. The agreement specifies a procedure which each of the rulers is to follow in hearing and settling the claims of the subjects of other rulers.After quoting the agreement, Richard went on to give in some detail how he proposed to meet hia obligations as a party to it. One particularly interesting part of the agreement says that claims are to be brought into court. Furthermore, those subjects of the respective kings who act in violation of the provisions of the agreement ace to be treated as rebels—this provision clearly indicating the assumption that the King was responsible for keeping his own subjects in order. Those who do violate the agreement, it is stated elsewhere, will be obliged to “rendre le Double a la Partie sur la quelle la Marque ou Reprisaille auroit este fait; mais pursueront lours Debtespardevantes les Conservatours, oupardevant les Juges ordenairs al’election des Demandeurs.” In this connection, see also the discussion of provisions relating to reprisals in the treaties of 1309 and subsequent years, infra, p. 709.

24 The New English Dictionary gives the definition: “Letter of marque, a. Usually pi. letters of marque (and reprisal). Originally a license granted by a sovereign to a subject, authorizing him to make reprisals on the subjects of a hostile state for injuries alleged to have been done… . In later times this became practically a license to fit out an armed vessel and employ it in the eapture of the merchant shipping belonging to the enemy's subjects, the holder of letters of marque being called a privateer or corsair, and entitled by international law to commit against the hostile nation acts which would otherwise be condemned as piracy.” This definition, especially that part relating to the early use of the word, should be supplemented with the note that letters of marque (and reprisal) were issued against states which were friendly as well as against those which were hostile. Cf. infra for examples.

Littré gives: “Marque. Anciennement, lettre de marque, acte de gouvemement qiri autorisait celui qui enétait porteur à se faire justice lui-mêne aux depens d’une nation ennemie; ces lettres s’appelaient aussi lettres de repréailles. Aujourd’hui, lettre de marque, qui ne se dit plus que pour la mer, est la commission doitt tout caprtaine ou patron d’un navire armé en course doit être pourvu, sous peine d’être repute pirate ou forban.”

The Dictionnaire de l’Academie Française, in defining lettre de marque, uses exactly the same words as are contained in that part of Littré's definition which begins with “la commission dont tout capitaine.”

The New English Dictionary, under “reprisal,” gives: “ 1. The act or practice of seizing by force the property (or persons) of subjects of another nation, in retaliation for loss or injury suffered from these or their countrymen. . o o Reprisals implied the refusal of the offending nation to grant redress for the injury done but did not in itself create a state of war between the two countries.” [The usage of reprisals in time of peace here is clearly indicated, though no reference is made to the essential point that reprisal was the use of force to secure compensation for loss, and in that sense different from retaliation. This modern confusion in usage between reprisal and retaliation already has been discussed. Supra, p. 702.1 “a. Letters (or Commission) of reprisal, an official warrant authorizing an aggrieved subject to exact a forcible reparation from the subjects of another state.” This defines precisely the usage of reprisal in the strict sense, except that no reference is made to the requirement that the original damaging act must have been unlawful.

Littré's definition- of “ représaille” is: “ Tout ce qui se fait contre l’ennemi pour tirer satisfaction de quelque injura, de quelque violence, de quel que domroage. II n’y en avait aucunqui n’eût à craindre la représaille des torts qu’il pouvait faire.” Although he thus defines the term as applicable to acts against an enemy only, Littré himself cites, in illustration of the usage, an ordonnance of 1681 which specifically refers to reprisals in time of peace: “Droit de représaille, droit concede à un particulier par l’autorité soveraine dont il est le suject, de reprendre en temps de paix même par la force, son bien ou l’équivalent de son bien, sur un étranger ou les concitoyens de cet étranger, lorsquil n’a pu obtenir justice par les voies judiciaires du pay de son adversaire.”

The Dictionnaire de VAcademie Fran.go.ise, defining “représaille,” says: “Traitement fâcheux que Ton fait à un ennemi pour s’indemniser d’un dommage quil a caus é, ou pour se venger d’une violence qu’il a exerc ée contre le droit de la guerre.”

Altogether, the best definition of the term as actually used, which the writer has found in these authoritative dictionaries, is that in the citation from the French ordonnance of 1681.

25 Law Quarterly Review, Vol. XLVIII, No. 132, pp. 521-546. October, 1932.

26 Even the Anglo-Saxon Dictionary edited by T. Northcote Toller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898) does not give a meaning for withernam. It defines the two parts of the word: (1) wither, as a noun, “opposition,” “resistance” ; as a preposition, “against” ; as an adverb, “against,” “ in opposition.” (2) warn, “ seizure of property belonging to one which is in the hands of another.” Clearly, therefore, the meaning of withernam was closely similar to that of reprisal, which is highly significant as indicating the probable prevalence among the early Norse peoples of a practice corresponding to that of taking reprisals. The town-to-town reprisals in England, one might conclude from this and from the strong Anglo-Saxon influence in the settling of the country, and especially since the Anglo-Saxon word was used in the City of London letters, were a development from the old Anglo-Saxon practice rather than an importation from Southern Europe.

27 Cf. the case of Arnald de Santo Martino v. The Castilians, discussed infra.

28 Rymer, Vol. Ill, p. 561. Vase. 9 Ed. II, m. 10.

29 Idemque Pater noster, de unanimi assensu & concordia Procuratorum praedictorum, & in ipsorum praesentia, inter alia, ordinasset quod omnes Naves, & alia bona quaecumque, dictorum Civium Baion, quae per Gentes & Subditos dicti Regis Castellae, infra Regna sua, vel extra, capta fuerunt, ut praemittitur, seu etiam occupata, infra eertum terminum, jam diu est Elapsum, restituerentur, per saepedictum Regem Castellae, illis Civibus de Baion, a quibus capta fuerunt, seu eorum Haeredibus, aut etiam Attornatis.

30 Cujus quidem arestationis praetextu, praefatus Arnaldus de Sancto Martino recuperavit quinquaginta & quinque solidos Sterlingorum, in parte satisfactionis Ducentarum & Triginta Marcarum praedictarum.

31 Vobis mandamus, quod omnia bona & Mercimonia hominum & Mercatorum, de poteatate dicti Regis Castellae, quae infra terrain nostram Vasconiae proterunt inveniri, usque ad valentiam Centum, sexaginta, & quinque Marcarum, & viginti Denariorum praedictorum, necnon aestimationis dictorum dampnorum, cum vobis inde legitime constiterit, ut est dictum, sine dilatione qualibet arestari, & salvo custodiri faciatis, quosque praefato Arnaldode Centum Sexaginta, & quinque Marcis & viginti Denariia, de dampnis praedictis, ad plenum fuerit satisfactum, vel aliud a nobis super hoc habueritis in mandatis.

32 Marsden, Vol. I, p. 126, gives an English translation of the last part of this document, but summarizes only very briefly the first part which recites the circumstances and history ef the case. The Latin original of the full text is in Rymer, Vol. IX, p. 125. Patent Rolls, 2 Henry V, pt. 1, m. 34. In the first part, reference is made to letters of marque issued on behalf of the claimant by predecessors of Henry V. The writer has been unable to locate any of these documents.

33 Concesserit eidem Johanni Literas suas de Marqua … quousque plenaria Satisfactio eidem Johanni de Summa praedicta facta fuisset, una cum Custibus & Expensis, per ipsum 4 dictos Procuratores suos, circa Prosecutionem praedictam, appositis & apponendis, prout per dictas Literas ipsius Patris nostri de Marqua plenius poterit apparere. [Rymer's italics.]

34 Velimus, consideratione Praemissorum, praefato Johanni Literas nostras de Marqua,versus praefatum nunc Ducern & Subditos suos, quosque eidem Johanni de Summa prae-dicta, una cum Sumptibus & Expensis, per ipsum & Procurators suos, circa dictam Prosecutionem, appositis, & de caetero apponendis, integrè satisfactum fuerit, concedere gratiosé.[Rymer's italics.]

35 Here Maraden's translation begins.

36 Rymer, Vol. Ill, pp. 150-153. Claus. 3 Ed. II, m. 24 dor.; Pat. 3 Ed. II, m. 25 dor.; Pat. 3 Ed. II, m. 41 d. Cf. also the multipartite treaty of 1394, discussed supra, p. 702, particularly note 23.

37 The letter from the English King to the Duke of Holland concerning this agreement, covers these points thus: “Et quod vos, infra potestatem vestram, certos assignabitis Justiciarios, ad querelas hominum nostrorum, de hominibus vestris, infra potestatem vestram, conqueri volentium, audiendas; & ad plenam & celerem Justitiam hujusmodi conquerentibus exhibendam; Et quod nos similiter hujusmodi assignabimus Justiciarios, qui querelas hominum vestrorum, de hominibus nostris, infra potestatem nostram, conqueri volentium, potestatem habeant audiendi, & plenam ac celerem inde justitiam querelantibusn faciendi: Quodque vos hominibus nostris infra potestatem vestram, ad querelas suas inibi prosequendas, venire volentibus, salvum & securum Conductum praestare debetis, dum fecerint ibi moram: Quod etiam nos hominibus vestris, querelas suas infra Regnum nostrum prosequi volentibus, faciemus.”

38 This treaty appears in British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 1, p. 468. Neither marque nor reprisal appear in the treaty. The writer's attention was called to the document by Dr. Charles Cheney Hyde, of Columbia University, who had a communication about it from Dr. Arnold D. McNair, of Cambridge University.

39 A General Collection of Treatys. Second ed., London, 1732. Vol. II, p. 1.

40 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 46.

41 Marsden, Vol. I, p. 50

42 Marsden, Vol. II, p. 284.

43 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 284.

44 Supra, p. 703, third from last paragraph of note 24.

45 Rymer, Vol. VII, p. 749. Franc. 17 R. II, m. 18.

46 The text of the main body of the document is: “ Cum nuper, ad Supplicationem dictorum Ligeorum nostrorum, Nocholai Colyng & Sociorum suorum, de assensu Concili nostri, voluerimus & concesserimus eisdem Ligeis nostris Reprisaliam, usque ad Valorem Trium Milium & Ducentarum Librarun, super Bonis & Mercandisis Ligeorum & Subditorum Comitis Virtutum, quae de Partibus Transmarinis ad quoscumque Portus infra Regnum nostrum per Terrain, sive per Aquam, venerunt vel venirent, prout in Literis Nostris Patentibus, inde confectis, plenius continetur. Jamque Robertus Palmer, Deputatus & Attomatus dictorum Nicholai & Sociorum suorum & praefati Ligei & Subditi Comitis Virtutum finalem Concordiam, inter eos de Reprisalia praedicta fecerint, quibuscumque Discordis & Querilis, super Materia ilia mutuo exortis, de caetero penitus cessantibus sicut tam per Instrumenta Publica, super hoc confecta, & in Cancellaria nostra ostensa, quam per Recognitionem ipsius Roberti, coram nobis in eadem Cancellaria nostra personaliter constituti, factam, plene liquet. Nos, Pro eo quod idem Robertus dictas Literas nostras praefato Nicholao & Sociis suis, de Reprisalia praedicta sic factas, nobis in Cancellaria nostra praedicta eo praetextu restituit cancellandas, volentes, pro majori Securitate dictorum Ligeorum & Subditorum Comitis Virtutum. Ne ipsi, occasione Praemissorum, per praefatos Nickolaum & Socios suos, aut eorum Attomatos sive Deputatos quoscumque, futuris tem-’ poribus, aliqualiter impetantur, seu indebite molestentur. In hac parte providere, Praemissa omnia & singula in manifestam & credulam evidentiam veritatis (cui testimonium ex pietatis motione perhibere tenemur) universis & singulis, quorum interest vel interesse poterit innotescimus & significamus per Praefentes.” [Rymer's italics.]

47 Marsden, Vol. I, p. 119 for Latin text and English translation. Patent Rolls, 13 Henry IV, pt. 1, m. 17.

48 “ Nos considerantes dampna et injurias predicta sic, ut permittitur, facta concessimus prefatis legeis nostris marquam et reprisaliam.” Although Marsden, in his English translation, speaks of “ letters of marque and reprisal,” there is, in the original Latin, no word corresponding to “ letters.” Henry IV simply said that marque and reprisal were permitted.

49 Marsden, Vol. I, p. 121, for English translation. Rymer, Vol. VIII, p. 773, for the full Latin text. Patent Rolls, 14 Hen. IV, m. 5.720

50 Cf. infra, p. 720, for discussion of the inclusion of inhabitants among those whose goods were liable to reprisal seizure

51 Twigs, Sir Travers, ed., London, 1871, 4 vols.

52 Reprinted in the Black Book, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 89 et seq.

53 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 386.

54 Cf., for typical examples, Marsden, Vol. I, particularly letter against the Bretons in 1443,at p. 132; letter of James V of Scotland against the Portuguese in 1560, at p. 170.

55 Marsden. Vol. I. p. 168. Add. MSS. 34150, f. 57.

56 Note the reference to Williamson as an inhabitant of Dordrecht rather than as a citizen of that city or as a Dutch subject. The name sounds as though he might have been an Englishman. If so, we would have an interesting case of reprisals authorized against the citizens of a Dutch city because one Englishman had an unsettled claim against another who was residing in that city.

57 Marsden has a footnote here: “A copy (mutilated) of the tenth article of the treaty of 1642 is enclosed.” The writer has been unable to locate a copy of the full text of this treaty. Cf., however, the quotations from various treaties given supra, p. 709.

58 Marsden, Vol. II, pp. 404-406. Adm. Gt. Letter of Marque Bonds 225, f. 35.

59 Supra, p. 695.

60 Marsden, Vol. I, p. 184. Adm. Court, Acts 13, 7 Feb. 156$. It is interesting to note that Queen Elizabeth makes no reference to the English-Portuguese treaty of 1386, referred to supra, p. 709.

61 Rymer, Vol. XIX, p. 364; cf. Marsden, Vol. I, p. 407. Also the Anglo-French treaty of 1655, Art. III. A General Collection of Treatys, op. cit., Vol. Ill, p. 149.

62 The quotation is from Cromwell's document. Charles' authorization is given in Marsden, Vol. I, p. 499. A letter of reprisal issued under Cromwell's authorization is given in ibid., Vol. II, p. 25. The phrase, with only very minor verbal variations, is on p. 501 of Vol. I, and p. 27 of Vol. II. Marsden gives a date of 1655 for the latter letter, which would seem to be a typographical error since the letter itself, though dated March 10, refers specifically to the Anglo-French treaty which was signed Nov. 3, 1655. This 1656 document, incidentally, is an excellent example of a typical letter of reprisal authorizing seizures by private persons.

63 Cf. references to inhabitants in earlier documents, supra, pp. 713 and 716.

64 Thurloe, Vol. VI, pp. 82-83. Cf. ibid., p. 78.

65 This letter furnishes an interesting illustration of the use of the term “letters of reprisal” in two distinct senses. England and the Netherlands were at peace at the time that the ambassador wrote; therefore letters of reprisal given by the English King to the Englishmen who had claims against the Dutch would be for reprisals in the strict sense. Portugal and the Netherlands were at war, and the Portuguese King was under no obligation to help the Englishmen get justice. The letters which he might give them, therefore, would be privateering letters and not letters of reprisal properly speaking.

66 Marsden. Vol. II, p. 48. Italics ours.

67 Thurloe, Vol. I, p. 164; ruling of Oct. 11, 1650.

68 Supra, p. 705.

69 Cf. Marsden, Vol. II, particularly pp. xvi, 9, 25, 48, 75 and 255.