The Sovereignty of the Sea An Historical Account of the Claims of England to the Dominion of the British Seas, and of the Evolution of the Territorial Waters — Themes and Context

The Stuart Doctrine and Its Targets

Fulton identifies the Dutch as the primary target of English sea-sovereignty claims. He quotes Shaftesbury’s speech to Parliament in which the Chancellor insists that the king could not be King of Great Britain without securing the dominion of his own seas, first by a clear article on the flag, second by an article preserving the right of fishing while granting the Dutch permission as tenants under a small rent. The language is striking: the sea is called “our British wife” and the Dutch refusal is described as ravishment. Fulton does not merely report these statements; he presents them as evidence of how the Stuart court framed the dispute in terms of inherent royal prerogative and national honor. The reader should note how Fulton weaves direct quotations from parliamentary records into his narrative, treating speeches as primary sources that reveal the political stakes.

Parliamentary Maneuvers and the Dutch War

The excerpt from the later portion of the book shows a dramatic scene in the House of Commons in 1673–74. Fulton describes how the Commons, suspicious of Charles II’s French alliance, refused to vote more money for the Dutch war unless the Dutch were shown to be obstinate. When the king prorogued Parliament, the Commons hastily passed motions declaring the French alliance a grievance and certain ministers unfit. Fulton notes that the scene was “reminiscent of the days of his father,” linking the constitutional conflict to the earlier Stuart absolutism. He then records that Charles privately asked John Evelyn to write something against the Hollanders about the duty of the flag and fishery, revealing the king’s attempt to influence public opinion. This section demonstrates Fulton’s method of interleaving high politics with personal maneuvers, showing how the sovereignty claim was not a static legal doctrine but a tool in ongoing power struggles.

The Evolution of Territorial Waters as a Legal Concept

Fulton divides his book into two sections: the historical account of pretensions to dominion, and the later evolution of territorial waters under the Law of Nations. The preface indicates that the second part treats the territorial waters as a relic of those pretensions, particularly in relation to fishing rights. The excerpts do not include the second section, but the preface makes clear that Fulton sees a direct line from Stuart claims to modern legal debates. Readers should expect the later chapters to shift from narrative history to legal analysis, tracing how the expansive claims of the seventeenth century were gradually replaced by the more limited concept of territorial waters. Fulton’s phrase “relic of such pretensions” suggests a critical stance toward the earlier doctrines, though the excerpts do not reveal his final conclusions.

Fisheries as the Persistent Core

Throughout the excerpts, the fishery question recurs as the most frequent and concrete issue. In the preface, Fulton states that during much of the period the fishery was the main question in determining sea sovereignty, and it remains the one of greatest frequency at the present day. The Shaftesbury speech explicitly ties the fishery to royal prerogative, calling it a royalty so inherent that the king cannot sell it. The later passage about Evelyn being asked to write against the Hollanders on the duty of the flag and fishery shows that even at the end of the war, the fishery remained a central grievance. Fulton’s emphasis on the economic dimension—the Dutch deriving wealth from fisheries along English coasts—grounds the legal arguments in material interests. Readers should watch for how Fulton balances legal doctrine with economic history, and how he treats the fishery as both a cause and a symbol of the broader sovereignty dispute.

Fulton’s work is best approached as a layered argument rather than a simple narrative. The reader should attend to the interplay between direct quotations from historical actors and Fulton’s own analytical framing, particularly his tendency to identify the political and economic motives behind legal claims. Because the excerpts cover only the first section, the second part on territorial waters remains a promise; readers interested in modern maritime law may wish to supplement this volume with later legal texts. The book rewards careful attention to the footnotes and references, which Fulton uses to build his case from primary sources.

There’s something oddly comforting in Fulton’s account of the Stuarts claiming the seas—that old, stubborn insistence on ownership over something so vast and fluid. It reminds me of how The Sovereignty of the Sea lingers over fisheries and speeches, the way we cling to what drifts. That same quiet grappling with rules and their slippages haunts Crime and Corruption — Story, Setting & Ideas, though from a darker shore.