In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

the free sea 51 13. ad summam rempublicam: “of the greatest public importance”; Digest, XIV. 1. 1,§ 20. 14. Aristotle, Politics, I. 3. 12 (1257a). 15. Seneca, De beneficiis, I. 9. Whereupon Ulpian saith that taking of money for freight of shipping appertaineth to the highest and greatest commonwealth.13 And that there is not the same use of such as are allowed to buy and sell because according to nature that is altogether necessary. Aristotle saith, e ⁄sti ga r h ÿ metablhtikh  pa ntwn, a ◊rqame nh to  me n prw ÷ ton e ◊k tou ÷ kata  fu sin, tw ‚ ta  me n plei w, ta  de  e ◊la ttw tw ÷ n i ÿkanw ÷ n e ⁄xein tou c anjrw pouc, that is to say, for translation of things began from the beginning from that which is according to nature, when men had partly more than was sufficient and partly less.14 Seneca saith, “the law of nations warranteth thee to sell that which thou has bought.”15 Therefore, the liberty of trading is agreeable to the primary law of nations which hath a natural and perpetual cause and therefore cannot be taken away and, if it might, yet could it not but by the consent of all nations , so far off is it that any nation, by any means, may justly hinder two nations that are willing to trade between themselves. chapter 9 That merchandise or trading with the Indians is not proper to the Portugals by title of possession Invention or occupation hath not the first place here because the right of buying and selling is no corporal thing which may be apprehended. Nor should it profit the Portugals although they had been the first men which had traffic with the Indians, which, notwithstanding, cannot but be most untrue. For seeing in the beginning people went into divers parts, it is necessary that some should be the first merchants who, notwithstanding (it is most certain), gained no right at all. Wherefore, if any right belonged to 52 the free sea the Portugals that they should only trade with the Indians, by the example of other servitudes it must proceed from some grant either expressed or secret, to wit, from prescription. For otherwise it cannot be. chapter 10 That trading with the Indians is not proper to the Portugals by title of the Pope’s donation No man granted it unless peradventure the Pope, who could not. For no man can grant that which is none of his own. But the Pope, unless he be temporal lord of the whole world (which wise men deny), cannot say that the universal right also of merchandising is in his authority. But chiefly when the thing is wholly applied unto gain and nothing appertaining to the promoting of spiritual things, without which (as all men confess) the Pope’s power ceaseth. Further, if the Pope would give that right only to the Portugals, and would take away the same from other men, he should commit double injury. First, to the Indians who, as they are put out of the Church, were no way subject to the Pope, as we have said. Seeing therefore the Pope could take away nothing from them which was theirs, he could not take away that right which they have of trading with whom they pleased. Next, to all other Christian men and infidels, from whom he could not take that right without cause or their cause not being heard. What, cannot temporal lords indeed in their dominions forbid the liberty of trading, as by reasons and authorities before is declared? So then this likewise is to be confessed, that no authority of the Pope is of force against the perpetual law of nature and nations whence this liberty took beginning, which shall continue forever. ...

Share