Whitelocke said it would be a great inconvenience
to furnish the enemies of either nation with arms which could not be had
elsewhere than in England or Sweden, and that this clause would put a
bridle in the mouths of the enemies of either nation. The Chancellor and
his son replied that arms might be had in the province of Liege,[88] and
in many other places in Germany; that Sweden scarce afforded any other
commodities but arms, or such things as were serviceable for war; and
that the Queen would by no means be induced to that clause as Whitelocke
would have it.

Then they debated upon the eleventh article, the issue whereof was for
Whitelocke to consent to a special designation of prohibited goods.
Whitelocke desired that the catalogue and designation of them might be
referred to his return into England, and he would agree that within two
months after that there should be a specification of prohibited goods in
the name of the Protector.

The Chancellor urged that the specification might be now agreed upon, and
produced a paper specifying them, which they alleged was delivered by the
Council in England unto Bonnele. Whitelocke said he did not remember the
same, and that he was ignorant what goods were prohibited by the Dutch
placard, which was fit to be known before any specification made by him.

Upon the twelfth article Whitelocke urged, that as to the form of the
letters of safe-conduct, it might also be referred to his return into
England. They produced a form exhibited by Lagerfeldt to the Council in
England, and desired that the same form might be now agreed upon.
Whitelocke answered that the Council of State had not approved the form
given in by Lagerfeldt, and therefore it was not fit for him to consent
to it; nor could he apprehend any reason why they should not consent to
refer the agreement of a form unto his return to England; and the rather,
because in the meantime the subjects of the Queen might enjoy the benefit
of an edict made by the Protector in great favour of them, which
declaration Whitelocke had caused to be delivered to the Chancellor.

To the thirteenth article, as to satisfaction of damages, their debate
was to the like effect as formerly.

Upon the sixteenth article they had also debate. Whitelocke desired that
the words "de usu littorum in piscatione" might be altered to these
words, "de piscatione et usu littorum." They alleged that this would seem
to deny their fishing upon their own coa