affair may be terminated in such a manner as to prevent any grounds of misunderstanding in future, and to continue and confirm that harmony and friendship which has so happily subsisted between the two Courts, and which His Majesty will always endeavour to maintain and improve, by all such means as are consistent with the dignity of His Majesty's Crown, and the essential interests of his subjects." The dispute was terminated by the Nootka Sound Convention, the importance of which was much insisted upon in the recent discussions between Great Britain and the North American United States relative to the question of the Oregon boundary.(y)

CLXXVII. Upon the 17th of April, 1824,(z) a convention was entered into at St. Petersburgh, between the United States of America and Russia, respecting the navigation of the Pacific Ocean, and the forming of settlements upon the north-western shores of America. By this convention it was agreed generally, that the subjects of both countries might freely navigate the Pacific, or South Sea, occupy shores as yet unoccupied, and enter into commerce with the native inhabitatants: and it was stipulated that for the future it should be unlawful for the subjects of the United States to make any settlement on the north-west coast of America, or of the adjacent isles, au nord du cinquantequatrième dégré et quarante minutes de latitude septentrionale;" and for any subjects of Russia to make any settlement au sud de la même [*193] parallèle." (a) This convention therefore restricts the natural rights of these two countries; but it cannot extend beyond them, or have any effect, per se, upon other countries.

CLXXVIII. Denmark(b) has not always confined her pretensions of sovereignty to the narrow sea of the Baltic, but has also extended them to the open north sea. (c) Queen Elizabeth complained in a letter which she wrote to the king of Denmark, in 1600, of the manner in which British vessels were prevented from fishing in this sea, maintaining their right to do so as resting upon an undoubted principle of law.(d).

NARROW SEAS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OCEAN.

CLXXIX. Claims have been preferred by different nations to the exclusive dominion over the seas surrounding their country; if not to

(2) Ratified 11th January, 1825.

(c) Vide post, p. 202.

(y) Vide post. (a) Martens et De Cussy, Recueil de Traités, t. iii. p. 659. (b) Schlegel, Staatsrecht Dänemark. (d) "Regiam proinde protectionem nostram implorant, atque humiliter supplicant nè ab honestissimâ hâc vivendi ratione (cui jam inde a primis annis assueverunt) alti nempè maris piscatione, Jure Gentium omniumque Nationum moribus liberâ, excludi illos facile permittamus."-Rymer, Fœd., t. xvi. p. 395., A Reginâ ad Regem Daniæ; super Piscatione in Alto Mari permittendâ.

every part of such seas, to an extent far beyond the limits assigned in the foregoing paragraphs.

This kind of claim is distinguished from the claim of jurisdiction over the ocean by being confined to what are called the narrow or adjacent seas, they not being (it is contended), like the ocean, the great highway of the nation. It is further distinguished from the case of the Straits which just has been discussed, by the fact of the claimants not possessing the opposite shore.

CLXXX. This claim is rested upon immemorial usage, upon national records, upon concessions of other States, upon the language of treaties. Considering the nature of the claim, and of the subject over which it is to be exercised, it cannot be built securely upon a less foundation than the express provisions of positive treaty, and can be valid only against those nations who have signed such Treaty. "There may, by legal possibility" (as Lord Stowell says, (a)) "exist a peculiar property excluding the universal or common use;" but the strongest presumption of law is adverse to any such pretension. The Portuguese affected at one time to prevent any foreign vessel from navigating the African seas near the Bissagos Islands; and it is known that Great Britain once laid claim to exclusive rights of property and *jurisdiction, not merely over the British Channel extending from the island of Quessant to the [*195] Pas de Calais, but over the four seas which surround her coasts. (b) Nor was this only while the Duchy of Normandy was held with the British dominions; or even while Calais, or the Pas de Calais, belonged to Great Britain, a circumstance of considerable weight with respect to their claim. Albericus Gentilis, in one of his Advocationes Hispanicæ(c) published in 1613, supports these pretensions. Queen Elizabeth seized upon some Hanseatic vessels lying at anchor off Lisbon for having passed through the sea north of Scotland without her permission.

CLXXXI. In support of this doctrine, Selden (d) wrote his celebrated Mare Clausum, in which he sought to establish two propositions:-1. That the sea might be property; 2. That the seas which washed the shores of Great Britain and Ireland were subject to her sovereignty even as far as the northern pole.

The opinions of jurists, as well as the practice of nations, have decided, that this work did not refute the contrary positions laid down by Grotius in his Mare Liberum, to which it purported to be an answer. Selden dedicated his work to Charles I.; and so fully did that monarch imbibe its principles, that in 1619 he instructed Carleton, the British ambassador, to complain to the States-General of the Dutch provinces of the

(a) The Twee Gebroeders, 3 Robinson's Ad. Rep. 339. Das Britannische Meer, Günther, vol. ii. s. 20, p. 39.

(b) Wheaton's Hist. part i. s. 18, p. 152, &c., contains a clear and valuable

account.

(e) Lib. i. cap. viii.

(d) Joh. Seldeni, Mare Clausum, sive de Dominio Maris, lib. ii.: "Primo, mare ex jure naturæ sive gentium hominum non esse commune, sed dominii privati sive proprietatis capax pariter ac tellurem esse demonstratur; Secundo, Serenissimun Magnæ Britanniæ Regem maris circumflui ut individuæ atque perpetuæ Imperii Britannici appendicis dominum esse asseritur,"

AUGUST, 1854.-12

audacity of Grotius in publishing his Mare Liberum, and to demand that he should be punished. Not less agreeable was this doctrine to Cromwell and the republican *parliament. They made war upon the [*196] Dutch to compel them to acknowledge the British empire over these seas.(e)

CLXXXII. The rights occasionally claimed by Great Britain in these seas were chiefly those of exclusive fishing, and of exacting the homage of salute from all foreign vessels. But it is very remarkable that Sir Leoline Jenkins, who was in fact the expounder of all international law to the government of Charles II. and James II., appears never to have insisted upon these extravagant demands, but to have confined the rights of his country within the just and moderate limits which have been already stated.

CLXXXIII. It is true that the Dutch appear to have occasionally admitted the exclusive right of fishery, by making payment and taking out licenses to fish-payment and licenses which were afterwards suspended by Treaties between England and the Burgundian princes. It is true that, by the fourth Article of the Treaty of Westminster, concluded in 1674, the Dutch conceded the homage of the flag in the amplest manner to the English. "It was carried" (says Sir W. Temple, the negotiator of the Treaty) "to all the height his Majesty could wish; and thereby a claim of the crown, the acknowledgment of its dominion in the Narrow Seas, allowed by treaty from the most powerful of our neighbours at sea, which had never yet been yielded to by the weakest of them that I remember in the whole course of our pretence; and had served hitherto but for an occasion of quarrel, whenever we or they had a mind to it, upon either reasons or conjectures."(ƒ)

*CLXXXIV. Upon this concession, so humiliating to the [*197] countrymen of Ruyter and Van Tromp, so little to be expected by those who in 1667 had demolished Sheerness and set fire to Chatham, Bynkershoek(g) ingeniously remarks, "Usu scilicet maris et fructu con

(e) Comte de Garden, Traité Diplom. t. i. p. 402.

(ƒ) "Prædicti Ordines Generales Unitarium Provinciarum debite ex parte sua agnoscentes jus supramemorati Serenissimi Domini Magnæ Britanniæ Regis, ut vexillo suo in maribus infra nominandis honos habeatur, declarabunt, et declarant, concordabunt et concordant, quod quæcunque naves aut navigia ad præfatas Unitas Provincias spectantia, sive naves bellicæ, sive aliæ, eæque vel singulæ vel in classibus conjunctæ, in ullis maribus a Promontorio Finis Terræ dicto usque ad medium punctum terræ van Staten dictæ in Norwegià, quibuslibet navibus aut navigiis ad Serenissimum Dominum Magnæ Britanniæ Regem spectantibus, se obviam dederint, sive illæ naves singulæ sint, vel in numero majori, si majestatis suæ Britannica aplustrum sive vexillum Jack appellatum gerant, prædictæ Unitarum Provinciarum naves aut navigia vexillum suum e mali vertice detrahent et supremum velum demittent, eodem modo parique honoris testimonio, quo ullo unquam tempore aut in illo loco antehac usitatum fuit, versus ullas Majestatis suæ Britannicæ aut antecessorum suorum naves ab ullis Ordinum Generalium suorumve antecessorum navibus."-Tractatus Pacis inter Carolum II. Regem Magnæ Britanniæ et Ordines Generales fœderati Belgii, 1674, Art. 4.

Bynkershoek, Quæst. J. P. 1. ii. c. xxi.
Temple's Memoirs, ii. p. 250.

Hume, vol. vi. c. lii.

Wheaton's Hist. pp. 155–6.

(g) Quæst. J. P. lib. i. cap. xxi.

tenti Ordines, aliorum ambitioni, sibi non damnose, haud difficulter cedunt." And in his Treatise De Dominio Maris, published in 1702, and before the work from which the extract just cited is taken, he observes, on this Article of the Treaty,-"Sed quod ita accipiendum est, ut omnes pactiones, quas, ut bello abstineatur, pasciscimur, nempe Anglis id competere, quia in id convenit, per se enim nihil in eo mari habent, præcipuum. Porro ut ita hoc accepi velim, ut ne credamus Belgas eo ipso Anglis concessisse illius maris dominium, nam aliud est se subditum profiteri, aliud majestatem alicujus populi comiter conservare, (ut hæc explicat Proculus in Dig. xlix. t. 15, 7, de Captiv. et Postlim.) fit hoc, ut intel ligamus alterum populum superiorem esse, non ut intelligamus, alterum non esse liberum.”(h)

CLXXXV. France, however, as Mr. Wheaton observes, never formally acknowledged the British pretension. Louis XIV. published an ordinance on the 15th of April, 1689, not *only forbidding his naval [*198] officers from saluting the vessels of other princes bearing a flag of equal rank, but, on the contrary, enjoining them to require the salute. from foreign vessels in such a case, and to compel them by force, in whatever seas and on whatever coasts they might be found. This ordinance was plainly levelled at England. Accordingly, in the manifesto published by William III. on the 27th of May, 1689, he alleged this insult to the British flag as one of the motives for declaring war against France.(i)

CLXXXVI. In another part of his very able Treatise, Bynkershoek clearly and irrefragably lays down the principles of law applicable to the occupation of the sea:—‹‹ Totum, quâ patet, mare non minus jure naturali cedebat occupanti, quam terra quævis, aut terræ mare proximum. Sed difficilior occupatio, difficillima possessio; utraque tamen necessaria ad asserendum dominium, jure videlicet gentium, ad quod ea disputatio unice exigenda est. Nam ex iis, quæ Cap. 1. enarravimus, certum est consequi, dominium maris primâ ab origine non fuisse quæsitum nisi occupatione, hoc est, navigatione eo animo institutâ, ut qui libera per vacuum ponit vestigia princeps, ejus, quod navigat, maris esse velit dominus; certum est et porro consequi, non aliter id dominium retinere, quam possessione perpetuâ, hoc est, navigatione, quæ perpetuo exercetur ad custodiam maris, si exterum est, habendam: eâ namque remissà, remittitur dominium, et redit mare in causam pristinam, atque ita rursus occupanti primum cedit."(k)

CLXXXVII. Thus the opinion of Sir Leoline Jenkins *and Bynkershoek are in harmony upon this question; and in spite of

(h) De Dominio Maris, cap. v.

[*199]

(i) Valin, Commentaire sur l'Ordonnance de la Marine, liv. v. tit. 1, p. 689: De la Liberté de la Pêche: "Que le droit de pavillon, qui appartient à la couronne d'Angleterre, a été disputé par son ordre (de Louis XIV.); ce qui tende à la violation de notre souveraineté sur la mer, laquelle a êté maintenue de tout temps par nos prédécesseurs, et que nous sommes aussi résolus de maintenir pour l'honneur de notre couronne et de la nation Angloise."

Wheaton's History, pp. 155-6.

(k) Bynkershoek, De Dominio Maris, cap. iii. pp. 365–6.

the proclamation of William III. it does not appear that Great Britain has ever again insisted upon any other limits to her or to other nations.

This right, however, was alluded to by Lord Stowell in his judgment in The Maria,(7) a Swedish vessel sailing under convoy of an armed ship condemned for resisting the belligerents' visitation and search: "It might likewise" (he observes) be improper for me to pass entirely without notice, as another preliminary observation (though without meaning to lay any particular stress upon it), that the transaction in question took place in the British Channel close upon the British coast, a station over which the Crown of England has, from pretty remote antiquity, always asserted something of that special jurisdiction which the sovereigns of other countries have claimed and exercised over certain parts of the seas adjoining to their coasts."

[*200]

*CHAPTER VII.

NARROW SEAS-STRAITS.

CLXXXVIII. With respect to Straits (détroits de mer, Meerenge, freta), where there is, as Grotius says in the passage already cited, supra et infra fretum, both the shores of which belong to one nation, these may be subject to the proprietary rights of that nation. Or if the shores. belong to several nations, then, according to Puffendorf, (a) the dominion

1 Rob. Ad. Rep. p. 352.

a) Lib. iv. c. v. s. 7. : “Aquandi ergo et levandi usus nec magni est, nec nisi littorum accolis patet, et revera inexhaustus est. Inservit quoque aqua marina sali excoquendo; sed quo usu accolæ littorum duntaxat gaudent. Inexhaustum quoque et innoxiæ utilitatis est mare quantum ad navigationem. (Vid. l. xxiii. s. 1. D. de Servit. præd. rust.) Verum sunt præter hos alii quoque usus maris, qui partim non penitus sunt inexhausti; partim populo maris accolæ occasionem damni præbere possunt, ut ex re ipsius non sit, omnes maris partes cuivis promiscue patere. Prioris generis est piscatio, et collectio rerum in mari nascentium. Piscatio etsi in mari fere sit uberior, quam in fluminibus aut lacubus: patet tamen ex parte eam exhauriri posse, et accolis maris maligniorem fieri, si omnes promiscue gentes propter littora alicujus regionis velint piscari; præsertim cum frequenter certum piscis, aut rei pretiosæ genus, puta, margaritæ, corallia, succinum, in uno tantum maris loco, eoque non valde spatioso inveniantur. Hic nihil obstat, quo minus felicitatem littoris aut vicini maris ipsorum accolæ potius, quam remotiores sibi propriam queant asserere; quibus cæteri non magis jure irasci aut invidere possunt, quam quod non omnis fert omnia tellus; India mittit ebur, molles sua thura Saboi. Ex posteriori genere est, quod mare regionibus maritimis vicem munimenti præbet." And at the close of s. viii. he observes-"Ex hisce patet, hodie post rem navalem ad summum perductam fastigium præsumi, quemvis populum maritimum, et cui ullus navigandi usus, esse dominum maris, littoribus suis prætensi quousque illud munimenti rationem habere censetur: imprimis autem portuum, aut ubi alias commoda in terram exscensio fieri potest. (Bodinus de Rep. 1. i. c. ult. Baldi fide asserit; jure quodammodo principum omnium maris accolarum communi receptum esse, ut sexaginta milliaribus à littore Painceps legem ad littus accedentibus dicere possit.) "Sinus quoque maris regulariter pertinere ad eum populum, cujus terris iste ambitur; neque minus freta. Quod si autem diversi populi fretum, aut sinum accolant, eorum imperia pro latitudine terrarum ad medium usque ejusdem pertinere intelligentur; nisi vel per conventionem indivisim id imperium contra exteros ex