Chapter 37

924State Papers, Dom., ccclxx. 238, 245, 252.925State Papers, Dom., ccclxxvi. 92; ccclxxix. 9. The incident occurred on 11th November 1675, between 46 and 47 degrees latitude. The Spanish ship “required him to strike for the King of Spaine, and the said CapnHarris haueing seuerell times refused to doe it, and required the said Ostender to strike for his Matyof Greate Brittain; yet neuerthelesse he, CaptJos. Harris, in the time of their convention (sic) about this matter, did order the Topsaile of the said Ketch to be Lowered, wchwas accordingly done, and is proued by the depositions vpon Oath taken in Court,” &c. The court found that by lowering his top-sails he struck to a foreigner in his Majesty’s seas, “a great derogac͠on from his MatiesHonour, contrary to the 32th Article of the General Instrucc͠ons and punishable by the Eleventh Article of War.”926H. O. Warrant Book, i. 126, 144.9278th Oct. 1674. Tanner,Catalogue of Naval MSS. in Pepysian Library, No. 1838.928Life, ii. 716. Various other indictments are referred to inBrit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 62b.929Navigation and Commerce; their Original and Progress, 1674.930Evelyn’sDiary and Correspondence, ii. 90, 91 (ed. 1850).931Evelyn to Pepys, 19th Sept. 1682. “To speake plaine truth,” he says, “when I writ that Treatise, rather as aphilologicalexercise, and to gratifie the present circumstances, I could not clearly satisfie myself in sundry of those particulars, nor find realy that euer the Dutch did pay toll or tooke license to fish in Scotland after the contest (with Spain) from any solid proofs.... I think they neuer payd a peny for it ... nor did I find that any rent (wheroff in my 108 page I calculate the arrears) for permission to fish, was euer fixed by both parties.”932De Jure Maritimo et Navali, or a Treatise of Affaires Maritime and of Commerce, London, 1676. Editions were published in 1682, 1690, 1744, 1769, &c. It is still quoted by writers on international law. Molloy was the author of a work attacking the Dutch during the second Dutch war—Holland’s Ingratitude, or a Serious Expostulation with the Dutch, &c., 1666.933A View of the Admiral Jurisdiction, &c., London, 1661; 2nd edition, 1685.934The Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England Asserted, London, 1686.935England’s Great Interest, 38.State Papers, Dom., cccxi. 86; cccxv. 196 ; cccxxxvi. 295.936State Papers, Dom., ccclxix. 263. It is endorsed by Williamson, “Herring Fishery: Given me by ye King to keepe. Sunday, 24 Ap. 75,” and is unsigned. Each buss was to be of 70 tons, with a master, mate, pilot, and 12 seamen, to be all paid partly by results. The whole charge for the first year was put at £58,537, and the earnings at £90,000, on the assumption that each buss would catch 100 lasts of herrings, 15,000 cod, and 10,000 ling.937State Papers, Dom.,ibid., 264, 265.938Memoires relating to the State of the Royal Navy of England for Ten Years, determin’d December 1688.London, 1690.939Dumont,Corps Diplomatique, VII. ii. 236. Wagenaar,Vaderlandsche Historie, c. lxi.940Valin,Nouveau Commentaire sur l’Ordonnance de la Marine, &c., ii. 689.941Dumont,op. cit., VII. ii. 230.942“Upon your meeting with any ship or ships within his Majestie’s Seas, (which for your better guidance herein, you are to take notice that they extend to Cape Finisterre) belonging to any foreign Prince or State, you are to expect them in their passage by you, to strike their topsail and take in their flag, in acknowledgment of his Majestie’s Sovereignty in these Seas; and if any shall refuse, or offer to resist, you are to use your utmost endeavour to compel them therto, and in no wise to suffer any dishonour to be done to his Majesty; and in case any of his Majestie’s subjects shall be so far forgetful of their duty, as to omit striking their topsail as they pass by you, when it may be done without the loss of the voyage, you are to bring them to the Flag to answer their contempt, or otherwise to return the name of the ship and of the master to the Secretary of the Admiralty, or the Lord High Admiral of England, or the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral for the time being, as also the place whence and the port to which he shall be bound. And you are to make the master of such ship pay the charge of what shot you shall make at her. And you are further to take notice that in his Majestie’s Seas his Majestie’s ships are in no wise to strike to any; and that in other parts no ship of his Majestie’s is to strike her flag or topsail to any foreigner, unless such foreign ship shall have first struck, or at the same time strike, her flag or topsail to his Majestie’s ship, except in the harbour of some foreign Prince, or in the road within shot of cannon of some fort or castle, where you are to send on shore to inform yourself what return they will make to your salute. And in case you have good assurance you shall be answered gun for gun, you are then to salute the port as is usual; but if you shall not be well assured that you shall have an equal number of guns returned you, you are in no wise to salute that place. And in case the ship in which you now command shall at the same time carry his Majestie’s flag, you are, before you salute the place, carefully to inform yourself how flags of the same quality with that you carry, of other Princes, have been saluted there, and you are to insist on it being saluted with as great respect and advantage as any flag of the same quality with yours, of any other Prince, hath been saluted in that place, from which you are in no wise to depart.” Art. xxxv. 1691.State Papers, Dom.,H. O. Admiralty, 1, No. 14. Justice,A General Treatise of the Dominion and Laws of the Sea, 595.943Regulations and Instructions relating to His Majesty’s Service at Sea. Established by His Majesty in Council.2nd edition, 1734, Art. xi.Ibid., 10th edition, 1766.Ibid., 13th edition, 1790.944State Papers, Dom., H. O. Admiralty, 5, 1108, October 19.945State Papers, Dom., Petition Entry Book, 3, 90.946Justice,op. cit., 193.947State Papers, Dom., Naval, 1769, 45. Copies of the various papers sent from the Admiralty to the Under-Secretary of State. Professor Laughton states that Lieutenant Smith was reinstated to a higher rank next day.Fortnightly Review, Aug. 1866, p. 721.948A Complete History of the Most Remarkable Transactions at Sea, &c.By Josiah Burchett, Secretary to the Admiralty, 1720. Burchett’s account and definitions were adopted by later writers, as Lediard,The Naval History of England, 1735; Colliber,Columna Rostrata; or a History of the English Sea Affairs, 1727; Entick,A New Naval History or Compleat View of the British Marine, &c., 1757; Campbell,Lives of the Admirals and other Eminent British Seamen, 1742-44. Entick claimed for the crown the right to all the fisheries in the British seas, the right to impose tribute on all merchant ships navigating them, the execution of justice for all crimes committed within them, the permitting or denial of free passage through them to foreign ships of war, and the striking of the flag.949In both it was as follows: “Art. ii. À l’égard des honneurs du pavillon, et du salut en mer, par les vaisseaux de la République vis-à-vis de ceux de Sa Maj. Britannique, il en sera usé respectivement de la même manière qui a été pratiquée avant le commencement de la guerre qui vient de finir.” Martens,Recueil de Traités, iii. 514, 561.950Mahan,The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 209, 225, 510, &c.951The Life of Richard, Earl Howe, 200 (1838).952In theRegulations and Instructionsissued in 1808, the article is as follows: “XXIV. Within his Majesty’s seas his ships are not on any account to strike their topsails, nor take in their flags; nor in any way to salute any foreign ship whatever; nor are they, in any other seas, to strike their topsails, or take in their flags, to any foreign ships, unless such foreign ships shall have first struck, or shall at the same time strike, their flags and topsails to his Majesty’s ships.”953Observations concerning the Dominion and Sovereignty of the Seas: being an Abstract of the Marine Affairs of England.In his preface the author says the work was presented in manuscript to Charles II., “and well accepted by him.” In a letter from W. Bridgeman to Sir J. Williamson, dated from Whitehall, 13th May 1673, there was enclosed “a paper drawne up as I remember about the beginning of this Warre by SrPhilip Meadowes, which I find amongst other papers, and showing it to My Lord he directed mee to send it to you.” The enclosure is endorsed, “Soveraignity and Fishery by SrPhil. Meadowes, 1674,” the proper date being probably 1672. It is evidently a draft of the later work, essentially the same in substance and tone. (State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., vol. 335, Part II., No. 168.) Later he sent a copy to Pepys, dated January 2, 1686.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, ff. 13-43.954Op. cit., pp. 44-46. The draft article was as follows: “To maintain a due distinction betwixt natives and foreigners fishing upon the coasts of their respective sovereigns; and to prevent the manifold inconveniences which occasionally arise by a promiscuous and unlimited fishing; ’Tis mutually covenanted, concluded, and agreed, That the people and subjects of the United Netherlands shall henceforth abstain from fishing within any the rivers, fryths, havens, or bays of Great Britain and Ireland, or within a distance of ... leagues from any point of land thereof, or of any the isles thereto belonging; under a penalty and forfeiture of all the fish that shall be found aboard any vessel doing to the contrary, and of all the nets, utensils and other instruments of fishing. The like distances, and under the same penalties, to be kept and preserved by the subjects of His Majesty of Great Britain and Ireland, from any of the coasts belonging to the United Netherlands. But beyond these precincts and limits, that the people and subjects on both sides be at freedom to use and exercise fishing, where they please, without asking or taking licenses or safe-conducts for so doing, and without the let, hindrance, or molestation one of another. Saving always the ancient rights of the crown of England, and that nothing herein contained be interpreted or extended to any diminution or impeachment thereof, But that they remain in the same force and vertue, as before this agreement.” Meadows does not suggest the number of leagues within which fishing should be reserved, but he quotes with approval the proposal of James, in 1618, to fix a limit of fourteen miles—that is, one “land-kenning” of the Scotch.955“Reflections upon a Passage in SrWilliam Temple’s Memoirs, printed 1692, relating to the Right of Dominion on the British Seas.”Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 55. It is dated 1693.956A Treaty of Peace, Good Correspondence and Neutrality in America, &c., 16th November 1686, Art. v. By Article xvi. French subjects were to be at liberty to fish for turtles in the islands of Cayman.957Rayneval,Institutions du Droit de la Nature et des Gens, i. c. x.958Resol. van de Staten-Generael, April, May, June 1616.Resol. d. Stat. van Holl., March, April 1616.Ibid., 15th Dec. 1623; March, May 1635; 19th May 1637; Dec. 1639,Res. St.-Gen., 18th June 1639.Res. Holl., 13th April 1691. Lindemann,Die Arktische Fischerei der Deutschen Seestädte, p. 8.Groot Placaet-Boeck, iv. 235, 237. Auber,Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, xi. 144.959Resol. St.-Gen., Nov., Dec. 1698, 1740, 1741.Resol. Holl., July 1699; Jan., March, April, Sept., Dec. 1739; Jan., March, May 1740, 1741; Oct. 1757; Jan. 1758; Aug. 1761; April 1762. Martens,Causes Célèbres, i. 359-398; ii. 122-131. Beaujon,Hist. Dutch Fisheries, 479. A full account of the proceedings in 1738-40 is said by Beaujon to be contained in the memorials of Mauricius, who was the Dutch ambassador at Hamburg at the time, and was closely connected with the negotiations; they are contained in the Koninklijke Bibliotheek at The Hague.960Art. xii. “D’exercer la pêche dans lesd. mers, bayes, et autres endroits à trente lieues près des costes de la nouvelle Ecosse au sudest, en commençant depuis l’isle appellée vulgairement deSable,” &c. Dumont,Corps Diplomatique, VIII. i. 341.961Treaty of Paris, 10th February 1763, Art. v. Hertslet,Collection, i. 274. Martens,Recueil, i. 109.962Treaty of Versailles, 3rd Sept. 1783, Arts. v., vi., and Declaration attached. Hertslet, i. 246. Martens, iii. 522.963Parl. Hist., xv. 1063, 1261-1263. In the negotiations for peace in 1761, Pitt, who was then in office, most wisely insisted on an exclusive fishery.964Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States of America, signed at Paris, 3rd Sept. 1783, Art. viii. Martens,Recueil, iii. 556.965Gander,A Vindication of a National Fishery, wherein is asserted that the Glory, Wealth, Strength, Safety, and Happiness of this Kingdom ... doth depend (under God) upon a National Fishery ... to which is added the Sovereignty of the British Seas, 1699. Puckle,England’s Way to Wealth and Honour, 1699.A Discourse concerning the Fishery, 1695.The British Fishery recommended to Parliament, 1734.The Wealth of Great Britain in the Ocean Exemplified, 1749, &c., &c.96623 Geo. II., c. 24, 1750.An Act for the Encouragement of the British White Herring Fishery.967Gifford,Historical Description of the Zetland Isles; Edmondston,A View of the Ancient and Present State of the Shetland Isles;Europische Mercurius, 1703, ii. 107.968Maine,International Law, 77.969Tyberiadis, D. Bartoli de Saxoferrato, Jurisconsultorum omnium facile principis, Tractatus de Fluminibus, &c., Bononiæ, 1576, p. 55. “Jurisdictionem habens in territorio mari cohærenti habet etiam jurisdictionem in mari usque ad centum milliaria, ... sicut præses provinciæ debet purgare provinciam malis hominibus per terram, ita etiam per aquam.... Constat autem quòd centum miliaria per mare minus est duabus dietis.”970Commentaria ad Institutiones, Pandectas et Codicem, iii. 79. Venice, 1577.971Bodinus,De Republica, lib. i. c. x. § 170, Frankfort, 1591; Pacius,De Dominio Maris Hadriatici Disceptatio, c. i., Leyden, 1619; Welwood,De Dominio Maris, c. i. p. 5, 1615; Dee,General and Rare Memorials, p. 21, 1577; Gryphiander,De Insulis Tractatus, c. xiv., 1623; Gentilis,Advocatio Hispanica, c. viii. de marina territorio tuendo, 1613; Gothofredus,De Imperio Maris, 1637.972“Mare dicitur esse de territorio illius civitatis cui magis appropinquat et ideo Veneti quia domini sunt maris Adriatici possunt imponere navigantibus vectigalia, et adversus contra facientus pœnam adjicere.”973Loc. cit.974“Et dicunt doctores, quod domini Veneti, et Genuenses, et alii habentes portum, dicuntur habere jurisdictionem, et imperium in toto mari sibi propinquo per centum miliaria, vel etiam ultra, si non propinquant alteri provinciæ.”Loc. cit.975Azuni,Systema Universale dei Principii del Diritto Maritimo dell’ Europa, i. 58, 1798. Jurisdiction was conferred within certain boundaries on land, “et intus mare centum milliaria.”976Parl. Papers, U.S., No. 1., 1893.Behring Sea Arbitration, British Case, 37, 133.977In the definitions of the boundaries of lands and fisheries in Anglo-Saxon charters such descriptions occur as “up midne streame,” “ūt on Temese oð midne streām,” “up midne streame by halfen streame,” &c. Birch,Cartulariurm Saxonicum.978“Quicquid etiam ex hac parte medietatis maris inventum et dilatum ad Sandwic fuerit sive sit vestimentum sive rete arma ferrum aurum argentum, medietas monachorum erit, alia pars remanebit inventoribus.” Kemble,Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici, iv. 21.979Le Mirroir des Justices, c. iii., “la sovereine seignurie de tote la terre jeqes el miluieu fil de la meer environ la terre.”980See p. 102.981Brit. Mus. Hargraves MSS., No. 98; printed by Moore,Hist. of the Foreshore, 362.982A Treatise relating to the Maritime Law of England, 10.983See p. 35.984Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 50. The opinion of the Trinity House was given in November 1686. In 1677 the Privy Council, on a petition of the fishermen of Hastings complaining of the French fishing on the coast, sent to the Cinque Ports for an account “of the old limitations used to be put upon the French and others in their proceedings in that fishing,” and also ordered two ships to be sent “to forbid the French to fish on the coast as having no license thereto, and to drive them away from thence” (ibid.) On the other hand, Jeakes, in hisCharters of the Cinque Ports, written in 1678, states with reference to the powers “by land and sea” conferred on the Ports by various charters, thatper maredid not meanaltum mare, the high sea, where the Admiral had jurisdiction, but only the “havens, creeks, and arms of the sea, so far as can be judged in a county, where the land is on both sides,” p. 69.985See p. 547.98631st Oct. 1563, tit. i. par. 27, “Ne qua in mari vis fierit vel suis subditis, vel sociis, vel peregrinis, sive belli, sive alterius rei causa intra conspectum a terra vel portu.” Bynkershoek,Quæstiones Juris Publici, lib. i. cap. viii.De Domini Maris, c. ii.987Mare Liberum, c. v.See p. 347.988Foreigners were not to fish “nerer the land nor nor yai mycht see the shoir out of yair main toppis.”989Stair,The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, bk. ii. tit. i. 5 (1681). “The vast ocean is common to all mankind as to navigation and fishing, which are the only uses therof, because it is not capable of bounds; but where the sea is enclosed, in bays, creeks, or otherwise is capable of any bounds or meiths, as within the points of such lands, or within the view of such shores, there it may become proper, but with the reservation of passage for commerce, as in the land. So fishing without these bounds is common to all, and within them also, except as to certain kinds of fish, such as herrings, &c.” The qualification and the “etcetera” are peculiar.990See p. 528.991Captain George St Lo,England’s Safety, or a Bridle to the French King, 1693. “During the time I was convoy to our fishing there, as aforesaid (1685-6), my business was to see that no foreigner should fish in sight of the shore, because the fish draw thither to spawn; the best draughts are there.”992Azuni,Sistema universale dei Principj del Diritto marittimo, i. 78.993Dominio del Mar’ Adriatico e sue Raggione per il Jus Belli della Serenissima Repvblica di Venetia, Venezia, 1686.994Hale,A Treatise relating to the Maritime Law of England, c. iv. Coke’sFourth Institute, c. xxii. p. 140 (ed. 1797). Blackstone,Commentaries, i. 110. Hale,Pleas of the Crown, ii. 54. An early authority is in Fitzherbert’sLa GrandeAbridgment(1565), Corone et Plees de Corone, fol. 259, placit 399, “Nota p. Stanton justic q̃ ceo nest pas sa͠nce demere ou hoe puit veier ceo q̃’est fait del ou part del ewe et del aut, coe a rier de lun terr tanq̃ a laut q̃ le cozon viendr’ en ceo cas et fra son offic auri coe auent a vyent en vu brau del mer la ou home puit vier de lun parte tanque a lauter del auer que en cel lieu auient puyt paiis auer conisans.” There are some words in this passage difficult to translate, but the following has been given as its rendering: “Nota per Stanton Justice, that that is not sance [which Lord Coke translates ‘part’] of the sea where a man can see what is done from one part of the water and the other, so as to see from one land to the other; that the coroner shall come in such case and perform his office, as well as coming and going in an arm of the sea, there where a man can see from one part to the other of the [word undeciphered], that in such a place the country can have conusance.”995See p. 119.996Lib. ii. cap. iii. s. xiii. 2, “Ratione territorii, quatenus ex terra cogi possunt qui in proxima maris parte versantur, nec minus quam si in ipsa terra reperirentur.”See p. 349.997Discussiones Historicæ de Mari Libero, 1637.998De Dominio Seren. Genuensis Reipub. in Mari Ligustico, 1641.999Imperium Maritimum, 1654.1000Dissertatio de Imperio Maris, 1676.1001De Imperio Maris.1002Jus Maritimum, 1652.1003Maris Liberi Vind. adv. P. B. Burgum, 1652;Maris Liberi Vind. adv. G. Welwodum, 1633.1004De Jure Maritime et Navali, lib. i. c. iv. Ed. 1652.1005De Jure Naturæ et Gentium, 1672.1006Lib. iv. c. v. s. vii.10077th March, 1689, Art iv.1008State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., ccxxxiv. 112, 113, 8th Feb. 1667/8.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 64, 12th March 1683.1009Wynne,Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, ii. 727, 732, 755, 780, 783. In reporting to the king in one case, in which he found the capture was made in the Channel beyond the limits of a chamber, Jenkins says: “However the truth be as to the chamber, ’tis certain the seizure was made in your Majesty’s seas: but so it is, that notwithstanding your Majesty’s undoubted right of dominion and protection in these seas, strangers do hold themselves, if not permitted, yet excused for such hostilities, when they are acted at a due distance from your Majesty’s ports, harbours, and chambers; grounding themselves upon what was done and observed in that long war between Spain and the Netherlands.” The preamble of the proclamation of 12th March 1683 was as follows: “Whereas the safeguard and protection we owe to such of our own subjects, and to all others in league and amity with us, as pass and repass the seas belonging to these our kingdoms, has been always a principal part of our royal care and concern, and we, finding that the freedom and security of our navigation and commerce to and from our ports in time of hostility between our neighbouring princes has been much disturbed, nay, the reverence due to our ports, harbours, and other places under our immediate protection has been violated by the partial practices, depredations, and insolencies of private men-of-war and others pretending commissions for the present hostilities: We have thought fit, by the advice of our Privy Council, after an exact view first taken of the rules, ordinances, and provisions made on the like occasions by our royal progenitors and ourself, to revive, establish, ratify and publish to all the world these rules and ordinances following.” The rules are similar to those in the regulations of 1633 and 1668; but it is noteworthy that the “King’s Chambers” are not specifically mentioned, nor is any reference made to a “platt,” and the claim to the dominion of the seas, so prominent in 1633, is omitted.1010De Dominio Maris Dissertatio.Hagæ-Batavorum, 1703.1011Quæstiones Juris Publici.Lugduni-Batavorum, 1737.1012“Unde dominium maris proximi non ultra concedimus, quam e terra illi imperari potest, et tamen eo usque; nulla siquidem sit ratio, cur mare, quod in alicujus imperio est et potestate, minus ejusdem esse dicamus, quam fossam in ejus territorio.... Quare omnino videtur rectius, eo potestatem terræ extendi, quousque tormenta exploduntur, eatenus quippe cum imperare, tum possidere videmur. Loquor autem de his temporibus, quibus illis machinis utimur: alioquin generaliter dicendum esset, potestatem terræ finiri, ubi finitur armorum vis; etenim hæc, ut diximus, possessionem tuetur.”De Dom. Maris, cap. ii. In theQuæstionesthe phrase is “imperium terræ finitur, ubi finitur armorum potestas,” and “terræ dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis.”1013Ibid., cap. ii.1014See p. 381.1015De Jure Maritimo, p. 150.1016Discursus Legales de Commercio, Venice, 1740, D, 136. 174, 211, tom. 2. An earlier edition was published at Florence in 1719.1017“Naves exteræ dicuntur esse sub protectione illius principis, cujus mare navigant, quando reperiuntur intra portus illius, aut in mari, ita vicino, ut illuc tormenta, bellica adigi possent. Et si deprædentur ab inimicis, de jure restituendæ sunt.”1018Tratado jurídico-politico, sobre pressas de mar, y calidades, que deben concurrir para hacerse legitimamente el Corso, Part I. c. v. Cadiz, 1746.1019“No podrá con razon pretender mas extension de sus Costas, que las dos leguas.”1020“Y circunda en el espacio á lo menos de cien millas en recto: lo qual es una infalible, y conforme tradicion de los Letrados de todas las Naciones.”1021Jus Gentium, Halæ Magdeburgicæ, 1749, cap. i. ss. 120-132, pp. 99-107. “Partes maris a gentibus, quæ idem accolunt, occupari possunt, quousque dominium in iisdem tueri possunt.”1022Le Droit des Gens, Liv. i. c. xxiii. 5, 279-295, 1758.1023De la Saisie des Bâtimens Neutres, La Haye, 1759, tom. i. Part I. c. iii. s. 5, p. 57.1024Nouveau Commentaire sur l’Ordonnance de la Marine du mois d’Août 1681, Rochelle, 1766, t. ii. Liv. v. tit. i. pp. 687, 688. “Jusqu’à la distance de deux lieues, et avec cette restriction encore, la mer est donc du domaine du souverain de la côte voisine; et cela que l’on puisse y prendre fond avec la sonde, ou non. Il est juste au reste d’user de cette méthode en faveur des États dont les côtes sont si escarpées, que dès le bord on ne peut trouver le fond; mais cela n’empêche pas que le domaine de la mer, quant à la jurisdiction et à la pêche, ne puisse s’étendre au delà; soit en vertu des traités de navigation et de commerce, soit par la règle ci-dessus établie qui continue le domaine jusq’où la sonde peut prendre fond, ou jusqu’à la portée du canon, ce qui est aujourd’hui la règle universellement reconnue.” Lawrence, in his annotated edition of Wheaton’sElements of International Law, Part II. c. iv. s. 6 (1864), makes a curious blunder in regard to the limit proposed by Valin, who, he says, “proposed to fix it according to thesound of a cannon, or as far as the ball would reach.” The authority Valin gives for the statement that the rule was universally recognised isJournal de Commerce, Mai 1759, p. 40.1025Versuch des Neuesten Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedens-und Kriegs-zeiten, Bd. v. 486, Frankfort, 1778. “Das an die Küsten eines Landes stossende Meer stehet nach dem Völkerrecht unter der Oberherrschaft des angränzenden Landes unstreitig, so weit es mit Canonen von dem festen Land bestrichen werden kan.”1026Juris Publici Universalis, sive Juris Naturæ et Gentium, Theoremata, ii. 7, 65. “Nobis visum est singulas gentes eam partem circa littus suum occupare posse, cujus usus necessarius, quamque tuendis littoribus et territorio necessarium arbitrantur.”1027De’ Doveri de’ principi neutrali verso i principi guerreggianti, e di questi verso i neutrali.Naples, 1782.

924State Papers, Dom., ccclxx. 238, 245, 252.

925State Papers, Dom., ccclxxvi. 92; ccclxxix. 9. The incident occurred on 11th November 1675, between 46 and 47 degrees latitude. The Spanish ship “required him to strike for the King of Spaine, and the said CapnHarris haueing seuerell times refused to doe it, and required the said Ostender to strike for his Matyof Greate Brittain; yet neuerthelesse he, CaptJos. Harris, in the time of their convention (sic) about this matter, did order the Topsaile of the said Ketch to be Lowered, wchwas accordingly done, and is proued by the depositions vpon Oath taken in Court,” &c. The court found that by lowering his top-sails he struck to a foreigner in his Majesty’s seas, “a great derogac͠on from his MatiesHonour, contrary to the 32th Article of the General Instrucc͠ons and punishable by the Eleventh Article of War.”

926H. O. Warrant Book, i. 126, 144.

9278th Oct. 1674. Tanner,Catalogue of Naval MSS. in Pepysian Library, No. 1838.

928Life, ii. 716. Various other indictments are referred to inBrit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 62b.

929Navigation and Commerce; their Original and Progress, 1674.

930Evelyn’sDiary and Correspondence, ii. 90, 91 (ed. 1850).

931Evelyn to Pepys, 19th Sept. 1682. “To speake plaine truth,” he says, “when I writ that Treatise, rather as aphilologicalexercise, and to gratifie the present circumstances, I could not clearly satisfie myself in sundry of those particulars, nor find realy that euer the Dutch did pay toll or tooke license to fish in Scotland after the contest (with Spain) from any solid proofs.... I think they neuer payd a peny for it ... nor did I find that any rent (wheroff in my 108 page I calculate the arrears) for permission to fish, was euer fixed by both parties.”

932De Jure Maritimo et Navali, or a Treatise of Affaires Maritime and of Commerce, London, 1676. Editions were published in 1682, 1690, 1744, 1769, &c. It is still quoted by writers on international law. Molloy was the author of a work attacking the Dutch during the second Dutch war—Holland’s Ingratitude, or a Serious Expostulation with the Dutch, &c., 1666.

933A View of the Admiral Jurisdiction, &c., London, 1661; 2nd edition, 1685.

934The Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England Asserted, London, 1686.

935England’s Great Interest, 38.State Papers, Dom., cccxi. 86; cccxv. 196 ; cccxxxvi. 295.

936State Papers, Dom., ccclxix. 263. It is endorsed by Williamson, “Herring Fishery: Given me by ye King to keepe. Sunday, 24 Ap. 75,” and is unsigned. Each buss was to be of 70 tons, with a master, mate, pilot, and 12 seamen, to be all paid partly by results. The whole charge for the first year was put at £58,537, and the earnings at £90,000, on the assumption that each buss would catch 100 lasts of herrings, 15,000 cod, and 10,000 ling.

937State Papers, Dom.,ibid., 264, 265.

938Memoires relating to the State of the Royal Navy of England for Ten Years, determin’d December 1688.London, 1690.

939Dumont,Corps Diplomatique, VII. ii. 236. Wagenaar,Vaderlandsche Historie, c. lxi.

940Valin,Nouveau Commentaire sur l’Ordonnance de la Marine, &c., ii. 689.

941Dumont,op. cit., VII. ii. 230.

942“Upon your meeting with any ship or ships within his Majestie’s Seas, (which for your better guidance herein, you are to take notice that they extend to Cape Finisterre) belonging to any foreign Prince or State, you are to expect them in their passage by you, to strike their topsail and take in their flag, in acknowledgment of his Majestie’s Sovereignty in these Seas; and if any shall refuse, or offer to resist, you are to use your utmost endeavour to compel them therto, and in no wise to suffer any dishonour to be done to his Majesty; and in case any of his Majestie’s subjects shall be so far forgetful of their duty, as to omit striking their topsail as they pass by you, when it may be done without the loss of the voyage, you are to bring them to the Flag to answer their contempt, or otherwise to return the name of the ship and of the master to the Secretary of the Admiralty, or the Lord High Admiral of England, or the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral for the time being, as also the place whence and the port to which he shall be bound. And you are to make the master of such ship pay the charge of what shot you shall make at her. And you are further to take notice that in his Majestie’s Seas his Majestie’s ships are in no wise to strike to any; and that in other parts no ship of his Majestie’s is to strike her flag or topsail to any foreigner, unless such foreign ship shall have first struck, or at the same time strike, her flag or topsail to his Majestie’s ship, except in the harbour of some foreign Prince, or in the road within shot of cannon of some fort or castle, where you are to send on shore to inform yourself what return they will make to your salute. And in case you have good assurance you shall be answered gun for gun, you are then to salute the port as is usual; but if you shall not be well assured that you shall have an equal number of guns returned you, you are in no wise to salute that place. And in case the ship in which you now command shall at the same time carry his Majestie’s flag, you are, before you salute the place, carefully to inform yourself how flags of the same quality with that you carry, of other Princes, have been saluted there, and you are to insist on it being saluted with as great respect and advantage as any flag of the same quality with yours, of any other Prince, hath been saluted in that place, from which you are in no wise to depart.” Art. xxxv. 1691.State Papers, Dom.,H. O. Admiralty, 1, No. 14. Justice,A General Treatise of the Dominion and Laws of the Sea, 595.

943Regulations and Instructions relating to His Majesty’s Service at Sea. Established by His Majesty in Council.2nd edition, 1734, Art. xi.Ibid., 10th edition, 1766.Ibid., 13th edition, 1790.

944State Papers, Dom., H. O. Admiralty, 5, 1108, October 19.

945State Papers, Dom., Petition Entry Book, 3, 90.

946Justice,op. cit., 193.

947State Papers, Dom., Naval, 1769, 45. Copies of the various papers sent from the Admiralty to the Under-Secretary of State. Professor Laughton states that Lieutenant Smith was reinstated to a higher rank next day.Fortnightly Review, Aug. 1866, p. 721.

948A Complete History of the Most Remarkable Transactions at Sea, &c.By Josiah Burchett, Secretary to the Admiralty, 1720. Burchett’s account and definitions were adopted by later writers, as Lediard,The Naval History of England, 1735; Colliber,Columna Rostrata; or a History of the English Sea Affairs, 1727; Entick,A New Naval History or Compleat View of the British Marine, &c., 1757; Campbell,Lives of the Admirals and other Eminent British Seamen, 1742-44. Entick claimed for the crown the right to all the fisheries in the British seas, the right to impose tribute on all merchant ships navigating them, the execution of justice for all crimes committed within them, the permitting or denial of free passage through them to foreign ships of war, and the striking of the flag.

949In both it was as follows: “Art. ii. À l’égard des honneurs du pavillon, et du salut en mer, par les vaisseaux de la République vis-à-vis de ceux de Sa Maj. Britannique, il en sera usé respectivement de la même manière qui a été pratiquée avant le commencement de la guerre qui vient de finir.” Martens,Recueil de Traités, iii. 514, 561.

950Mahan,The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 209, 225, 510, &c.

951The Life of Richard, Earl Howe, 200 (1838).

952In theRegulations and Instructionsissued in 1808, the article is as follows: “XXIV. Within his Majesty’s seas his ships are not on any account to strike their topsails, nor take in their flags; nor in any way to salute any foreign ship whatever; nor are they, in any other seas, to strike their topsails, or take in their flags, to any foreign ships, unless such foreign ships shall have first struck, or shall at the same time strike, their flags and topsails to his Majesty’s ships.”

953Observations concerning the Dominion and Sovereignty of the Seas: being an Abstract of the Marine Affairs of England.In his preface the author says the work was presented in manuscript to Charles II., “and well accepted by him.” In a letter from W. Bridgeman to Sir J. Williamson, dated from Whitehall, 13th May 1673, there was enclosed “a paper drawne up as I remember about the beginning of this Warre by SrPhilip Meadowes, which I find amongst other papers, and showing it to My Lord he directed mee to send it to you.” The enclosure is endorsed, “Soveraignity and Fishery by SrPhil. Meadowes, 1674,” the proper date being probably 1672. It is evidently a draft of the later work, essentially the same in substance and tone. (State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., vol. 335, Part II., No. 168.) Later he sent a copy to Pepys, dated January 2, 1686.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, ff. 13-43.

954Op. cit., pp. 44-46. The draft article was as follows: “To maintain a due distinction betwixt natives and foreigners fishing upon the coasts of their respective sovereigns; and to prevent the manifold inconveniences which occasionally arise by a promiscuous and unlimited fishing; ’Tis mutually covenanted, concluded, and agreed, That the people and subjects of the United Netherlands shall henceforth abstain from fishing within any the rivers, fryths, havens, or bays of Great Britain and Ireland, or within a distance of ... leagues from any point of land thereof, or of any the isles thereto belonging; under a penalty and forfeiture of all the fish that shall be found aboard any vessel doing to the contrary, and of all the nets, utensils and other instruments of fishing. The like distances, and under the same penalties, to be kept and preserved by the subjects of His Majesty of Great Britain and Ireland, from any of the coasts belonging to the United Netherlands. But beyond these precincts and limits, that the people and subjects on both sides be at freedom to use and exercise fishing, where they please, without asking or taking licenses or safe-conducts for so doing, and without the let, hindrance, or molestation one of another. Saving always the ancient rights of the crown of England, and that nothing herein contained be interpreted or extended to any diminution or impeachment thereof, But that they remain in the same force and vertue, as before this agreement.” Meadows does not suggest the number of leagues within which fishing should be reserved, but he quotes with approval the proposal of James, in 1618, to fix a limit of fourteen miles—that is, one “land-kenning” of the Scotch.

955“Reflections upon a Passage in SrWilliam Temple’s Memoirs, printed 1692, relating to the Right of Dominion on the British Seas.”Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 55. It is dated 1693.

956A Treaty of Peace, Good Correspondence and Neutrality in America, &c., 16th November 1686, Art. v. By Article xvi. French subjects were to be at liberty to fish for turtles in the islands of Cayman.

957Rayneval,Institutions du Droit de la Nature et des Gens, i. c. x.

958Resol. van de Staten-Generael, April, May, June 1616.Resol. d. Stat. van Holl., March, April 1616.Ibid., 15th Dec. 1623; March, May 1635; 19th May 1637; Dec. 1639,Res. St.-Gen., 18th June 1639.Res. Holl., 13th April 1691. Lindemann,Die Arktische Fischerei der Deutschen Seestädte, p. 8.Groot Placaet-Boeck, iv. 235, 237. Auber,Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, xi. 144.

959Resol. St.-Gen., Nov., Dec. 1698, 1740, 1741.Resol. Holl., July 1699; Jan., March, April, Sept., Dec. 1739; Jan., March, May 1740, 1741; Oct. 1757; Jan. 1758; Aug. 1761; April 1762. Martens,Causes Célèbres, i. 359-398; ii. 122-131. Beaujon,Hist. Dutch Fisheries, 479. A full account of the proceedings in 1738-40 is said by Beaujon to be contained in the memorials of Mauricius, who was the Dutch ambassador at Hamburg at the time, and was closely connected with the negotiations; they are contained in the Koninklijke Bibliotheek at The Hague.

960Art. xii. “D’exercer la pêche dans lesd. mers, bayes, et autres endroits à trente lieues près des costes de la nouvelle Ecosse au sudest, en commençant depuis l’isle appellée vulgairement deSable,” &c. Dumont,Corps Diplomatique, VIII. i. 341.

961Treaty of Paris, 10th February 1763, Art. v. Hertslet,Collection, i. 274. Martens,Recueil, i. 109.

962Treaty of Versailles, 3rd Sept. 1783, Arts. v., vi., and Declaration attached. Hertslet, i. 246. Martens, iii. 522.

963Parl. Hist., xv. 1063, 1261-1263. In the negotiations for peace in 1761, Pitt, who was then in office, most wisely insisted on an exclusive fishery.

964Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States of America, signed at Paris, 3rd Sept. 1783, Art. viii. Martens,Recueil, iii. 556.

965Gander,A Vindication of a National Fishery, wherein is asserted that the Glory, Wealth, Strength, Safety, and Happiness of this Kingdom ... doth depend (under God) upon a National Fishery ... to which is added the Sovereignty of the British Seas, 1699. Puckle,England’s Way to Wealth and Honour, 1699.A Discourse concerning the Fishery, 1695.The British Fishery recommended to Parliament, 1734.The Wealth of Great Britain in the Ocean Exemplified, 1749, &c., &c.

96623 Geo. II., c. 24, 1750.An Act for the Encouragement of the British White Herring Fishery.

967Gifford,Historical Description of the Zetland Isles; Edmondston,A View of the Ancient and Present State of the Shetland Isles;Europische Mercurius, 1703, ii. 107.

968Maine,International Law, 77.

969Tyberiadis, D. Bartoli de Saxoferrato, Jurisconsultorum omnium facile principis, Tractatus de Fluminibus, &c., Bononiæ, 1576, p. 55. “Jurisdictionem habens in territorio mari cohærenti habet etiam jurisdictionem in mari usque ad centum milliaria, ... sicut præses provinciæ debet purgare provinciam malis hominibus per terram, ita etiam per aquam.... Constat autem quòd centum miliaria per mare minus est duabus dietis.”

970Commentaria ad Institutiones, Pandectas et Codicem, iii. 79. Venice, 1577.

971Bodinus,De Republica, lib. i. c. x. § 170, Frankfort, 1591; Pacius,De Dominio Maris Hadriatici Disceptatio, c. i., Leyden, 1619; Welwood,De Dominio Maris, c. i. p. 5, 1615; Dee,General and Rare Memorials, p. 21, 1577; Gryphiander,De Insulis Tractatus, c. xiv., 1623; Gentilis,Advocatio Hispanica, c. viii. de marina territorio tuendo, 1613; Gothofredus,De Imperio Maris, 1637.

972“Mare dicitur esse de territorio illius civitatis cui magis appropinquat et ideo Veneti quia domini sunt maris Adriatici possunt imponere navigantibus vectigalia, et adversus contra facientus pœnam adjicere.”

973Loc. cit.

974“Et dicunt doctores, quod domini Veneti, et Genuenses, et alii habentes portum, dicuntur habere jurisdictionem, et imperium in toto mari sibi propinquo per centum miliaria, vel etiam ultra, si non propinquant alteri provinciæ.”Loc. cit.

975Azuni,Systema Universale dei Principii del Diritto Maritimo dell’ Europa, i. 58, 1798. Jurisdiction was conferred within certain boundaries on land, “et intus mare centum milliaria.”

976Parl. Papers, U.S., No. 1., 1893.Behring Sea Arbitration, British Case, 37, 133.

977In the definitions of the boundaries of lands and fisheries in Anglo-Saxon charters such descriptions occur as “up midne streame,” “ūt on Temese oð midne streām,” “up midne streame by halfen streame,” &c. Birch,Cartulariurm Saxonicum.

978“Quicquid etiam ex hac parte medietatis maris inventum et dilatum ad Sandwic fuerit sive sit vestimentum sive rete arma ferrum aurum argentum, medietas monachorum erit, alia pars remanebit inventoribus.” Kemble,Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici, iv. 21.

979Le Mirroir des Justices, c. iii., “la sovereine seignurie de tote la terre jeqes el miluieu fil de la meer environ la terre.”

980See p. 102.

981Brit. Mus. Hargraves MSS., No. 98; printed by Moore,Hist. of the Foreshore, 362.

982A Treatise relating to the Maritime Law of England, 10.

983See p. 35.

984Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 50. The opinion of the Trinity House was given in November 1686. In 1677 the Privy Council, on a petition of the fishermen of Hastings complaining of the French fishing on the coast, sent to the Cinque Ports for an account “of the old limitations used to be put upon the French and others in their proceedings in that fishing,” and also ordered two ships to be sent “to forbid the French to fish on the coast as having no license thereto, and to drive them away from thence” (ibid.) On the other hand, Jeakes, in hisCharters of the Cinque Ports, written in 1678, states with reference to the powers “by land and sea” conferred on the Ports by various charters, thatper maredid not meanaltum mare, the high sea, where the Admiral had jurisdiction, but only the “havens, creeks, and arms of the sea, so far as can be judged in a county, where the land is on both sides,” p. 69.

985See p. 547.

98631st Oct. 1563, tit. i. par. 27, “Ne qua in mari vis fierit vel suis subditis, vel sociis, vel peregrinis, sive belli, sive alterius rei causa intra conspectum a terra vel portu.” Bynkershoek,Quæstiones Juris Publici, lib. i. cap. viii.De Domini Maris, c. ii.

987Mare Liberum, c. v.See p. 347.

988Foreigners were not to fish “nerer the land nor nor yai mycht see the shoir out of yair main toppis.”

989Stair,The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, bk. ii. tit. i. 5 (1681). “The vast ocean is common to all mankind as to navigation and fishing, which are the only uses therof, because it is not capable of bounds; but where the sea is enclosed, in bays, creeks, or otherwise is capable of any bounds or meiths, as within the points of such lands, or within the view of such shores, there it may become proper, but with the reservation of passage for commerce, as in the land. So fishing without these bounds is common to all, and within them also, except as to certain kinds of fish, such as herrings, &c.” The qualification and the “etcetera” are peculiar.

990See p. 528.

991Captain George St Lo,England’s Safety, or a Bridle to the French King, 1693. “During the time I was convoy to our fishing there, as aforesaid (1685-6), my business was to see that no foreigner should fish in sight of the shore, because the fish draw thither to spawn; the best draughts are there.”

992Azuni,Sistema universale dei Principj del Diritto marittimo, i. 78.

993Dominio del Mar’ Adriatico e sue Raggione per il Jus Belli della Serenissima Repvblica di Venetia, Venezia, 1686.

994Hale,A Treatise relating to the Maritime Law of England, c. iv. Coke’sFourth Institute, c. xxii. p. 140 (ed. 1797). Blackstone,Commentaries, i. 110. Hale,Pleas of the Crown, ii. 54. An early authority is in Fitzherbert’sLa GrandeAbridgment(1565), Corone et Plees de Corone, fol. 259, placit 399, “Nota p. Stanton justic q̃ ceo nest pas sa͠nce demere ou hoe puit veier ceo q̃’est fait del ou part del ewe et del aut, coe a rier de lun terr tanq̃ a laut q̃ le cozon viendr’ en ceo cas et fra son offic auri coe auent a vyent en vu brau del mer la ou home puit vier de lun parte tanque a lauter del auer que en cel lieu auient puyt paiis auer conisans.” There are some words in this passage difficult to translate, but the following has been given as its rendering: “Nota per Stanton Justice, that that is not sance [which Lord Coke translates ‘part’] of the sea where a man can see what is done from one part of the water and the other, so as to see from one land to the other; that the coroner shall come in such case and perform his office, as well as coming and going in an arm of the sea, there where a man can see from one part to the other of the [word undeciphered], that in such a place the country can have conusance.”

995See p. 119.

996Lib. ii. cap. iii. s. xiii. 2, “Ratione territorii, quatenus ex terra cogi possunt qui in proxima maris parte versantur, nec minus quam si in ipsa terra reperirentur.”See p. 349.

997Discussiones Historicæ de Mari Libero, 1637.

998De Dominio Seren. Genuensis Reipub. in Mari Ligustico, 1641.

999Imperium Maritimum, 1654.

1000Dissertatio de Imperio Maris, 1676.

1001De Imperio Maris.

1002Jus Maritimum, 1652.

1003Maris Liberi Vind. adv. P. B. Burgum, 1652;Maris Liberi Vind. adv. G. Welwodum, 1633.

1004De Jure Maritime et Navali, lib. i. c. iv. Ed. 1652.

1005De Jure Naturæ et Gentium, 1672.

1006Lib. iv. c. v. s. vii.

10077th March, 1689, Art iv.

1008State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., ccxxxiv. 112, 113, 8th Feb. 1667/8.Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 30,221, fol. 64, 12th March 1683.

1009Wynne,Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, ii. 727, 732, 755, 780, 783. In reporting to the king in one case, in which he found the capture was made in the Channel beyond the limits of a chamber, Jenkins says: “However the truth be as to the chamber, ’tis certain the seizure was made in your Majesty’s seas: but so it is, that notwithstanding your Majesty’s undoubted right of dominion and protection in these seas, strangers do hold themselves, if not permitted, yet excused for such hostilities, when they are acted at a due distance from your Majesty’s ports, harbours, and chambers; grounding themselves upon what was done and observed in that long war between Spain and the Netherlands.” The preamble of the proclamation of 12th March 1683 was as follows: “Whereas the safeguard and protection we owe to such of our own subjects, and to all others in league and amity with us, as pass and repass the seas belonging to these our kingdoms, has been always a principal part of our royal care and concern, and we, finding that the freedom and security of our navigation and commerce to and from our ports in time of hostility between our neighbouring princes has been much disturbed, nay, the reverence due to our ports, harbours, and other places under our immediate protection has been violated by the partial practices, depredations, and insolencies of private men-of-war and others pretending commissions for the present hostilities: We have thought fit, by the advice of our Privy Council, after an exact view first taken of the rules, ordinances, and provisions made on the like occasions by our royal progenitors and ourself, to revive, establish, ratify and publish to all the world these rules and ordinances following.” The rules are similar to those in the regulations of 1633 and 1668; but it is noteworthy that the “King’s Chambers” are not specifically mentioned, nor is any reference made to a “platt,” and the claim to the dominion of the seas, so prominent in 1633, is omitted.

1010De Dominio Maris Dissertatio.Hagæ-Batavorum, 1703.

1011Quæstiones Juris Publici.Lugduni-Batavorum, 1737.

1012“Unde dominium maris proximi non ultra concedimus, quam e terra illi imperari potest, et tamen eo usque; nulla siquidem sit ratio, cur mare, quod in alicujus imperio est et potestate, minus ejusdem esse dicamus, quam fossam in ejus territorio.... Quare omnino videtur rectius, eo potestatem terræ extendi, quousque tormenta exploduntur, eatenus quippe cum imperare, tum possidere videmur. Loquor autem de his temporibus, quibus illis machinis utimur: alioquin generaliter dicendum esset, potestatem terræ finiri, ubi finitur armorum vis; etenim hæc, ut diximus, possessionem tuetur.”De Dom. Maris, cap. ii. In theQuæstionesthe phrase is “imperium terræ finitur, ubi finitur armorum potestas,” and “terræ dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis.”

1013Ibid., cap. ii.

1014See p. 381.

1015De Jure Maritimo, p. 150.

1016Discursus Legales de Commercio, Venice, 1740, D, 136. 174, 211, tom. 2. An earlier edition was published at Florence in 1719.

1017“Naves exteræ dicuntur esse sub protectione illius principis, cujus mare navigant, quando reperiuntur intra portus illius, aut in mari, ita vicino, ut illuc tormenta, bellica adigi possent. Et si deprædentur ab inimicis, de jure restituendæ sunt.”

1018Tratado jurídico-politico, sobre pressas de mar, y calidades, que deben concurrir para hacerse legitimamente el Corso, Part I. c. v. Cadiz, 1746.

1019“No podrá con razon pretender mas extension de sus Costas, que las dos leguas.”

1020“Y circunda en el espacio á lo menos de cien millas en recto: lo qual es una infalible, y conforme tradicion de los Letrados de todas las Naciones.”

1021Jus Gentium, Halæ Magdeburgicæ, 1749, cap. i. ss. 120-132, pp. 99-107. “Partes maris a gentibus, quæ idem accolunt, occupari possunt, quousque dominium in iisdem tueri possunt.”

1022Le Droit des Gens, Liv. i. c. xxiii. 5, 279-295, 1758.

1023De la Saisie des Bâtimens Neutres, La Haye, 1759, tom. i. Part I. c. iii. s. 5, p. 57.

1024Nouveau Commentaire sur l’Ordonnance de la Marine du mois d’Août 1681, Rochelle, 1766, t. ii. Liv. v. tit. i. pp. 687, 688. “Jusqu’à la distance de deux lieues, et avec cette restriction encore, la mer est donc du domaine du souverain de la côte voisine; et cela que l’on puisse y prendre fond avec la sonde, ou non. Il est juste au reste d’user de cette méthode en faveur des États dont les côtes sont si escarpées, que dès le bord on ne peut trouver le fond; mais cela n’empêche pas que le domaine de la mer, quant à la jurisdiction et à la pêche, ne puisse s’étendre au delà; soit en vertu des traités de navigation et de commerce, soit par la règle ci-dessus établie qui continue le domaine jusq’où la sonde peut prendre fond, ou jusqu’à la portée du canon, ce qui est aujourd’hui la règle universellement reconnue.” Lawrence, in his annotated edition of Wheaton’sElements of International Law, Part II. c. iv. s. 6 (1864), makes a curious blunder in regard to the limit proposed by Valin, who, he says, “proposed to fix it according to thesound of a cannon, or as far as the ball would reach.” The authority Valin gives for the statement that the rule was universally recognised isJournal de Commerce, Mai 1759, p. 40.

1025Versuch des Neuesten Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedens-und Kriegs-zeiten, Bd. v. 486, Frankfort, 1778. “Das an die Küsten eines Landes stossende Meer stehet nach dem Völkerrecht unter der Oberherrschaft des angränzenden Landes unstreitig, so weit es mit Canonen von dem festen Land bestrichen werden kan.”

1026Juris Publici Universalis, sive Juris Naturæ et Gentium, Theoremata, ii. 7, 65. “Nobis visum est singulas gentes eam partem circa littus suum occupare posse, cujus usus necessarius, quamque tuendis littoribus et territorio necessarium arbitrantur.”

1027De’ Doveri de’ principi neutrali verso i principi guerreggianti, e di questi verso i neutrali.Naples, 1782.

Back to Index Next