Chapter 38

1028“Mi parrebbe peraltro ragionevole, che senza attendere a vedere se in atto tenga il Sovrano del territorio construtta taluna torre o batteria, e di qual calibro di cannoni la tenga montata, si determinasse fissamente, e da per tutto la distanza di tre miglia dalla terra, come quella, che sicuramente è la maggiore ove colla forza della polvere finora conosciuta si possa spingere una palla, o una bomba,” p. 432.1029Précis du Droit des Gens moderne de l’Europe, fondé sur les Traités et l´Usage, Göttingen, 1789, Liv. iv. c. iv. In an earlier work,Primæ Lineæ Juris Gentium Europæarum, published at Göttingen in 1785, the three-league limit is omitted. After speaking of ports, bays, and straits, he says, “Neque minus in genere eæ maris partes, quæ territorio proximæ sunt (mare proximum vocant) et tormentorum in limite terræ constitutorum ictui subsunt, censentur esse in dominio gentis terræ dominæ, et pro parte territorii habentur.”1030“Sur la mer voisine en général jusqu’à la portée du canon placé sur le rivage; c. a. d. jusqu’à trois lieues du rivage,” p. 189. He also speaks elsewhere of the range of guns being equivalent to three leagues; but it would appear that the terms “miles” and “leagues” were sometimes used indifferently and carelessly (see Bluntschli, p. 682), and three leagues was far beyond the range of guns in Von Marten’s time.1031Sistema universale dei Principj del Diritto marittimo dell’ Europa.Florence, 1795-96. The work was translated into French in 1801—Système Universel de Principes du Droit Maritime de l’Europe—and revised, enlarged, and republished in 1805.1032See p. 574.1033“Giacchè essa sola è, secondo me, il giusto ed unico mezzo, che potrebbe servire di norma per fissare una volta il mare territoriale sempre combattuto, e non ancora deciso, o almeno non stabilito come si dovrebbe in un pubblico Trattato tra le Potenze marittime,” i. 75.1034“La distanza di tre miglia dalla Terra come quella, che senza dubbio è la maggiore, dove colla forza della polvere a fuoco finora cognita si possa spingere una palla o una bomba,” p. 76.1035Répertoire de Jurisprudence.1036See p. 571.1037Daru,Histoire de la République de Venise, i. 445; Smedley,Sketches of Venetian History, i. 72.See p. 4. When Venice was conquered, theBucentaurwas stripped of her gilding and finery, and, under the name ofHydra, became a prosaic guard-ship, stationed at the mouth of the Lido until 1824, when she was destroyed.1038Rescripter, Resolutioner og Collegial-Breve for Kongeriget Norge, i Tidsrummet fra 1660-1813, i. 315, 18th June 1745. “Rescr. (til Stiftsbefalingsmændene i Norge) ang. det ikke skal være nogen fremmed Caper tilladt at opbringe noget Skib een Miil nœr de Norske Kyster og de der udenfor beliggende Grunde og Skjær,” &c. The league in the Scandinavian ordinances measures fifteen to one degree of latitude, or one German mile, equal to about 7420 metres. The marine league, or three-mile limit ordinarily adopted, is of twenty to a degree of latitude, or about 5565 metres, or 3.4517 English statute miles.1039Ibid., i. 423, 439, 602.104014th Sept. 1807, s. 5; 28th March 1810, s. 7. In the last the privateers were forbidden to capture ships in the Sound within such distance of the Swedish coast as was within the range of guns. Auber,Ann. de l’Institut de Droit Internat., xi. 145.1041Kleen,Neutralitetens Lagar, ii. 865.1042Boeck,Oversigt over Litteratur, Love, Forordninger Rescripter, m.m. vedrørende de Norske Fiskerier, p. 12.1043Real Cédula, 17th December 1760; Real Órden, 1st May 1775; Real Decreto, 3rd May 1830; Real Decreto, 20th June 1852. Riquelme,Elementos de Derecho Público Internacional, con esplicacion de todas las reglas que, segun los Tratados, &c., constituyen el Derecho Internacional Español, i. 211, App., 187, 197, 200; Madrid, 1849. Negrín,Tratado de Derecho internacional maritimo, Madrid, 1883, p. 66.1044Martens,Recueil, i. 479.104521st Nov. 1777; 9th May 1778. Martens,Recueil, iii. 16, 18. In Kent’sCommentaries on American Law, i. 118 (ed. 1884), it is said (apparently on the authority of Sparks’Diplomatic Correspondence, ii. 110) that the Commissioners, in their circular letter of 1777 to the commanders of American armed vessels, “carried very far the extension of neutral protection when they applied it indiscriminately to all captures within sight of a neutral coast.” There is nothing of this in the document given by Martens.104619th Sept. 1778.Op. cit., i. 47.10471st Aug. 1778. “E ne’ mari adjacenti agli altri porti, scali, torri, e spiagge del Gran Ducato non potrà usarsi atto veruno di ostilità nella distanza, che potrebbe circoscriversi da un tiro di cannone.”Op. cit., 24.10484th March 1779. “Nè generalmente dentro la distanza di un tiro di cannone da terra.”Op. cit., i. 52.10491st July 1779. “Nei porti, golfi, e spiagge del nostro dominio nella distanza, che potrebbe circonscriversi da un tiro di cannone.”Op. cit., 64.10509th Sept. 1779, Arts. viii., ix. “Ed in tutti mari ad essi adjacenti, limitati, almeno allo spazio circoscritto dalla portata d’un grosso cannone di batteria.”Op. cit., i. 78.1051Jenkinson (Lord Liverpool),A Discussion on the Conduct of the Government of Great Britain in respect to Neutral Nations(1758), ed. 1801, Pref. Phillimore,Commentaries, iii. 273. Wheaton’sElements(ed. 1864), 1024. Martens,Recueil, iii. 158,seq.1052Mutual protection was to be afforded “dans leurs ports ou rades, mers internes, passages, rivières, et aussi loin que leur jurisdiction s’etend en mer.” 8th Oct. 1782, Art. v. Martens,op. cit., 433.1053“À la portée du canon des châteaux de l’autre.”VideMartens and De Cussy,Rec., i. 381.105426th Sept. 1786, Art. xli. “Leurs dites Majestés ne souffriront point que sur les côtes, à la portée du canon, et dans les ports et rivières de leur obéissance, des navires et des marchandises des sujets de l’autre soient pris par des vaisseaux de guerre, ou par d’autres qui seront pourvus de patentes de quelque prince, république, ou ville quelconque,” &c. Martens,Rec., iv. 178.105511th Jan. 1787, Art. xxviii. “... Hors de la portée du canon des côtes de son allié ... dans les ports, havres, golfes et autres eaux comprises sous le nom d’eaux closes.” By Article xx. the salute was abolished.Ibid., 207, 210. The mention of closed waters no doubt referred to the Baltic, which was declared to be a closed sea (une mer fermée), into which the armed vessels of belligerents were to be refused entry, by a decree of the King of Denmark in 1780, and by conventions between Russia and Denmark and Sweden in the same year, and between Russia and the United Provinces and Prussia in the following year.Ibid., iii. 175, 195, 219, 250.105617th Jan. 1787, Art. xix.Ibid., iv. 237.10577th August 1803. Martens,Recueil, 2. viii. 105.1058Martens,Recueil, iii. 763, 10th Sept. 1784, Art. vi.1059See p. 527.1060Oct. 28, 1790, Art. iv. Martens,ibid.iv. 489, 497. Wheaton,Elements, 307 (ed. 1864).1061Wheaton,Elements, 723 ; President’s Proclamation of Neutrality, April 22, 1793; Mr Jefferson, Secretary of State, to M. Genet, 8th Nov. 1793; Wharton’sDigest of the International Law of the United States, i. c. 2, s. 32.1062Opinion of Attorney-General, 14th May 1793; Letter of Sec. of State to the French Minister, 15th May 1793; Kent’sCommentaries, i. 30. Delaware Bay, it may be said, has always been, and still is, claimed as territorial water by the United States.Videreply of Government of United States to Observations of British Government on Draft Treaty, 1887. Correspondence relative to the Fisheries Question, 1887-1888.Parl. Papers (Canada), 1888, p. 70.1063Act of Congress, 5th June 1794, c. 50. Kent’sCommentaries, 30.1064Wheaton,Elements, 724.1065Wharton’sDigest, i. c. 2.1066Mr Madison to Messrs Monroe and Pinckney, 17th May 1806. Kent,Commentaries, i. 31.1067Hall,A Treatise on International Law, Part II. c. ii. s. 2.1068The High Court of Admiralty, for instance, decided in 1760 that a French vessel taken by an English privateer at Hayti was not good prize, as it had been attacked while in a port belonging to the King of Spain, “within reach of his cannon and under his protection” (Marsden,Report of Cases determined by the High Court of Admiralty, 175).1069There were two cases ofTwee Gebroeders—the first (Alberts, master) tried on 29th July 1800; the second (Northolt, master) tried on 27th November 1801.1070Robinson,Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Admiralty, iii. 162. London, 1802.1071Ibid., 339.1072Ibid., v. 373.1073VideChief Justice Cockburn,Law Reports, Excheq. Div., ii. 178. It is a curious circumstance that many English writers on municipal law, even after this time, adhering to a different line of inquiry, clung tenaciously to the husk of the old claims of England to the sovereignty of the sea. Hale, as we have seen, followed Selden, as did Hargrave and Blackstone, though with apparent diffidence. Chitty, in hisTreatise on the Law of the Prerogative of the Crown, published in 1820, relying on Selden, Hale, and Molloy, declares that “the king possesses the sovereign dominion in all the narrow seas, that is, the seas which adjoin the coasts of England, and other seas within his dominions” (p. 173); and that he “has an undoubted sovereignty and jurisdiction, which he has immemorially exercised, through the medium of the admiralty courts, over the British seas, that is, the seas which encompass the four sides of the British islands; ... the law of nations and the constitution of the country have clothed the sovereign with this power, that he may defend his people and protect their commercial interests” (p. 142). He also assigns the soil under the sea to the king. Hall, in hisEssay on the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Subject in the Sea Shores of the Realm, published in 1830, states the doctrine even more nakedly. After defining the British seas according to Selden, he says, “Over the British Seas, the King of England claims an absolute dominion and ownership, as Lord Paramount, against all the world. Whatever opinions foreign nations may entertain in regard to the validity of such claim, yet the subjects of the King of England do, by the common law of the realm, acknowledge and declare it to be his ancient and indisputable right.” Hall also assigns the bottom orfundumof the British seas to the king, the authorities cited being Coke, Callis, Molloy, Hale, and Blackstone. Loveland, the editor of the second edition of Hall’sEssay, which was published in 1875, does not attempt to qualify the statements. It was not, indeed, till after the decision in the case of theFranconiain 1876, and the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878, that the doctrine was abandoned in theory by English lawyers. Even Moore, the editor of the third edition of Hall’sEssay, which appeared in 1888, while pointing out the alteration of the law by the decision in theFranconiacase, and by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, thought it undesirable to vary Hall’s text, having regard to the diversity of the opinions expressed by the judges in the case referred to.Videp. 590.1074Convention, 1818, Art. i. “... And the United States hereby renounce for ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of his Britannick Majesty’s dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits.” Wheaton,Elements, 324, 463 (ed. 1864).Parl. Papers, North America, No. 1 (1878). Henderson,American Diplomatic Questions, 497.1075Martens,Nouv. Recueil, V. ii. 358; Behring Sea Arbitration, British Case,Parl. Papers, United States, No. 1 (1893), p. 38, App. I. No. 1.1076The Duke of Wellington to Count Nesselrode, 17th Oct. 1822; G. Canning to the Duke of Wellington, 27th Sept. 1822; Count Nesselrode to Count Lieven, 26th June 1823; G. Canning to S. Canning, 8th Dec. 1824; S. Canning to G. Canning, 3rd April 1825.Parl. Papers,ibid., 41, 42, 44, 46, 56, App. II. pt. i. 14, 15, 29, 52, 57.1077American State Papers, Foreign Relations, v. 452;Parl. Papers,ibid., App. II. pt. ii. No. 5; Wheaton,Elements, 308.1078Treaty between Russia and the United States, April 17th, 1824, Art. i. iv.; treaty between Great Britain and Russia, 28th Feb. 1825, Art. i. vii. Martens,Nouv. Recueil, vi. 684.Parl. Papers,ibid., 52, 53.1079In 1842.Parl. Papers,ibid., 83.1080In 1846.Ibid., 84.1081Ibid., 87.1082E.g., the case of theLeda, in which Dr Lushington claimed that the term United Kingdom included the waters to a distance of three miles from the shore (Swa.,Adm., 40); General Iron Screw Company, in which Lord Hatherly said that it was “beyond question that for certain purposes every country may, by the common law of nations, legitimately exercise jurisdiction over that portion of the high seas which lies within three miles from its shores,”—whether this limit was determined by the range of cannon was not material, since it was clear it extended at any rate to that distance (1 J. and H., 180); Whitstable Fishery Case, in which it was said that the soil of the seashore to the distance of three miles from the beach was vested in the crown, and in which Lord Chelmsford observed that “the three-mile limit depends upon a rule of international law, by which every independent state is considered to have territorial property and jurisdiction in the sea which washes their coast within an assumed distance of a cannon-shot from the shore” (11 C.B. (N.S.), 387; 2 H.L.C., 192); theAnnapolis, in which Dr Lushington said. “Within British jurisdiction, namely, within British territory, and at sea within three miles from the coast” (1 Lush.,Adm., 306); Rexv.Forty-nine Casks of Brandy, in which Sir John Nicholl said that “as between nation and nation, the territorial right may, by a sort of tacit understanding, be extended to three miles” (3 Haggard, 257); Gammellv.Commissioners Woods and Forests and Lord Advocate, in which Lord Wensleydale referred to the distance of three miles as belonging, by the acknowledged law of nations, to the coast of the country, and “under the dominion of the country by being within cannon range, and so capable of being kept in perpetual possession” (3 MacQueen, H.L., 419).1083This subject is treated of by Mr A. H. Charteris, Lecturer in International Law, University of Glasgow, in a paper read before the International Law Association at Berlin in 1906 (Twenty-third Report, 103).1084Two small islands in the Channel.1085Bell,Crown Cases Reserved, 72. See Hall,Internat. Law, 5th edit., p. 156; Westlake,Internat. Law, i. 118.1086The Direct United States Cable Companyv.the Anglo-American Telegraph Company, Privy Council, 1877.Law Reports, Appeal Cases, ii. 394.108733 & 34 Vict., c. 90.1088See pp. 592, 632.1089Reginav.Keyn,Law Reports, Excheq. Div., ii., 1876-7, p. 63.1090E.g., p. 204: “There are several treaties by which nations have engaged, in the event of either of them being at war with a third, to treat the sea within three miles of each other’s coasts as neutral territory,” the treaties being those referred to on p. 572. “After the three-mile theory had been propounded by Bynkershoek,” p. 177. Mr Justice Amphlett went further, and attributed a similar doctrine to Grotius: “All the earlier writers, including Grotius, the vigorous advocate of the free navigation of the high seas, and many of the later writers, maintained that within the zone of three miles the state had, without qualification,” &c., p. 122.109141 & 42 Vict., c. 73.109258 & 59 Vict., c. 42.1093Hansard, xxxiii. 504. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell), who followed, said : “He was far from saying that three miles was to be the limit of territorial waters for all time. Originally the distance was fixed by gunshot, and it was always said that the distance a gun could fire to was three miles. How far this principle was to be extended, and whether it was to be extended indefinitely, was a question for consideration, and it was a question which would not be without its difficulty.” Lord Salisbury referred to a gun which was fired on Jubilee Day and carried twelve miles, and Lord Herschell to one which had a range of thirteen miles.10949 Geo. II., c. 35; 24 Geo. III., c. 47; Twiss,The Law of Nations in Time of Peace, 261; Hall,A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown, 244.109516 & 17 Vict., c. 107, ss. 212, 218; 39 & 40 Vict., c. 36, s. 179.1096Kent,Commentaries, i. 31; Wheaton,Elements, 267, 323.1097Riquelme,op. cit.See p. 569.1098Fifteenth Ann. Rep. Assoc. for Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations,. 18, 22;Seventeenth,ibid., 302;Annuaire de l’Institut, xi. 151.1099Fifteenth Rep.,ibid., 84, 121;Ann. de l’Institutfor 1894. Customs Act of Canada, 49 Vict., c. 32, s. 21.110026 Geo. II.; 6 Geo. IV., c. 78.1101Mer Territoriale, 222; and see pp. 551, 560, 564.1102Twiss,op. cit., 261-264; Phillimore,Commentaries, i. 236; Kent,loc. cit.; Wheaton,loc. cit.; Hall,loc. cit.The latter author states that they “repose on an agreement which, though tacit, is universal,” and that “no civilised country encourages offences against the laws of a foreign state when it sees that the laws are just and necessary.”1103De la Liberté des Mers, ou le Gouvernement Anglois devoilé, 1798.1104La Mer Libre, La Mer Fermée, 1803.1105Institutions du Droit de la Nature et des Gens.1106De la Liberté des Mers.1107A Practical Treatise on the Law of Nations relative to the Legal Effect of War on the Commerce of Belligerents and Neutrals.London, 1812.1108Das Europäische Völkerrecht, Berlin, 1817, p. 141.1109“So weit der Schuss des Geschütses vom Ufer es bestreichen möge; dies selbst nahm man mit noch ungebundenerer Will-Kühr auf 3 Lieues an.”1110P. 564.1111Europäisches Völkerrecht, Stuttgart, 1821, p. 204;Droit des Gens moderne de l’Europe, 1819, III. ii. 130 (ed. 1831).1112A Digest of the Law of Maritime Captures or Prizes, New York, 1815, c. ii. p. 55.1113Elements of International Law, c. iv. ss. 6-10. London, 1836.1114The King’s Chambers were, however, confined to the coast of England.See p. 122.1115Commentaries on American Law, i. Part I. Lect. iii.1116Commentaries on the Law of Nations, p. 119. 1839.1117Das Europäisches Völkerrecht der Gegenwart, Berlin, 1844.Le Droit International de l’Europe, Paris, 1873, s. 75. “La ligne de la portée du canon elle-même, bien qu’elle soit regardée comme de droit commun, ne présente aucune base invariable et peut-être fixée par les lois de chaque État, du moins d’une manière provisoire.”1118Researches in Maritime International Law, i. 16. 1844.1119Règles Internationales et Diplomatie de la Mer, i. 177.1120Histoire des Origines, des Progrès, et des Variations du Droit Maritime International, ed. 1858, p. 22.1121Traité des Prises maritimes, i. 93. Paris, 1855.1122“La portée du canon, placé à terre, est la seule limite réelle et vraie des mers territoriales.”1123Le Droit commercial, dans ses rapports avec le Droit des Gens et le Droit Civil, Paris, 1844-47, tom. i. Liv. ii. tit. i. c. i. ss. 103-105.1124Plans and Proposals transmitted to the Committee on the Fishery, No. 1, &c.1125Reports by the Commissioners for the British Herring Fisheryfor 1819, 1821, 1822;Staatsblad, No. 28, 4th April 1824, for a copy of which I am indebted to Mr H. van Hall, of the Universiteits-Bibliotheek, Amsterdam. After a reference to the previous decrees prohibiting the taking of herrings “between the banks and rocks of Scotland,” as being injurious to the reputation of Dutch pickled herrings (see p. 201), it is stated that the Board for the Great Fishery is of opinion that, in the interest of this branch of national industry, the fishing should be carried on at a farther distance from the main coast of Scotland (Schotsche vaste kust), and it is determined and resolved as follows: “Art. I. Het zal aan geenen Nederlandschen visscher geoorloofd zijn, de groote of pekelharingvisscherij op eenen naderen afstand der vaste kust van Schotland uitteoefenen, dan dien van twee uren hemelsbreedte (20 zoodanige uren eenen graad uitmakende), noch onder eenig voorwendsel hoe ook genaamd (alleen met uitzondering van het geval van dringende noodzakelijkheid bij art. 22 der voormelde wet voorzien), gedurende den tijd dat hij de vangst van pekelharing bedrijft, de vermelde kust op eenen minderen afstand te naderen.” The second article excepted the fishing at Shetland (Hitland) and Fair Isle (Fair-hill), the autumn fishing on the English coast and off Yarmouth, and the fresh-herring fishery; but these exceptions were withdrawn by a royal decree of 5th June 1827 (Staatscourant, 1827, No. 278). It may be said that in 1818 the old prohibition of fishing between the sandbanks and rocks of Norway, Shetland, and Scotland had been renewed.Staatsblad, No. 15, 12th March 1818.1126Rapport fait en Exécution des Ordres du Ministre de la Marine, par M. L. de Montaignac, Capitaine de frégate, Commandant la Station de la Mer du Nord.1127Montaignac,op. cit.;Parl. Papers, Sess. 1837-38;Rep. Com. Brit. Herring Fishery, 1834.1128Report from the Select Committee on British Channel Fisheries, Parl. Papers, Sess. 1833, No. 676.1129An ordinance of the French Marine Department, of 15th January 1829, prohibited the use of certain nets, as drag and trawl nets, withinthree leaguesof the shore from 15th April to 1st September, and within two leagues from 1st September to 15th April.1130Some of the English fishery Acts then in force, at least nominally, extended jurisdiction beyond the distance of one league with regard to the use of certain nets, &c., and the Committee apparently desired that, besides a zone of exclusive fishery, foreigners should be bound to observe the municipal law for the protection of the spawn and brood of fish that might apply beyond such zone. The Acts referred to were 3 Jac. I., c. 12 (1605), for the better preservation of sea fish, which,inter alia, prohibited the use of certain nets within five miles of any harbour, haven, or creek; 14 Chas. II., c. 28 (1662), regulating the pilchard-fishing in Devon and Cornwall, which prohibited the use of any “drift, trammel, or stream net,” between 1st June and 30th November, within one and a half leagues of the coasts of these counties; 1 George I., stat. 2, c. 18 (1714), which prohibited the use “at sea upon the coast of England” of certain nets, and the landing or sale of undersized fish; the Act 33 Geo. III., c. 27 (1759), prohibited the taking or knowingly possessing “any spawn, fry, or brood of fish, or any unsizeable fish, or any fish out of season.”1131Under the Act 6 Geo. IV., c. 108, 1825.1132Mr Cornish, quoting from his MS. treatise on zoology, said: “It is generally supposed that all sea fish, the cetaceous (sic) and cartilaginous excepted, deposit their ova in sand-banks, in creeks, bays, and shallow water near the shores, because it is imagined that a certain, though a small, degree of the sun’s action on the water and atmosphere is necessary to bring such ova to maturity. This we know to be the case with the salmon species, which always ascend to the shallow parts of rivers for that purpose, and never lay their eggs in deep water, and therefore we infer that the same influence prevails over the sea fish: this cannot, however, be proved, and rests mainly on opinion and probable conjecture, founded on such facts as we are acquainted with.” It may be said that a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed in 1817 to inquire into the condition of the fisheries on the south coast of Devon, strongly recommended Parliamentary action for the protection of the fisheries, founding on the same erroneous assumption that the fishes spawned near the shore. A Bill was accordingly introduced in the session of 1819, and again in 1822, for the appointment of conservators or overseers of the bays, creeks, and arms of the sea, to supervise regulations for the preservation of the fish coming there to spawn, and of their brood and fry, and applying to a distance of one and a half leagues from the shore; but it did not pass the Lords.Rep. Select Com. on the State and Condition of the Fisheries on the South Coast of Devon, 1817;Parl. Bills, xxii. 587, 601.Eighth Ann. Rep. Fishery Board for Scotland, Part III., pp. 13, 258 (1890);Tenth, ibid., pp. 19, 235;Eleventh, ibid., p. 13.1133Memorials, &c., received by Her Majesty’s Government since 1st January 1832, complaining of the Aggressions of French fishermen on the British Coasts,Parl. Papers, Sess. 1837-38; Supplementary Papers relative to the Complaints respecting the Aggressions of French fishermen on the British Coasts, 1838,ibid., 1839;Reports by the Commissioners for the Herring Fishery, for 1834, 1835, 1839.1134Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French, defining and regulating the Limits of the Exclusive Right of the Oyster and other Fishery on the Coasts of Great Britain and of France.Signed at Paris, August 2, 1839.1135The line of closure, as will be seen from fig. 16, was not a single straight line, as usual, but a series of lines determined by landmarks. The area between this series and the three-mile limit, from which British fishermen were excluded, measures a little over 100 square (geographical) miles. On the other hand, all of the closing line north of 49° 3´ (and thus the greater part of it) is, curiously,withinthe three-mile zone; the area outside this line to the three-mile line is about 23 square miles.

1029Précis du Droit des Gens moderne de l’Europe, fondé sur les Traités et l´Usage, Göttingen, 1789, Liv. iv. c. iv. In an earlier work,Primæ Lineæ Juris Gentium Europæarum, published at Göttingen in 1785, the three-league limit is omitted. After speaking of ports, bays, and straits, he says, “Neque minus in genere eæ maris partes, quæ territorio proximæ sunt (mare proximum vocant) et tormentorum in limite terræ constitutorum ictui subsunt, censentur esse in dominio gentis terræ dominæ, et pro parte territorii habentur.”

1030“Sur la mer voisine en général jusqu’à la portée du canon placé sur le rivage; c. a. d. jusqu’à trois lieues du rivage,” p. 189. He also speaks elsewhere of the range of guns being equivalent to three leagues; but it would appear that the terms “miles” and “leagues” were sometimes used indifferently and carelessly (see Bluntschli, p. 682), and three leagues was far beyond the range of guns in Von Marten’s time.

1031Sistema universale dei Principj del Diritto marittimo dell’ Europa.Florence, 1795-96. The work was translated into French in 1801—Système Universel de Principes du Droit Maritime de l’Europe—and revised, enlarged, and republished in 1805.

1032See p. 574.

1033“Giacchè essa sola è, secondo me, il giusto ed unico mezzo, che potrebbe servire di norma per fissare una volta il mare territoriale sempre combattuto, e non ancora deciso, o almeno non stabilito come si dovrebbe in un pubblico Trattato tra le Potenze marittime,” i. 75.

1034“La distanza di tre miglia dalla Terra come quella, che senza dubbio è la maggiore, dove colla forza della polvere a fuoco finora cognita si possa spingere una palla o una bomba,” p. 76.

1035Répertoire de Jurisprudence.

1036See p. 571.

1037Daru,Histoire de la République de Venise, i. 445; Smedley,Sketches of Venetian History, i. 72.See p. 4. When Venice was conquered, theBucentaurwas stripped of her gilding and finery, and, under the name ofHydra, became a prosaic guard-ship, stationed at the mouth of the Lido until 1824, when she was destroyed.

1038Rescripter, Resolutioner og Collegial-Breve for Kongeriget Norge, i Tidsrummet fra 1660-1813, i. 315, 18th June 1745. “Rescr. (til Stiftsbefalingsmændene i Norge) ang. det ikke skal være nogen fremmed Caper tilladt at opbringe noget Skib een Miil nœr de Norske Kyster og de der udenfor beliggende Grunde og Skjær,” &c. The league in the Scandinavian ordinances measures fifteen to one degree of latitude, or one German mile, equal to about 7420 metres. The marine league, or three-mile limit ordinarily adopted, is of twenty to a degree of latitude, or about 5565 metres, or 3.4517 English statute miles.

1039Ibid., i. 423, 439, 602.

104014th Sept. 1807, s. 5; 28th March 1810, s. 7. In the last the privateers were forbidden to capture ships in the Sound within such distance of the Swedish coast as was within the range of guns. Auber,Ann. de l’Institut de Droit Internat., xi. 145.

1041Kleen,Neutralitetens Lagar, ii. 865.

1042Boeck,Oversigt over Litteratur, Love, Forordninger Rescripter, m.m. vedrørende de Norske Fiskerier, p. 12.

1043Real Cédula, 17th December 1760; Real Órden, 1st May 1775; Real Decreto, 3rd May 1830; Real Decreto, 20th June 1852. Riquelme,Elementos de Derecho Público Internacional, con esplicacion de todas las reglas que, segun los Tratados, &c., constituyen el Derecho Internacional Español, i. 211, App., 187, 197, 200; Madrid, 1849. Negrín,Tratado de Derecho internacional maritimo, Madrid, 1883, p. 66.

1044Martens,Recueil, i. 479.

104521st Nov. 1777; 9th May 1778. Martens,Recueil, iii. 16, 18. In Kent’sCommentaries on American Law, i. 118 (ed. 1884), it is said (apparently on the authority of Sparks’Diplomatic Correspondence, ii. 110) that the Commissioners, in their circular letter of 1777 to the commanders of American armed vessels, “carried very far the extension of neutral protection when they applied it indiscriminately to all captures within sight of a neutral coast.” There is nothing of this in the document given by Martens.

104619th Sept. 1778.Op. cit., i. 47.

10471st Aug. 1778. “E ne’ mari adjacenti agli altri porti, scali, torri, e spiagge del Gran Ducato non potrà usarsi atto veruno di ostilità nella distanza, che potrebbe circoscriversi da un tiro di cannone.”Op. cit., 24.

10484th March 1779. “Nè generalmente dentro la distanza di un tiro di cannone da terra.”Op. cit., i. 52.

10491st July 1779. “Nei porti, golfi, e spiagge del nostro dominio nella distanza, che potrebbe circonscriversi da un tiro di cannone.”Op. cit., 64.

10509th Sept. 1779, Arts. viii., ix. “Ed in tutti mari ad essi adjacenti, limitati, almeno allo spazio circoscritto dalla portata d’un grosso cannone di batteria.”Op. cit., i. 78.

1051Jenkinson (Lord Liverpool),A Discussion on the Conduct of the Government of Great Britain in respect to Neutral Nations(1758), ed. 1801, Pref. Phillimore,Commentaries, iii. 273. Wheaton’sElements(ed. 1864), 1024. Martens,Recueil, iii. 158,seq.

1052Mutual protection was to be afforded “dans leurs ports ou rades, mers internes, passages, rivières, et aussi loin que leur jurisdiction s’etend en mer.” 8th Oct. 1782, Art. v. Martens,op. cit., 433.

1053“À la portée du canon des châteaux de l’autre.”VideMartens and De Cussy,Rec., i. 381.

105426th Sept. 1786, Art. xli. “Leurs dites Majestés ne souffriront point que sur les côtes, à la portée du canon, et dans les ports et rivières de leur obéissance, des navires et des marchandises des sujets de l’autre soient pris par des vaisseaux de guerre, ou par d’autres qui seront pourvus de patentes de quelque prince, république, ou ville quelconque,” &c. Martens,Rec., iv. 178.

105511th Jan. 1787, Art. xxviii. “... Hors de la portée du canon des côtes de son allié ... dans les ports, havres, golfes et autres eaux comprises sous le nom d’eaux closes.” By Article xx. the salute was abolished.Ibid., 207, 210. The mention of closed waters no doubt referred to the Baltic, which was declared to be a closed sea (une mer fermée), into which the armed vessels of belligerents were to be refused entry, by a decree of the King of Denmark in 1780, and by conventions between Russia and Denmark and Sweden in the same year, and between Russia and the United Provinces and Prussia in the following year.Ibid., iii. 175, 195, 219, 250.

105617th Jan. 1787, Art. xix.Ibid., iv. 237.

10577th August 1803. Martens,Recueil, 2. viii. 105.

1058Martens,Recueil, iii. 763, 10th Sept. 1784, Art. vi.

1059See p. 527.

1060Oct. 28, 1790, Art. iv. Martens,ibid.iv. 489, 497. Wheaton,Elements, 307 (ed. 1864).

1061Wheaton,Elements, 723 ; President’s Proclamation of Neutrality, April 22, 1793; Mr Jefferson, Secretary of State, to M. Genet, 8th Nov. 1793; Wharton’sDigest of the International Law of the United States, i. c. 2, s. 32.

1062Opinion of Attorney-General, 14th May 1793; Letter of Sec. of State to the French Minister, 15th May 1793; Kent’sCommentaries, i. 30. Delaware Bay, it may be said, has always been, and still is, claimed as territorial water by the United States.Videreply of Government of United States to Observations of British Government on Draft Treaty, 1887. Correspondence relative to the Fisheries Question, 1887-1888.Parl. Papers (Canada), 1888, p. 70.

1063Act of Congress, 5th June 1794, c. 50. Kent’sCommentaries, 30.

1064Wheaton,Elements, 724.

1065Wharton’sDigest, i. c. 2.

1066Mr Madison to Messrs Monroe and Pinckney, 17th May 1806. Kent,Commentaries, i. 31.

1067Hall,A Treatise on International Law, Part II. c. ii. s. 2.

1068The High Court of Admiralty, for instance, decided in 1760 that a French vessel taken by an English privateer at Hayti was not good prize, as it had been attacked while in a port belonging to the King of Spain, “within reach of his cannon and under his protection” (Marsden,Report of Cases determined by the High Court of Admiralty, 175).

1069There were two cases ofTwee Gebroeders—the first (Alberts, master) tried on 29th July 1800; the second (Northolt, master) tried on 27th November 1801.

1070Robinson,Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Admiralty, iii. 162. London, 1802.

1071Ibid., 339.

1072Ibid., v. 373.

1073VideChief Justice Cockburn,Law Reports, Excheq. Div., ii. 178. It is a curious circumstance that many English writers on municipal law, even after this time, adhering to a different line of inquiry, clung tenaciously to the husk of the old claims of England to the sovereignty of the sea. Hale, as we have seen, followed Selden, as did Hargrave and Blackstone, though with apparent diffidence. Chitty, in hisTreatise on the Law of the Prerogative of the Crown, published in 1820, relying on Selden, Hale, and Molloy, declares that “the king possesses the sovereign dominion in all the narrow seas, that is, the seas which adjoin the coasts of England, and other seas within his dominions” (p. 173); and that he “has an undoubted sovereignty and jurisdiction, which he has immemorially exercised, through the medium of the admiralty courts, over the British seas, that is, the seas which encompass the four sides of the British islands; ... the law of nations and the constitution of the country have clothed the sovereign with this power, that he may defend his people and protect their commercial interests” (p. 142). He also assigns the soil under the sea to the king. Hall, in hisEssay on the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Subject in the Sea Shores of the Realm, published in 1830, states the doctrine even more nakedly. After defining the British seas according to Selden, he says, “Over the British Seas, the King of England claims an absolute dominion and ownership, as Lord Paramount, against all the world. Whatever opinions foreign nations may entertain in regard to the validity of such claim, yet the subjects of the King of England do, by the common law of the realm, acknowledge and declare it to be his ancient and indisputable right.” Hall also assigns the bottom orfundumof the British seas to the king, the authorities cited being Coke, Callis, Molloy, Hale, and Blackstone. Loveland, the editor of the second edition of Hall’sEssay, which was published in 1875, does not attempt to qualify the statements. It was not, indeed, till after the decision in the case of theFranconiain 1876, and the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878, that the doctrine was abandoned in theory by English lawyers. Even Moore, the editor of the third edition of Hall’sEssay, which appeared in 1888, while pointing out the alteration of the law by the decision in theFranconiacase, and by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, thought it undesirable to vary Hall’s text, having regard to the diversity of the opinions expressed by the judges in the case referred to.Videp. 590.

1074Convention, 1818, Art. i. “... And the United States hereby renounce for ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of his Britannick Majesty’s dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits.” Wheaton,Elements, 324, 463 (ed. 1864).Parl. Papers, North America, No. 1 (1878). Henderson,American Diplomatic Questions, 497.

1075Martens,Nouv. Recueil, V. ii. 358; Behring Sea Arbitration, British Case,Parl. Papers, United States, No. 1 (1893), p. 38, App. I. No. 1.

1076The Duke of Wellington to Count Nesselrode, 17th Oct. 1822; G. Canning to the Duke of Wellington, 27th Sept. 1822; Count Nesselrode to Count Lieven, 26th June 1823; G. Canning to S. Canning, 8th Dec. 1824; S. Canning to G. Canning, 3rd April 1825.Parl. Papers,ibid., 41, 42, 44, 46, 56, App. II. pt. i. 14, 15, 29, 52, 57.

1077American State Papers, Foreign Relations, v. 452;Parl. Papers,ibid., App. II. pt. ii. No. 5; Wheaton,Elements, 308.

1078Treaty between Russia and the United States, April 17th, 1824, Art. i. iv.; treaty between Great Britain and Russia, 28th Feb. 1825, Art. i. vii. Martens,Nouv. Recueil, vi. 684.Parl. Papers,ibid., 52, 53.

1079In 1842.Parl. Papers,ibid., 83.

1080In 1846.Ibid., 84.

1081Ibid., 87.

1082E.g., the case of theLeda, in which Dr Lushington claimed that the term United Kingdom included the waters to a distance of three miles from the shore (Swa.,Adm., 40); General Iron Screw Company, in which Lord Hatherly said that it was “beyond question that for certain purposes every country may, by the common law of nations, legitimately exercise jurisdiction over that portion of the high seas which lies within three miles from its shores,”—whether this limit was determined by the range of cannon was not material, since it was clear it extended at any rate to that distance (1 J. and H., 180); Whitstable Fishery Case, in which it was said that the soil of the seashore to the distance of three miles from the beach was vested in the crown, and in which Lord Chelmsford observed that “the three-mile limit depends upon a rule of international law, by which every independent state is considered to have territorial property and jurisdiction in the sea which washes their coast within an assumed distance of a cannon-shot from the shore” (11 C.B. (N.S.), 387; 2 H.L.C., 192); theAnnapolis, in which Dr Lushington said. “Within British jurisdiction, namely, within British territory, and at sea within three miles from the coast” (1 Lush.,Adm., 306); Rexv.Forty-nine Casks of Brandy, in which Sir John Nicholl said that “as between nation and nation, the territorial right may, by a sort of tacit understanding, be extended to three miles” (3 Haggard, 257); Gammellv.Commissioners Woods and Forests and Lord Advocate, in which Lord Wensleydale referred to the distance of three miles as belonging, by the acknowledged law of nations, to the coast of the country, and “under the dominion of the country by being within cannon range, and so capable of being kept in perpetual possession” (3 MacQueen, H.L., 419).

1083This subject is treated of by Mr A. H. Charteris, Lecturer in International Law, University of Glasgow, in a paper read before the International Law Association at Berlin in 1906 (Twenty-third Report, 103).

1084Two small islands in the Channel.

1085Bell,Crown Cases Reserved, 72. See Hall,Internat. Law, 5th edit., p. 156; Westlake,Internat. Law, i. 118.

1086The Direct United States Cable Companyv.the Anglo-American Telegraph Company, Privy Council, 1877.Law Reports, Appeal Cases, ii. 394.

108733 & 34 Vict., c. 90.

1088See pp. 592, 632.

1089Reginav.Keyn,Law Reports, Excheq. Div., ii., 1876-7, p. 63.

1090E.g., p. 204: “There are several treaties by which nations have engaged, in the event of either of them being at war with a third, to treat the sea within three miles of each other’s coasts as neutral territory,” the treaties being those referred to on p. 572. “After the three-mile theory had been propounded by Bynkershoek,” p. 177. Mr Justice Amphlett went further, and attributed a similar doctrine to Grotius: “All the earlier writers, including Grotius, the vigorous advocate of the free navigation of the high seas, and many of the later writers, maintained that within the zone of three miles the state had, without qualification,” &c., p. 122.

109141 & 42 Vict., c. 73.

109258 & 59 Vict., c. 42.

1093Hansard, xxxiii. 504. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell), who followed, said : “He was far from saying that three miles was to be the limit of territorial waters for all time. Originally the distance was fixed by gunshot, and it was always said that the distance a gun could fire to was three miles. How far this principle was to be extended, and whether it was to be extended indefinitely, was a question for consideration, and it was a question which would not be without its difficulty.” Lord Salisbury referred to a gun which was fired on Jubilee Day and carried twelve miles, and Lord Herschell to one which had a range of thirteen miles.

10949 Geo. II., c. 35; 24 Geo. III., c. 47; Twiss,The Law of Nations in Time of Peace, 261; Hall,A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown, 244.

109516 & 17 Vict., c. 107, ss. 212, 218; 39 & 40 Vict., c. 36, s. 179.

1096Kent,Commentaries, i. 31; Wheaton,Elements, 267, 323.

1097Riquelme,op. cit.See p. 569.

1098Fifteenth Ann. Rep. Assoc. for Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations,. 18, 22;Seventeenth,ibid., 302;Annuaire de l’Institut, xi. 151.

1099Fifteenth Rep.,ibid., 84, 121;Ann. de l’Institutfor 1894. Customs Act of Canada, 49 Vict., c. 32, s. 21.

110026 Geo. II.; 6 Geo. IV., c. 78.

1101Mer Territoriale, 222; and see pp. 551, 560, 564.

1102Twiss,op. cit., 261-264; Phillimore,Commentaries, i. 236; Kent,loc. cit.; Wheaton,loc. cit.; Hall,loc. cit.The latter author states that they “repose on an agreement which, though tacit, is universal,” and that “no civilised country encourages offences against the laws of a foreign state when it sees that the laws are just and necessary.”

1103De la Liberté des Mers, ou le Gouvernement Anglois devoilé, 1798.

1104La Mer Libre, La Mer Fermée, 1803.

1105Institutions du Droit de la Nature et des Gens.

1106De la Liberté des Mers.

1107A Practical Treatise on the Law of Nations relative to the Legal Effect of War on the Commerce of Belligerents and Neutrals.London, 1812.

1108Das Europäische Völkerrecht, Berlin, 1817, p. 141.

1109“So weit der Schuss des Geschütses vom Ufer es bestreichen möge; dies selbst nahm man mit noch ungebundenerer Will-Kühr auf 3 Lieues an.”

1110P. 564.

1111Europäisches Völkerrecht, Stuttgart, 1821, p. 204;Droit des Gens moderne de l’Europe, 1819, III. ii. 130 (ed. 1831).

1112A Digest of the Law of Maritime Captures or Prizes, New York, 1815, c. ii. p. 55.

1113Elements of International Law, c. iv. ss. 6-10. London, 1836.

1114The King’s Chambers were, however, confined to the coast of England.See p. 122.

1115Commentaries on American Law, i. Part I. Lect. iii.

1116Commentaries on the Law of Nations, p. 119. 1839.

1117Das Europäisches Völkerrecht der Gegenwart, Berlin, 1844.Le Droit International de l’Europe, Paris, 1873, s. 75. “La ligne de la portée du canon elle-même, bien qu’elle soit regardée comme de droit commun, ne présente aucune base invariable et peut-être fixée par les lois de chaque État, du moins d’une manière provisoire.”

1118Researches in Maritime International Law, i. 16. 1844.

1119Règles Internationales et Diplomatie de la Mer, i. 177.

1120Histoire des Origines, des Progrès, et des Variations du Droit Maritime International, ed. 1858, p. 22.

1121Traité des Prises maritimes, i. 93. Paris, 1855.

1122“La portée du canon, placé à terre, est la seule limite réelle et vraie des mers territoriales.”

1123Le Droit commercial, dans ses rapports avec le Droit des Gens et le Droit Civil, Paris, 1844-47, tom. i. Liv. ii. tit. i. c. i. ss. 103-105.

1124Plans and Proposals transmitted to the Committee on the Fishery, No. 1, &c.

1125Reports by the Commissioners for the British Herring Fisheryfor 1819, 1821, 1822;Staatsblad, No. 28, 4th April 1824, for a copy of which I am indebted to Mr H. van Hall, of the Universiteits-Bibliotheek, Amsterdam. After a reference to the previous decrees prohibiting the taking of herrings “between the banks and rocks of Scotland,” as being injurious to the reputation of Dutch pickled herrings (see p. 201), it is stated that the Board for the Great Fishery is of opinion that, in the interest of this branch of national industry, the fishing should be carried on at a farther distance from the main coast of Scotland (Schotsche vaste kust), and it is determined and resolved as follows: “Art. I. Het zal aan geenen Nederlandschen visscher geoorloofd zijn, de groote of pekelharingvisscherij op eenen naderen afstand der vaste kust van Schotland uitteoefenen, dan dien van twee uren hemelsbreedte (20 zoodanige uren eenen graad uitmakende), noch onder eenig voorwendsel hoe ook genaamd (alleen met uitzondering van het geval van dringende noodzakelijkheid bij art. 22 der voormelde wet voorzien), gedurende den tijd dat hij de vangst van pekelharing bedrijft, de vermelde kust op eenen minderen afstand te naderen.” The second article excepted the fishing at Shetland (Hitland) and Fair Isle (Fair-hill), the autumn fishing on the English coast and off Yarmouth, and the fresh-herring fishery; but these exceptions were withdrawn by a royal decree of 5th June 1827 (Staatscourant, 1827, No. 278). It may be said that in 1818 the old prohibition of fishing between the sandbanks and rocks of Norway, Shetland, and Scotland had been renewed.Staatsblad, No. 15, 12th March 1818.

1126Rapport fait en Exécution des Ordres du Ministre de la Marine, par M. L. de Montaignac, Capitaine de frégate, Commandant la Station de la Mer du Nord.

1127Montaignac,op. cit.;Parl. Papers, Sess. 1837-38;Rep. Com. Brit. Herring Fishery, 1834.

1128Report from the Select Committee on British Channel Fisheries, Parl. Papers, Sess. 1833, No. 676.

1129An ordinance of the French Marine Department, of 15th January 1829, prohibited the use of certain nets, as drag and trawl nets, withinthree leaguesof the shore from 15th April to 1st September, and within two leagues from 1st September to 15th April.

1130Some of the English fishery Acts then in force, at least nominally, extended jurisdiction beyond the distance of one league with regard to the use of certain nets, &c., and the Committee apparently desired that, besides a zone of exclusive fishery, foreigners should be bound to observe the municipal law for the protection of the spawn and brood of fish that might apply beyond such zone. The Acts referred to were 3 Jac. I., c. 12 (1605), for the better preservation of sea fish, which,inter alia, prohibited the use of certain nets within five miles of any harbour, haven, or creek; 14 Chas. II., c. 28 (1662), regulating the pilchard-fishing in Devon and Cornwall, which prohibited the use of any “drift, trammel, or stream net,” between 1st June and 30th November, within one and a half leagues of the coasts of these counties; 1 George I., stat. 2, c. 18 (1714), which prohibited the use “at sea upon the coast of England” of certain nets, and the landing or sale of undersized fish; the Act 33 Geo. III., c. 27 (1759), prohibited the taking or knowingly possessing “any spawn, fry, or brood of fish, or any unsizeable fish, or any fish out of season.”

1131Under the Act 6 Geo. IV., c. 108, 1825.

1132Mr Cornish, quoting from his MS. treatise on zoology, said: “It is generally supposed that all sea fish, the cetaceous (sic) and cartilaginous excepted, deposit their ova in sand-banks, in creeks, bays, and shallow water near the shores, because it is imagined that a certain, though a small, degree of the sun’s action on the water and atmosphere is necessary to bring such ova to maturity. This we know to be the case with the salmon species, which always ascend to the shallow parts of rivers for that purpose, and never lay their eggs in deep water, and therefore we infer that the same influence prevails over the sea fish: this cannot, however, be proved, and rests mainly on opinion and probable conjecture, founded on such facts as we are acquainted with.” It may be said that a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed in 1817 to inquire into the condition of the fisheries on the south coast of Devon, strongly recommended Parliamentary action for the protection of the fisheries, founding on the same erroneous assumption that the fishes spawned near the shore. A Bill was accordingly introduced in the session of 1819, and again in 1822, for the appointment of conservators or overseers of the bays, creeks, and arms of the sea, to supervise regulations for the preservation of the fish coming there to spawn, and of their brood and fry, and applying to a distance of one and a half leagues from the shore; but it did not pass the Lords.Rep. Select Com. on the State and Condition of the Fisheries on the South Coast of Devon, 1817;Parl. Bills, xxii. 587, 601.Eighth Ann. Rep. Fishery Board for Scotland, Part III., pp. 13, 258 (1890);Tenth, ibid., pp. 19, 235;Eleventh, ibid., p. 13.

1133Memorials, &c., received by Her Majesty’s Government since 1st January 1832, complaining of the Aggressions of French fishermen on the British Coasts,Parl. Papers, Sess. 1837-38; Supplementary Papers relative to the Complaints respecting the Aggressions of French fishermen on the British Coasts, 1838,ibid., 1839;Reports by the Commissioners for the Herring Fishery, for 1834, 1835, 1839.

1134Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French, defining and regulating the Limits of the Exclusive Right of the Oyster and other Fishery on the Coasts of Great Britain and of France.Signed at Paris, August 2, 1839.

1135The line of closure, as will be seen from fig. 16, was not a single straight line, as usual, but a series of lines determined by landmarks. The area between this series and the three-mile limit, from which British fishermen were excluded, measures a little over 100 square (geographical) miles. On the other hand, all of the closing line north of 49° 3´ (and thus the greater part of it) is, curiously,withinthe three-mile zone; the area outside this line to the three-mile line is about 23 square miles.

Back to Index Next