CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 37 



I'eliiiiig Straits, or iho power to slmt tlioiii up liereafter, "would lie a 

 thing not to be tolerated by England. 



Nor could we submit to be excluded, either ])ositively or construct- Set- ante, p. C2. 

 ively, from a sea in a\ liicli the skill and science of our seamen has been 

 and is still emiiloyed in enteri)rises interesting not to this conutry 

 alone, but to the whole civilized worltl. 



The protection given by the Convention to the American coasts of 

 each Power may (if it is thought necessary) be extended in terms to 

 the coasts of the Russian Asiatic territory; but in some way or other 

 if not in tlie form now prescribed, the free navigation of Behring 

 Striiits and of the seas beyond them must 1>e secured to us. 



j\Ir. George Oaniiing in a despatch to Mr. Stratford Can- see Appendix, 

 iiiiig, wlio liad been appointed British Plenipotentiary for ^'.'Jr.'J' ^'^^^ ^' 

 the negotiation of a Convention at St. Petersburg, under 

 date the 8th December, 1824, after giving a summary of 

 the negotiations up to that date, goes on to say: 



46 It is comparatively indifferent to us whether we hasten or 



postpone all (juestions respecting the limits of territorial posses- 

 sion on the continent of America, liut the ])retensions of the Russian 

 Ukase of 1821 to exclusi\ e dominion over the I'acitic could not con- 

 tinue longer unrepealed without compelling lis to take some measure 

 of public and effectual remonstrance against it. 



Yon will therefore take care, in the tirst instance, to repress any 

 attempt to give this change to the character of the negotiation, and 

 will declare without reserve that the point to which alone the solici- 

 tude of the British Go\ernmeut and the jealousy of the British nation 

 attach any great imi)Ortance is the doing away (in a manner as little 

 disagreeable to Russia as possible) of the effect of the Ukase of 1821. 



That this Ukase is not acted upon, and that instructions have been 

 long ago sent by the Russian (ioverunient to their cruisers in the 

 Pacitic to suspend the execution of its ])rovisions, is true; but a 

 private disavowal of a published claim is no security against the 

 revival of that claim. The suspension of theexecution of a principle 

 may be perfectly compatible with the contiuued nuiintenance of the 

 principle itself, and when wo have seen in the course of this negotia- 

 tion that the Russian claim to the possession of the coast of America 

 down to latitude 5tl^ [siC] rests in fact on no other ground than the 

 Ijresumed acfiuiescence of the nations of Eurojje in the ])rovision8 of 

 an Ukase published by the Emi)eror Paul in the year 1799, against 

 which it is attirmed that no public reuumstrauce was made, it becomes 

 us to be exceedingly careful that we do not, by a similar neglect, on 

 the present occasion allow a similar presumption to be raised as to an 

 acquiescence in the Ukase of 1821. 



The right of the subjects of His Majesty to navigate freely in the 

 Pacilic can not be held as a matter of iudulgence from any Power. 

 Having once been publicly questioned, it must be publicly acknowl- 

 edged. 



We do not desire that any distinct reference should be made to the 

 Ukase of 1821; but we do feel it necessary that the statement of our 

 right should be clear and positive, and that it should stand forth in 

 the Convention in the place which properly belongs to it, as a plain 

 and substantive stipulation, and not be brought in as an incidental 

 consequence of other arrangements to which we attach comparatively 

 little importance. 



This stipulation stands in the front of the Convention concluded ^f-'e post, y. 52. 

 between Russia and the United States of America ; and we see no 

 reason why upon similar claims we should not obtain exactly the like 

 satisfaction. 



For reasons of the same nature we cannot consent that the liberty 

 of navigation through Bering Straits should be stated iu the Treaty 

 as a boon from Russia. 



The tendency of such a statement would be to give countenance to 

 those claims of exclusive jurisdiction against which we, on our own 

 behalf, and on that of the whole civilized world, protest.. 



