338 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 

 Then my friend proceeds: 



Lord Chief Justice Cockburn answers this inquiry in the case of Qneen v. Keyn 

 above cited (p. 198) Avhen he declares that such eucroachmouts uj)on the high sea 

 would form a part of the defeuce of a couutrj-, aud "come within the principle that 

 a nation may do what is necessary for the protection of its own territory." 



The passage wbich I conceive my friend was referring to, is a passage 

 wliicli, like that from Azuiii, requires, in order to understand it, the 

 whole passage to be read. I am reading now from page 58 of a printed 

 report of the Judgment of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. 



It does not appear to me that the argument for the prosecution is advanced bj' 

 reference to encroachments on the sea, in the way of harbours, piers, break-waters, 

 light houses, and the like, even when projected into the open sea, or of forts erected 

 in it, as is the case in the Solent. Where the sea, or the bed on which it rests, can 

 be physically occupied permanently, it may be made subject to occupation in the 

 same manner as unoccupied territory. In point of fact, such encroachments are 

 generally made for the benefit of the navigation; aud are therefore readily acquiesced 

 in. Or they are for the purposes of defence, and come within the principle that a 

 nation may do what is necessary for the protection of its own territory. Whether 

 if an encroachment on the sea were such as to obstruct the navigation, to the ships 

 of other nations, it would not amount to a just cause of complaint, as inconsistent 



with international rights, might, if the case arose, be deserving of serious con- 

 1125 sideration. That such encroachments are occasionally made seems to me to fall 



very far short of establishing sach an exclusive property in the littoral sea as 

 that, in the absence of legislation, it can be treated, to all intents and purposes, as 

 part of the realm. 



In other words, it defends and justifies the taking possession of a 

 certain part of the sea, and permanently occupying it for the purpose 

 of erecting light-houses. 



Of course the President and other members of the Tribunal are aware 

 that by the invention of a blind gentleman of the name of Mitchell, 

 who invented the screw-pile arrangement, these piles are driven down 

 in great depths of the sea, and upon these piles in many places, where 

 there is no rock as a more secure resting i)lace, many light-houses 

 throughout the world are supported. 



I think 1 have got to the end of the illustrations and of the cases 

 cited by my learned friend with the exce])tion of one set of cases, which 

 may be called appeals in the nature of argumentum ad liominem^ to 

 which I have already incidentally referred namely: cases as to which 

 there is a supposed analogy with the rights that the United States are 

 here contending for; a supposed analogy conceived to be found in cer- 

 tain legislation of Great Britain, especially legislation in relation to 

 her colonies and by her colonies. There is also a case of Church v. 

 Mubhard, aud some cases cognate to it, which I shall have a little later 

 to refer to. 



But I shall try to answer on this occasion the question addressed to 

 me by the learned President before the adjournment as to the view of 

 the British Government of the Greytown incident. You recollect, Sir, 

 that you were good enough to address that inquiry to me. 



The President. — Yes, Sir Charles. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am now able to answer the inquiry. The 

 matter became a subject of discussion in the House of Commons on the 

 19th of June, 1857, Lord Palmerston being then Prime Minister. In 

 order to appreciate what follows, it is well to observe that the way in 

 wbich the question arose was this: That in the bombardment of Grey- 

 town loss had been sustained by private persons, some of British 

 nationality, some of French, and some of other nationalities; and the 

 question was whether in the circumstances of that bombardment of 

 Greytown, and according to princix)les of international law, the Gov- 



