ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C, M. P. 449 



limitation here of 59°," and demanded for Great Britain that which 

 Russia had given to tlie United States; and yet, Sir, in the face of this 

 you are solemnly asked to day by written and oral argument to say 

 that Great Britain acquiesced in the claim by Russia that the Pacific 

 Ocean was to be excluded, and the north-west coast was to be confined 

 between latitude 60° and latitude 54°. 



Sir I cannot allow myself to occupy your time by reading that which 

 only brings this out over again, but there is one sentence at the bottom 

 of page 73 : 



For reasons of the eame nature — 



(This is in Mr. George Canning's letter to Mr. Stratford Canning). 



■vre cannot consent tLat the liberty of navigation through Behring Straits should be 

 stated in the treaty as a boon from Russia. 



And the last sentence is — 



No specification of this sort is found in the Convention with the United States of 

 America, and yet it cannot be doubted that the Americans consider themselves as 

 secured in the right of navigating Behring Straits and the Sea beyond them. 



Is that consistant with Behring Sea being excluded from the opera- 

 tions of the Treaty of 1824? 



Lastly, the actual language of the Treaty was sent to Mr. Canning 

 in Mr. Addington's letter of the 29th of January, which is to be found 

 on page 75, wherein it is said to be — 



For defining the extent of tlie rights of either nation to the navigation of the 

 Northern Pacific, and their traffic and intercourse with the north-western coast of 

 America. 



But, perhaps, I ought to have read one other paragraph first, on 

 page 74. 



Perhaps the simplest course after all will be to substitute, for all that part of the 

 "projet" and " counter-])r(),jet" which relates to maritime rights and to navigation, 

 the first two Articles of the Convention already concluded by the Court of St. Peters- 

 burgh with the United States of America, in the order in which they stand in that 

 Convention. 



Then: 



The uniformity of stipulations in pari materia gives clearness and force to both 

 arrangements, and will establish that footing of equality between the several Con- 

 tracting Parties which it is most desirable should exist between three Powers whose 

 interests come so nearly in contact with each other in a part of the globe in which 

 no other Power is concerned. . 



And then, on page 81, is the letter of Mr. Stratford Canning to Mr. 

 George Canning from St. Petersburgh; and here. Sir, is tbe answer to 

 the suggestion that we inherited this construction in 1824, which never 

 saw the light until Mr. Blaine, or some of his advisers, evolved it in 

 the year 1890. 



Referring to the American Treaty I am assured, as well by Count Nesselrode as by 

 Mr. Middleton, that the ratification of that instrument was not accompanied with 

 any exjilanatious calculated to modify or at't'ect in any way the force and meaning 

 of its Articles. But I understand that, at the close of the negotiation of that Treaty, 

 a Protocol, intended by the Russians to fix more specifically the limitations of the 

 right of trading 



(that was perfectly true, because it referred to the 10 years^ clause) 



with their possessions, and understood by the American enroy as having no such 

 effect, was drawn up and signed by both parties. No reference whatever was made 

 to this paper by the Russian Plenipotentiaries in the course of my negotiation with 

 them; and you are aware, Sir, that the Articles of the Convention which I concluded 

 depend for their force entirely on the general acceptation of the terms in which they 

 »re expressed. 



B S, PT XIII 29 



