JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS IN BERING SEA. 291 



then belonging to Kussia in Belning Sea. It is not, as I understand, 

 contended that the Eussian Government, at the time of the issue or 

 this ukase, possessed any inherent right to enforce such a prohibition, 

 or acquired by tlie act of issuing it any claims ov er the oj^en sea beyond 

 the territorial limit of 3 miles which they would not otherwise have 

 possessed. But it is said that this, prohibition, worthless in itself, 

 acquired validity and force against the British Clovernment because 

 that Government can be shown to have accepted its provisions. The 

 ukase was a mere usurpation; but it is said that it was converted into 

 a valid international law, as against the British Government, by the 

 admission of that Government itself. 



I am not concerned to dispute the contention that an invalid claim 

 may, as against another Government, acquire a validity whicli in its in- 

 ception it did not possess, if it is formally or effectively accepted by 

 that Government. But the vital question for decision is whether any 

 other Government, and especially whether the Government of Great 

 Britain, has ever accepted the claim put forward in this ukase. Our 

 contention is, that not only can it not be shown that the Government of 

 Great Britain, at any time since 1821, has admitted the soundness of 

 the pretension put forward by that ukase, but that it can be shown that 

 it has categorically denied it on more than one occasion. On the 18th 

 January, 1822, four months after the issue of the ukase. Lord London- 

 derry, then British foreign secretary, wrote in the following terms to 

 Count Lieven, the Eussian ambassador in London : 



Upon tlie subject of this ukase generally, and especially upon the two main prin- 

 cii^les of claim laid down therein, viz, au exclusive sovereignty alleged to belong to 

 Russia over the territories therein described, as also the exclusive right of navigat- 

 ing and trading within the maritime liudts therein set forth, His Britannic Majesty 

 must be understood as hereby reserving all his rights, not being prepared to admit 

 that the intercourse which is allowed on the face of this iustrument to have hitherto 

 subsisted on these coasts and in those seas can be deemed to be illicit; or that the 

 ships of friendly powers, even supposing an unqualified sovereignty was proved to 

 appertain to tlie Imjierial Crown in these vast and very ini]ierfectly occupied terri- 

 tories, could, by the acknowledged law of nations, be excluded from navigating 

 within the distance of 100 Italian miles, as therein laid down, from the coast. 



On the 17th October, in the same year, the Duke of Wellington, am- 

 bassador at Verona, addressed to Count i^esselrode a note containing 

 the following words: 



Objecting, as we do, to this claim of exclusive sovereignty on the part of Russia, 

 I might save myself the trouble of discussing the particular mode of its exercise as 

 set forth in this ukase. But we object to the sovereignty proposed to be exercised 

 under this ukase not less than we do to the claim of it. We can not admit the rU/ht of 

 any power posscfising the sovereignty of a country to exclude the vessels of others from the 

 seas on its coasts to the distance of 100 Italian miles. 



Again, on the 28th November, 1822, the Duke of Wellington addressed 

 a note to Count Lieven containing the following words: 



The second ground on whicdi we object to the ukase is tliat His Imperial Majesty 

 thereby excludes from a certain considerable extent of the open sea vessels of other 

 nations. We contend that the assumption of this power is contrary to the law of 

 nations, and we can not found a negotiation upon a paper in which it is again 

 liroadly asserted. We contend that no power whatever can exclude another from 

 the use of the open sea; a power can exclude itself from the navigation of a certain 

 coast, sea, etc., by its own act or engagement, but it can not by right be excluded 

 by another. This we consider as the law of nations, and we can not negotiate upon 

 a paper in which a right is asserted inconsistent with this principle. 



It is evident, therefore, that so far as diplomatic representation went, 

 the King's Governinent of that date took every step which it was in 

 their power to take in order to make it clear to the Eussian (iovern- 

 ment that Great Britain did not accept the claim to exclude her sub- 



