MODERN PRACTICE 651 



large parts of the waters in question by Great Britain in 

 former times, has been as fruitful of trouble as Lear's renuncia- 

 tion of his sovereignty. The numerous negotiations as to the 

 rights of fishing on the coasts of British North America have 

 always resulted in concessions to the United States, and appear 

 to have been conducted, as they were almost bound to be, rather 

 in the light of the general political relationship of the two 

 Powers than on the intrinsic merits of the particular question 

 at issue; and thus in Canada and Newfoundland British 

 diplomacy on this subject has often been criticised. Obvi- 

 ously, when British policy takes this course in regard to 

 North America, one must expect for the sake of consistency, 

 if on no other ground, that it will tend to take the same 

 course elsewhere. An example of this was quite recently 

 shown, when a concession of the kind referred to, as to the 

 rule for bays, which was granted during a modus vivendi 

 as a temporary act of grace, was spoken of as if it were 

 now definitely incorporated in British international policy 

 (see p. 730). 



The discrepancy alluded to between the authorities on the 

 law of nations and the common usage is perhaps more apparent 

 than real. The international treaties and municipal laws in 

 which a limit is fixed refer to a few subjects, and in par- 

 ticular to fisheries, and they relate to times of peace. The 

 most vital attributes of the territorial sea relate to the 

 security, the obligations, and the rights of neutral states in 

 time of war; and there has happily been no great maritime 

 war in Europe for a long time to put the principles to the 

 test. But when such a war does come, there is little doubt 

 that during hostilities the three-mile limit will be set aside by 

 the neutral states concerned, and another and greater limit fixed 

 for security, in closer correspondence with the actual range 

 of guns. It is to be further noted, that notwithstanding the 

 numerous municipal enactments and the international conven- 

 tions in which the three-mile limit is fixed for certain pur- 

 poses, no state seems to have formally and deliberately defined 

 the absolute extent of the neighbouring sea which it claims 

 as pertaining to it under all circumstances. Many states and 

 Great Britain is one of them have taken pains to make it 

 clear that in adopting a three-mile limit for pai'ticular pur- 



