Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-07-18

years before the last necessary formality,
besides regular proof of good and moral
| Character, conditions little likely to be COM
Piled with by ordinary seafaring persons.
secondly, that discontinuance of impress
ments on the high seas will preclude an
actual collision between the interfering
claims. Within the jurisdiction. eff each
nation, and in their respective vessels on
the high seas, each will enforce the ailegi-
ance which 1T claims. In other situations
the individuals donbly claimed, will be
within jurisdiction independent of both
nations.
Secondly. The British pretensioris to do
main over the narrow seas are so obsolete
and so indefensibie, that they never would
have occurred IS probable objection in
this case, if they had not actually frustra-
ted an arrangement settled by Mr. King
with the Brstish ministry on the subject of
impressments from American vessels on
the high seas. At the moment when the
articles were expected TO be signed, an tx-
ception OF the Z" narrow seas was urged
and insisted ON by lord St. Vincent; and
being utterly ina INVISIBLE on our part, the
negotiation was abandoned
The objection in itself has certainly not
the slightest foundation. The time has been
indeed when England not only claimed, but
exercised pretensions scarcely inferior to
tnil sovereignty over the seas surrounding
the British isles, and even as far as cape
tiniStere to the south, and Van Staten, in
Norway, to the north. 1t was time, howe
yer, when reason had little share in deter
mining the law and the intercourse of ma
tons, when power alone decided questions
OF right, and when the ignorance and want
OF concert among other maritime countries
IdCllIltR1
Sress of civilization and information has
produced change in all these respects,
and no principle in the code of public law,
rs at present better established, than the
common freedom of the seas beyond very
limited distance from territories washed by
them. This distance is not indeed fixed
absolute with percision. 1t is varied in
small degree by written authorities g. per-
haps it may be reasonably varied in some
degree by local peculiarities But the erea-
test distance which would now be listened
| to any where, would make a small proDor-
! ton of the narrowest part of the narrowest
seas IN question.
| What are, in fact, the prerogat;ves CLAIM
ed and exercised by Great Britain over
| these seas! If they were really part nf
her domain, her authority wau d be the
same there as within her other domain.
Foreign vessels would he subject to all the
laws and regulations framed for them. as
much as if they were within the harhours
I or rivers OF the country Nothing of
I this sort is pretended Nothing of this
sort will be tolerated. The only in
stances in which these seas are distinguish
cd from other seas, or in which Great Bri-
tain enjoys within them, any distinction o.
yer other nations, are first, the compliment
paid by other flags to hers. Secondly, the
extension OF her territorial jurisdiction in
certain cases to the distance of four leagues
from the coast. The first is a relic of an
cient usurpation, which has thus long es-
capped the correction, which modern and
more enlightebd timss have applied to
other usurpations. The prerogative has
been often contested, however, even at the
expense o. bloody wars, and is still borne
] with Ill will and Impotence by her neigh
bors At the last treaty ofpeace at Amiens,
the abolition OF it was repeatedly and
strongly pressed by France and it is not
improbable, that at no remote day it will
follow the fate of the title of" king Of
France" so long worn by the British mo-
! narchs, and at length so properly sacrifi-
ced tothe lessons of a magnanimous wisdom
AS far ms this homage 20 the British flag has
any foundation at present, it rests merely
on long usage and long acqu;escence, which
are construed, as in few other cases OF
maritime claims, into the effect off general
though tacit convention. The second in
stance is the extension Of the territorial iu-
rlsdiction to four leagues from the shore
This too, as far as the distance may exceed
that which is generally allowed, rests on a
4 like Foundation, strengthened, perhaps, by
the local facility Of smuggling, and the pc.
culiar interest which Great Britain has in
preventing a practice affecting so deeply
her whole system Of revenue, commerce,
and manufactures whilst the Limitation
itself to four leagues necessarily implies
that beyond that distance no territorial iu-
Tisdiction is assumed
But whatever MAY be the origin or valhe
OF these pTerogativcs over foreign flags in
one case, and within limited portion oil
these seas in another, 1t is obvious that nei.
4 ther Of them will be violated By the OK
cmption Of American vessels from impress.
mehts, which are no wise connected with
either; having never been made ON the
/ pretcXt either of withholding the wohtet
homage TO the British flag, or Of smuggling
! In defiance of British laws.
! This extension Ct the British law to foul
leagues from the shore is inferred from ar
act Of parliament passed in the year 1856
o. 9. q {. 35) the terms Of which rompre.
hended all vessels, foreign as well as Bri
tish 1t is possible however, that the for.
mcr are constructively xceptcd.-Shoult
. your inquiries ascertain this to be the case
Won will Gud voursatf go I,ta... 80. a