The reasoning of Grotius, who affirms in his Treatise on the Law of Nations, that a community can claim the entire sovereignty over a river which bounds their territory, and also over the whole of the bed, which it at any times covers, appears to be erroneous. He supposes the case of a nation landing in a newly-discovered country, and taking possession of it without any opposition; but not wishing to grasp, or not being able to occupy the whole of the territory, they content themselves with allowing a river to form their boundary on one side. Grotius asserts that as there are no other inhabitants, and they are the only possessors of the country, they may claim sovereignty over the whole of the stream. But let us suppose another nation to make a settlement, and take possession of the land left unoccupied on the other side of the river. Seeing a beautiful stream close to them, it would be impossible to prevent their making use of its waters; they would allow their cattle to drink in the river, they would fish in it, they would build boats, and sail upon the surface. And if the nation which claimed the sovereignty attempted to prevent these acts of ownership, it must give rise to war. The law of nations must be one that is natural, and founded

on the common sense and wants of mankind. It cannot be one that is impossible to be enforced. Nature proclaims that a people residing on the banks of a river will make use of its waters. The dictum of Grotius in this part of his treatise is therefore now usually departed from, and where a river constitutes a boundary between nations, instead of one nation, even though it held the prior occupation of the country claiming the entire sovereignty over the whole of the river, a line is supposed to be drawn in the centre of the channel. Each nation claims jurisdiction to this central line; the sovereignty of the river and its advantages are thus equally divided between the two countries, of which it forms the boundary.

Every nation has a right to exercise dominion over the rivers which are within its territorial jurisdiction. This may appear a self-evident proposition, but has been sometimes disputed.

Happy is the nation that possesses the whole course of the rivers that flow within her dominions, but it sometimes occurs that one nation owns the territory where a river passes to the ocean, while another is in possession of the country near the sources of the river. In this case the nation living in the interior has sometimes claimed a

right to navigate to the ocean, free from any impediment to its course. This is inadmissible for the following reasons:

First, If a right of navigation is demanded, it must be exercised totally independent of any jurisdiction, for if any is submitted to, it is admitting the right of sovereignty. And however small the jurisdiction claimed, it might be followed by larger demands; the principle in both cases being the same.

Secondly, If a nation living in the interior has a right to navigate to the ocean, nations trading on the ocean would have the same right to demand a passage to the interior state.

Thirdly, If there is a right to navigate a river, the same claim might be extended to an intercourse by land. The wind sometimes agitates the surface of a river, in the winter season it may be impeded by ice. On the land, a constant intercourse might be maintained. This right must also be exercised free of jurisdiction.

Fourthly, If the interior nation had a right to pass by one road or river, it would have the same right to travel on all those which arose within its territory. Many nations, living near the coast, instead of having one frontier to guard, would

D

have several, extending in every direction in the interior. In these circumstances, how could its commercial or municipal laws be enforced? Hostile nations would be admitted into a country without let or hindrance. The safety of states would be endangered.

Austria might demand a passage through Turkey to the Black Sea."

Bavaria might demand a passage through Austria and Turkey.

The Swiss might navigate undisturbed the Rhine, the Rhone, the Danube, and the Po, which would in fact crown them sovereigns of Europe.

It is therefore for the general benefit of man that the complete sovereignty of nations should be recognised both over the land and water within their territorial dominion. When it is very important for a nation to possess the right of transit through a neighbouring State, it may generally be obtained by treaty. Nations, like individuals, are connected together by so many ties, that a right of passage, under certain modifications, could seldom be refused.

CHAPTER III.

SEAS AND OCEANS.

THE first step in the art of navigation forms an important epoch in the life of children in every country, in every clime, and among all classes of society. You may travel in many countries, and partake of many amusements; but never again will you experience the same thrill of rapture as when a child, with a gay troop of young companions, you sallied forth to a neighbouring common, to ascertain by actual experiment, whether the tale was true, that nutshells, when empty and placed on the water, would really float on the surface. The children have been at much trouble to collect these shells, for it is only on company days that nuts are placed as a desert upon the table, and they have therefore to wait some time before they can make the experiment on a large scale. At length the important day arrives, and when they place a whole flotilla of nutshells on the water, and find they do not sink, but float