different from that giyen to the coasts of Creat Britain. Great Britain niqeestionably got the eutive lower const, laut it is contended that Rus-in got only patches of coast, The Russians did make pronounced objections on three points, Indeed, Sir Charles Bagot in a letter to Mr. Canning, Augtst 12. 1824. pronounced their dtf- ferenees almost, if not altogether, irreconcihthle, The second objee- tion was “as fo the liberty to be granted to British subjects to navigate and trade foverre along the coast of the /ésirce which it is proposed to cede to Russia, from the Portland Channel to the Goth degree of north latitude, and the ishids adjacent.” #
He speaks of ‘the coast of the lisiére.” The /sttre is the dominating feature which was to he secured. It was to be such a fJisfve as Russin had indicated would vive protection, and the trade spoken of was along the coast of this faery. whieh meant where it tonched the water, and the word “‘ecoust” ix used in the same sense in which he had previously used the word ‘ rivage.”
In further explanation of Russia's objection he says:
As to the secoml point: the Russian Plenipotentiaries deelare that they are realy to grunt to Elis Majesty's suljeeta for ten wears, brit for no lonwer period, the liberty te mavigaty aod trade alone the coast of the lisitre proposed to he celed to Russia from the Portland Channel to the Oth dezree of north lativude.&
Thus again he speaks of “trade along the coust of the (sieve? The Jere was to extend from the VPorthind Channel to the 60th degree. This border or strip was the main seetrity sought for, and the privilege to trade wis to be given alone the coust of this strip.
Sir Charles informed Mr, Canning thut it was the determination of Russia, rather to leave the controversy hetween the two governs ments unsettled for an indelinite time, than to recede from their three objections specified, the second of which was the refusal to grunt to British subjects the right “to matigate and trade forever lone the cousts of the lisitre.”'
Count Nesselvode. in his letter to Count Lieven of August $1, Ist. vives sobstantially the same aceount of these differences, Of
«U5, C. App, 1 CLs. Co App, 11.
U.S. OC. App, THO-191.
