Vltimum iniquitatis patrocinium in praescriptione solet esse aut consuetudine. Et huc igitur Lusitani se conferunt; sed utrumque illis praesidium certissima iuris ratio praecludit. Nam praescriptio a iure est civili, unde locum habere non potest inter reges, aut inter populos liberos;[114a] multo autem minus ubi ius naturae aut gentium resistit, quod iure civili semper validius est. Quin et ipsa lex civilis praescriptionem hic impedit.[115a] Vsucapi enim, aut praescriptione acquiri prohibentur, quae in bonis esse non possunt, deinde quae possideri vel quasi possideri nequeunt, et quorum alienatio prohibita est. Haec autem omnia de mari et usu maris vere dicuntur. Et cum publicae res, hoc est populi alicuius nulla temporis possessione quaeri posse dicantur, sive ob rei naturam, sive ob eorum privilegium adversus quos praescriptio ista procederet, quanto iustius humano generi, quam uni populo id beneficium dandum fuit in rebus communibus? Et hoc est - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHAPTER VII _Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title of prescription or custom_ The last defense of injustice is usually a claim or plea based on prescription or on custom. To this defense therefore the Portuguese have resorted. But the best established reasoning of the law precludes them from enjoying the protection of either plea. Prescription is a matter of municipal law; hence it cannot be applied as between kings, or as between free and independent nations.[114] It has even less standing when it is in conflict with that which is always stronger than the municipal law, namely, the law of nature or nations. Nay, even municipal law itself prevents prescription in this case.[115] For it is impossible to acquire by usucaption or prescription things which cannot become property, that is, which are not susceptible of possession or of quasi-possession, and which cannot be alienated. All of which is true with respect to the sea and its use. And since public things, that is, things which are the property of a nation, cannot be acquired by mere efflux of time, either because of their nature, or because of the prerogatives of those against whom such prescription would act, is it not vastly more just that the benefits accruing from the enjoyment of common things should be given to the entire human race than to one nation alone? On this point - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -