ministers resident in London, that the measure was necessary for the peace of the kingdom.1 Extreme necessity would be a good plea even for killing an ambassador, as Bynkershoek says at the end of his work "De Foro Legatorum," but the question in such cases is, could not simple sending home, forcible expulsion, if necessary, answer every purpose.2 Relations of sador to a § 97. Bynkershoek lays it down "non valere jus legationis nisi inter utrumque Principem, qui mittit legatos, et ad an ambas- quem missi sunt; cætera [legatos] privatos esse." third power. Grotius had already taught the same thing, and nearly all modern writers concur in this opinion. Vattel, however (iv., 7, § 84), maintains that innocent transit through a third country may not be refused to an ambassador, unless suspected of sinister designs on his way; that to insult him is to insult his master and the whole nation to which he belongs; and that to injure him is picking a quarrel with all nations" who are concerned to maintain as sacred the right and means of communicating together and treating of their affairs." There is so much truth in this, that an injury done to an ambassador, on his way through a land where his countrymen enjoy protection, is a far greater crime than one done to a private man, and that all comity and hospitality ought to be shown to him. But his status is not the same as in the land to which he is accredited. The exterritorial immunities avail 1 One of the most atrocious violations of international law on record, was the murder of two French ministers, Bonnier and Roberjot, on their way home from the Congress of Rastadt in April, 1797, by Austrian hussars. This seems to have been a piece of villainy on the part of an Austrian minister of state- - carried further by the soldiers than was intended, for the purpose of getting possession of valuable papers. 2 This subsection is principally drawn from Ward's History, ii., 292–330. For the law of 7 Anne, c. 12, referred to, see Kent, i., 183, Lect. ix. Coke, 4th Instit., 153, Foster's Crown-law, 188, Hale's Pleas of the Crown, and the passages referred to in the text are cited by Ward. Comp. also, Bynkersh., De For. Leg., 18, who, after citing the few examples to be found of regular legal punishments of foreign ministers, says, "Novi ævi exempla de legatis qui varie deliquerant non punitis tot ubique in annalibus occurrunt, ut ipsa copia laboremus." only there, and inviolability elsewhere is of a qualified kind. Hence (1.) A state may refuse transit to a foreign minister. (2.) He and his goods may be liable to seizure. (3.) If he enters a territory where he is an enemy, or is bound to one which is hostile to that through which he is passing, he may be seized and impeded from pursuing his journey; and all this without offense against international law. And yet it appears to be desirable, both on the ground of the general good and on the score of justice, that ambassadors should everywhere be safe at least from violence and from arrest, should enjoy the jus transitus innoxii. Quite a number of examples might be cited, where the rights of legation have been treated as of no account by third powers and by enemies. The noted case mentioned by Thucydides (ii., 67), in which the Athenians caught in Thrace and killed envoys from the Peloponnesians, on their way to Persia, where they hoped to bring the great king into their alliance against Athens, might have been an act of cruelty, but was not against the modern jus inter gentes. Similar to this was the case of Rinçon and Fregoze, envoys of Francis I. of France, passing through the Duchy of Milan, the one on his way to Venice, the other to the Porte. This was then hostile territory, and they were seized and killed seemingly by the procurement of the Governor of Milan, the emperor Charles V. showing indifference to the crime. "Alia quæstio," says Bynkershoek (u. s.), speaking of this affair, "de jure legationis, alia de jure honestatis." Refusals of passports, detentions, and expulsions from the country have been not uncommon. Thus in 1572, when all Frenchmen in England found without a passport were ordered to be arrested, Du Croc, the French minister to Scotland, on his way thither, shared their fate, at which when the French court complained, Secretary Walsingham averred that he was justly detained for want of a passport. In the same century, a Turkish ambassador was arrested on his way through Venice to France, and when the French resident there claimed his liberation, the republic answered that a sovereign power is not bound to recognize the function of a public minister, unless his credentials are addressed to itself. When, in 1573, the Duke of Anjou, afterwards Henry III. of France, was elected king of Poland, the ambassadors who were on their way to announce his election, were refused a passport in Saxony, and detained by the Elector. In 1744, Marshal Belleisle, while passing through Hanover in the capacity of an ambassador, was seized by the English, then at war with France, and carried as a prisoner to England. And in 1763, Count Wartensleben, minister of the States-General to a part of the German powers, was arrested at Cassel as executor of a will. But there is no right whatever of seizing an enemy's ambassador on neutral soil or a neutral vessel. (Comp. §§ 174, 199.) Rank of am $ 98. The rank of an ambassador has nothing to do with the transaction of affairs, except so far as the capacity bassadors. to represent their sovereign may be restricted to those of one class, but only to the ceremonial of courts. Formerly, there was but one class of foreign ministers, or at most two-ambassadors and agents-known to Europe, but since the beginning of the eighteenth century there have been three grades. Moreover, sometimes extraordinary have claimed precedence over ordinary ministers of the same class. The quarrels of ambassadors about rank led to a regulation in the protocol of the plenipotentiaries of the eight principal powers concerned in the Congress of Vienna, dated March 19, 1815, which is to the following effect: "To prevent the embarrassments which have often occurred, and which may yet arise from the claims to precedence between different diplomatic agents, the plenipotentiaries of the powers signing the treaty of Paris, have agreed to the following articles; and they feel it their duty to ask those of other crowned heads to adopt the same regulation: ART. I. Diplomatic employés are divided into three classes: That of envoys, ministers, or others accredited to sovereigns; That of chargés d'affaires accredited to ministers charged with foreign affairs. ART. II. Ambassadors, legates, or nuncios alone have the representative character. ART. III. Diplomatic employés on an extraordinary mission have not for that reason any superiority of rank. ART. IV. Diplomatic employés shall take rank among themselves in each class according to the date of the official notification of their arrival. The present rule shall bring with it no innovation in regard to the representatives of the Pope. ART. V. There shall be in each state a uniform mode determined upon for the reception of the diplomatic employés of each class. ART. VI. The ties of relationship or of family alliance between courts give no rank to their diplomatic employés. The same is true of political ties. ART. VII. In the acts or treaties between several powers which admit of the alternat, the lot shall decide between the ministers, as to the order to be followed in signatures.”1 In the protocol of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, dated November 21, 1818, a new class of ministers was constituted by the plenipotentiaries of the five great powers. They say "To avoid the disagreeable discussions which may arise in the future on a point of diplomatic etiquette, which the rule annexed to the recés of Vienna, by which questions of rank were regulated, does not seem to have provided for, it is decided between the five courts, that resident ministers accredited near them shall form, in respect to their rank, an intermediate class between ministers of the second order and chargés d'affaires." According to these rules, on which the present practice everywhere is based, there are four classes of diplomatic agents. To the first belong ambassadors of temporal powers, together with legates a or de latere and nuncios of the Pope.2 1 By the alternat is intended the practice, sometimes adopted in signing conventions, of alternating in the order of priority of signature, according to some fixed rule, so as to cut off questions of rank. The lot has also been used. Comp. Klüber, §§ 104-106. 2 There is no distinction between legates a and legates de latere. These are cardinals, nuncios are not. Internuncios form an inferior grade of papal diplomats, belonging to the second or third class. From early times the bishop of Rome had To the second, all diplomatic employés accredited to sovereigns, whether called envoys, ministers, ministers plenipotentiary, or internuncios. To the third, resident ministers accredited to sovereigns. To the fourth, chargés d'affaires accredited to ministers of foreign affairs, with whom would be reckoned consuls invested with diplomatic functions.1 In regard to the rank of the minister who shall represent a state at a particular court, the general rule is that one of such rank and title is sent, as has been usually received from the other party; and that the sovereigns having a royal title neither send ministers of the first rank to, nor receive them from inferior powers.2 In regard to diplomatic etiquette, Dr. Wheaton observes, that while it is in great part a code of manners, and not of laws, there are certain rules, the breach of which may hinder the performance of more serious duties. Such is the rule requiring a reciprocation of diplomatic visits between ministers resident at the same court. As for the ceremonial of courts, an ambassador is to regard himself the representative of national politeness and good-will, but to submit to no ceremony abroad which would be accounted degrading at home; for nothing can be demanded of him inconsistent with the honor of his country. A question somewhat agitated among us, who have no distinct costume for the chief magistrate, or for those who wait on him, is, In what costume should our diplomatic agents appear at foreign courts? In none other, it may be answered, than such as is appropriate when we pay our respects to the President of the United States, unless another is expressly prescribed. The rule is to emanate from home, and not from abroad; and vicars, delegates, or legates, in the countries of Europe, who had oversight of religious affairs and some delegated jurisdiction. Legates for some time had a permanent office, which might be attached to a particular bishopric. Only in modern days have these representatives of the Pope become assimilated to the envoys from temporal powers. In France by the concordat of 1801, all intermeddling with the affairs of the Gallican church was prohibited to them, by whatever name they went. 1 Comp. Heffter, § 208. 2 Heffter, § 209. |