When squadron on its approach to the main armament. single vessels encounter one another, an admiral's ship is to receive the first compliment, and so downward, according to rank, the inferior vessel always commencing salutations. Privateers greet ships of war without having a right to expect the return of the compliment. Merchant ships salute foreign ships of war by demonstrations with sail and flag, or with cannon, if they have any, but the ship need not slacken its course for such purposes. A superior vessel, for instance one with an admiral on board, may respond to a compliment with a smaller number of shot, but in general the marks of respect between public vessels must be equal.1 The rules of sea politeness are often embodied in instructions given to commanders of vessels by their respective governments, which directions, through the Christian states of the world, have a general uniformity. They are also sometimes a subject of special treaty. "They are of use," as Ortolan, himself a naval officer, remarks,2 "as honors paid to the independence of nations, as a public authorized recognition that the sovereignties of the world are entitled to mutual respect. They help the crews of public vessels, from the commanders down to the marines, to feel that the national honor is in their hands, and thus raise the sense of character of those who are representatives of nations upon the seas." Disputes in concerning ceremonies at sea. § 85. Formerly, above all in the seventeenth century, the tokens of respect which certain nations demanded of others, in Cent. XVII. seas over which they asserted dominion, gave rise to bitter feelings and to hostilities, or rather served as a pretext for wars which were waged on other grounds. Especially was the English claim to sovereignty in the narrow seas around Great Britain, a fruitful source of animosities from the beginning of the reign of James I. onward. The demand was, that all foreign vessels should first salute English vessels of war by lowering flags and topsails, without any correspond1 Comp. Heffter, § 197. Diplom. de la Mer, u. s. 2 ing mark of respect being made obligatory on the other side.1 This France and Spain forbade their vessels to comply with; and in 1634, by an arrangement between France and England, the ships of each state, when nearer to the other's territory, should give the first salute. But from Holland, England was led, by commercial jealousy and a feeling of superior strength, to require those humiliating marks of respect with great pertinacity. The war between the two nations, which broke out in 1652, was preceded by an engagement between Blake and Van Tromp, growing out of the demand that the flag of Holland should be lowered; and in the treaties of 1654, 1662, and 1667, the Dutch agreed to pay this compliment within certain seas in future. In 1671, the captain of a king's yacht sailed out of the Meuse through a Dutch fleet, having received orders to test their compliance with this rule; the vice-admiral in command declared his willingness to lower his own flag to the royal flag of England, but refused to allow the whole fleet to join in the act. For this the yacht fired upon him, but its captain was put into the Tower on reaching England for not continuing his fire, although the Dutch had not retaliated. The English ambassador at the Hague claimed that reparation was due for this refusal of the vice-admiral, inasmuch as not only single vessels, but also whole fleets, were obliged to strike the flag to an English vessel of war. The refusal of the States-general to redress this grievance was a leading pretext of the already meditated war of 1672.2 At 1 In a communication to the court of France in 1667, the Dutch say that they are willing that France should salute them with two cannon-shot less, but cannot consent to lower their flag, unless France shall do the same in return. They add, that although the English, in an article of the treaty prescribing tokens of respect, are not expressly bound to return the salutation with the flag which the Dutch offer to them, it is with justice presumed to be incumbent on them, and that if the English have failed in such reciprocity, they have failed in their duty, for which reason the Dutch afterwards refused to lower their flag, as by treaty required. See Ortolan, i., 369. 2 Bynkershoek's critique on this transaction (u. s.) is worthy of notice. While he inclines to admit that the treaty of 1654, rightly interpreted, sustained the English claim that a whole fleet of the Dutch should salute a single English ship the peace of 1674, it was stipulated that fleets as well as single vessels, belonging to the Dutch republic, should furl the flag, and lower the topsail before any English vessel of war, between Cape Staten in Norway and Cape Finisterre in Northern Spain. Even in 1784,1 these absurd tokens of inferiority were again confirmed in a treaty. The French, in the same century, set up similar pretensions against Holland, although without the pretext of dominion over the narrow seas. But their claims were not so galling, or so persevering, as those of England. In an ordonnance of 1689, Louis XIV. went so far as to require that when French vessels of war met those of other nations equal in rank, they should demand the first salute, and use force if it were withheld. This is mentioned as a grievance by William III. in the declaration of war, which he made at the beginning of his reign. In the eighteenth century, a number of treaties established equality and reciprocity in the ceremonial of the sea, and the practice of nations has nearly reached this point in all respects. And no tokens of respect, such as were once demanded from Holland, are now called for by any nation from any other. in the English seas, by lowering flag and topsails, he claims, (1.) that the affair occurred near the shore of Zeeland, and therefore outside of the English dominions; (2.) that a yacht, though with guns on board, is a vessel of pleasure, not of war; and (3.) that the Dutch vessels constituted a fleet, and that fleets can be compared to forts, garrisoned places and harbors, which by common usage are to be saluted first. Moreover a fleet at anchor occupies a part of the sea, which thus passes under the sway and dominion of the occupant, to whom, therefore, being now in his own territory, the first tokens of respect are to be rendered. This last plea is evidently worthless. 1 Ortolan, i., 372. 2 The first of these was between Russia and France in 1787; Calvo, i., 274. (T. S.) SECTION II. The Agents in the Intercourse of Nations, or § 86. Persons ap pointed to manage the Nations holding intercourse with one another need to have some understanding as to the conditions of the intercourse, and certain functionaries by whom the intercourse between the sovereignties may be carried on, and that between the citizens or subjects may be tions. reduced to rule. Such persons we may call generically ambassadors; but they may have various other denominations, as legates, envoys, chargés d'affaires, foreign ministers, and nuncios, which term, together with others, is appropriated to the Pope's messengers to foreign courts. The word ambassador may denote also a particular class or rank of agents, of national intercourse. We may divide ambassadors, again, into ordinary and extraordinary, or resident and temporary, into open and secret, those with limited powers and plenipotentiaries, although this last title is often used in a vague sense below its proper meaning, those who are sent to do business, and those who represent the state at some ceremony of a foreign court, and the like. Again the sovereign, or head of a department, or even a military officer, may discharge the functions of an ambassador, or be joined with one in negotiations, without holding the office cr having the title. An ambassador differs from a commissary or commissioner to whom some business not of a diplomatic nature is entrusted; from a deputy who is sent by subjects, as by a province, to a sovereign; and from a consul who under a treaty, or by the practice of two nations, protects the private affairs of individuals of the one within the territory of the other, and watches over the commercial interests of the nation which he represents. The word ambassador comes through the medieval Latin ambactia or ambaxia, meaning service or charge, either from the Celtic ambactus, client, or retainer, used once in Cæsar's "Gallic War" (vi., 15), or from the Gothic andbahts, with nearly the same sense.1 Both words may be, indeed, of the same origin. The signification will, then, correspond with that of minister. The Greek equivalent denotes an elder of the people. The Latins used the words orator, and more commonly legatus, person acting by delegated authority, whence this branch of international law is called jus legatorum, and jus legationum, the rights of legation. ambassa § 87. Ambassadors always and everywhere have had special imOrigin of the munities, and often something of a sacred character. privileges of This sacredness, which they have shared with heralds dors. and bearers of flags of truce, cannot be accounted for from their being originally ministers of religion, selected before others for their gravity or dignity; but the protection of religion must have been given to them because their functions and duties were of preeminent importance. They were the agents in all the intercourse of two tribes or nations, and above all in making peace and preventing war. If not protected, they would not expose themselves to the danger of going among enemies or strangers. They carried with them the dignity of representing their nation. Thus the importance of their work, the necessity that they should be assured of safety, and the dignity of their office, caused those religious sanctions to be thrown around them, by which the more important relations and rights were defended in ancient times. ambassa § 88. Ambassadors in ancient times were sent on special occasions Temporary by one nation to another. Their residence at foreign and resident courts is a practice of modern growth. Some have dors. thought that it was suggested by the Pope's legates, sent to reside, or appointed from among ecclesiastics residing in different parts of Christendom. By others, according to Mr. Ward (ii., 290), it has been attributed "to Ferdinand the 1 Comp. Dietz, Etymol., voce ambascia, and Grimm, Wörterb., voce amt. |