§ 92. of ambassa B. The immunity from local jurisdiction granted to a foreign minister extends to his hotel and goods. His Immunity house is a sanctuary, except in case of gross crime, dor's hotel for himself and his retinue; and that, whether it and goods. belongs to his own government or is hired or is given to him for his use by the state to which he is sent.1 His goods also, or all that is necessary for the comfort of himself and his family, together with his equipage, enjoy the same exemption. His papers relating to the business of his embassy are inviolate. These exemptions are plainly as essential for the discharge of his duties in his office, as is his personal exemption from foreign jurisdiction. It is to be observed, however, that if he chance to possess real property in the foreign country, or personal property, aside from that which pertains to him as an ambassador (§ 96), it is subject to the local laws. for crim His privileges do not include the right of asylum for persons outside of his household. If the fiction of ex- His hotel territoriality explained the privileges of ambassadors, no asylum the right of asylum would be fairly deducible from inals. it, and a criminal taking refuge in such a sanctuary would be given up, if at all, by a process of extradition. But it so happens that the house of an ambassador has ceased to be an asylum, since the notion of exterritoriality has been most current. The right was attached in the Middle Ages to many religious places, and was conceded after this analogy, on account of their sacredness, in some countries, to the hotels of ambassadors; but the usage, if we are not deceived, was never general 1 Sometimes extraordinary ambassadors have quarters provided for them by the state to which they are sent, their stay being ordinarily short. In 1814, Austria and England purchased houses for their foreign ministers in Paris, and in 1817, Prussia, in Paris and Petersburg. Klüber, § 192, note. Houses for the reception of foreign ambassadors were in use in the empire of Charlemagne. A capitulary of A. D. 850 (Perz, iii., 407) speaks of "publicæ domus, in singulis civitatibus-antiquitus constructæ, nostris usibus et externarum gentium legationibus satis congruæ." The Romans also sometimes entertained foreign legates in public villas outside of the walls at the public charge. throughout Europe, and even where it obtained, as in Rome and Madrid, was sometimes opposed and violated by the government. Similar to this right, if not an extension of it, was the freedom or privilege (jus quarteriorum) of the quarter of the city where the ambassador resided, and which was indicated by the arms of his sovereign. This right (or wrong, rather) prevailed in a number of places, as at Venice, Rome, Madrid, and during the meetings for the choice and coronation of an emperor, at Frankfort-on-the-Main. At Rome, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the harboring of criminals, under plea of exercising this right, gave occasion to more than one dispute between the Papal and the French governments. It is now admitted that if a transgressor, not of the ambas sador's train, takes refuge in his premises, he can be demanded by the local authorities, and, if not delivered up, can be searched for and seized within the hotel; for which purpose such force in breaking doors open and the like, may be used, as is necessary for his apprehension. For, as Bynkershoek (“De For. Leg.," § 21) asks, “legati, ut latrones recipiant, mittuntur? vel, sine receptione commode legationi vacare non possunt?" 1 Freedom from im. posts, etc. § 93. It is also a freedom commonly allowed to ambassadors, but rather by national comity, than as a fair deduction from the exterritorial theory, that the personal effects of an ambassador are exempt from taxation, and that f duties are remitted on articles from abroad which he needs for himself and his family. His importations, however, before they reach his hotel, are liable to the search of custom-house 1 A case in point here is that of a merchant accused of a crime who escaped to the hotel of Mr. Guidekens, the English ambassador at Stockholm. After some delay and seeming threats on the part of the Swedish king, he was given up; but the ambassador claimed the absolute right of asylum, and that no force could be used against the house of a foreign minister; that the guard put around his dwelling, and the demand to know within an hour what he would do in regard to the extradition of the criminal, were against international practice. In the letter of the government to that of Great Britain his recall was requested, and he went home. (De Martens, Erzählungen, etc., i., 217–235.) Abuse of ambassa dor's priv ilege of im portation. officers, and if he has sent for contraband goods, they may be In the year 1772, according to the same author's "contributions to the most recent European law of nations," Part IV., p. 1 De Martens, §§ 227-229; Wheaton's Elements, iii., 1, § 18. 193 et seq., an ambassador may import from abroad furniture required for his sole use, unless it is forbidden. Then follows a case of the seizure of a quantity of chairs, wardrobes, mirrors, and other furniture imported into England in the name of the Italian ambassador. The goods were restored, but the cabinetmakers made an ado about introducing into the country, free of duties, articles which would employ several hundred workmen for several months. A petition was presented to Parliament, but no law was passed. At a conference of foreign ambassadors on the matter, the Spanish legate denounced any minister who would degrade himself to the level of a miserable smuggler. "We come here," said he, "to uphold, not to invade, the law of nations; and those powers which cannot find a subject capable of sustaining their character with honor, ought not to send ministers into foreign countries." In 1767, certain prohibited articles of merchandise, imported into Sweden for the French ambassador, were seized, but afterwards restored on his paying five per cent. of their value. In Russia, before the middle of the eighteenth century, the franchises or exemptions from customs had been taken away from foreign ministers. In 1762, Peter III. restored them, and made compensation for the duties that had before been exacted. In 1748-we still quote from Moser"it was decided to take from all foreign ambassadors their exemption from duties of entry, in which the example of Russia was followed, which government, not being able to resist longer the abuses of his franchise which a certain minister practiced, has been the first to judge it proper to take away exemptions from all. As like abuses are committed at almost all the other courts, they likewise will there can be no doubt set bounds to the franchises of foreign ministers; and, in this persuasion, the king has just taken the resolution to increase the salaries of his ministers abroad. In 1749 Holland, and in 1748 the King of Poland, Elector of Saxony, took away exemptions in all cases where their own ministers abroad did not enjoy the same freedom." From all this it appears that the practice has varied, that exemptions from duties were never intended to cover any goods except those necessary for the ambassador's own private use, and that there was no discourtesy in taking such exemptions away. § 94. Ambassa of worship. C. The liberty of worship in a foreign land is now conceded by the law and usage of Christian nations to ambassadors of every rank, even when their religion or sect dor's liberty is not tolerated by the laws of the land. This liberty might be deduced from the rule of exterritoriality, as in the parallel case of a ship of war in a foreign port, or still better from the consideration that, religion being a prime necessity of man's nature, an earnest nation could have no diplomatic intercourse with another nation, within whose territory its religion was prohibited. But the argument, which would support this liberty of worship by natural justice and the rights of conscience, however valid, has here no application, since a great part of the nations of Christendom have always assumed the right of allowing or prohibiting outward worship at their pleasure. This freedom of worship extends to the household of the ambassador, and sometimes by comity or connivance, if not by treaty, to his countrymen, who may be residing at the same capital. It is not limited by his presence, but when he is on a journey, or during the intervals between two legations, it may still be kept up. But his household, and even his wife, it is held, if of another religion than his own, have no separate right of worship. It is held, also, that if there be religious rites publicly allowed, of the same sect to which the ambassador belongs and where he is residing, he may be forbidden to have a chapel and services of his own, which now are no longer necessary. Thus, when the Emperor Joseph II. granted toleration at Vienna to the adherents of the Augsburg Confession, it was declared that domestic worship at the hotel of Lutheran ambassadors would no more be permitted. But in Constantinople, where the Greek Church is tolerated, as the |