[in which the criminal immunity of ambassadors or members of their family or suite has been matter of judicial inquiry. The general result of all the decisions, as substantiated by the consensus of the most authoritative text-book writers, is, undoubtedly, that the only remedy which a State possesses against an ambassador resident in its territory for a breach of its criminal law, however heinous, is by way of request to his own government to withdraw him; that in case the crime, if a continuous one, is persisted in, or, if not continuous, is likely to be repeated, the State would be entitled to detain his person till such time as he could conveniently leave the territory. Such a step as this last, however, is said to have some of the characteristics of the commencement of war, and could only be justified by the same sort of extreme necessity by which war itself can alone be justified. In the case of a breach of the criminal law by members of the family or suite of an ambassador, the only available remedy is to hand the delinquent over to the ambassador himself, who would be held bound, in the event of his having no criminal jurisdiction himself-which in modern times is almost unknown-after making a primâ facie investigation into the facts, either to send the delinquent to the country of the ambassador for trial and punishment, or to hand him over to the ordinary criminal courts of the country in which he is residing. The last course would be the most friendly one, and is that usually resorted to at the present day.

The difficulties involved in immunity from civil jurisdiction relate chiefly to those transactions in which the ambassador or members of his family or suite happen to be engaged, and yet which cannot possibly be regarded as in any way incident to the diplomatic functions of the embassy. Such transactions are engaging in trade, making contracts of various kinds, becoming a

[plaintiff in a court of justice, and the like. There seems to be no doubt (in spite of much argument to the contrary) that, even in respect of matters such as these, in which it might reasonably be held that the ambassador had waived his privilege, no real waiver takes place. The possible inconveniences and even political misunderstandings which might accrue from any attempt to seize the person or goods of an ambassador or of those under his immediate protection are of far too serious account to be put in the scale against the evil involved in the casual impotency of the local courts. It may be said, indeed, that it cannot be to the interest of an ambassador's own State that he should implicate himself in civil transactions, and the increased difficulty of his doing so, which his immunity from the usual process carries with it, is beneficial to both the States concerned.

On the general principle of immunity from civil process is based the special privileges of the ambassador's residence or so-called "hotel." It is still a disputed point whether an ambassador's "hotel" can be entered for the purpose, say, of following and arresting a felon. It is confessed, however, on all hands, that, at the least, a special notice would be required for the purpose, and while, on the one hand, it would scarcely be tolerated in modern times that an ambassador's hotel should be converted into an asylum for fugitive criminals, on the other hand, it may always be expected that an ambassador will readily co-operate with the reasonable demands. of public justice.

Besides the immunities already considered, the privilege of having public worship performed in the precincts of the ambassador's hotel in spite of the general laws which may disallow the free exercise of that, or of any other than one particular form of public worship, is undoubted, and it is a privilege which, for obvious reasons, is, in some countries, greatly prized.

[Certain limitations have, however, been admitted to the full recognition of this privilege, as, for instance, that no bell must be rang or other sign given to attract the passers by, though these limitations are frequently, by special courtesy, dispensed with.

It has been much questioned as to how far the usual privileges and immunities of an ambassador can be claimed for one passing en route to and fro between the territory of his own State and the territory of that to which he is sent. It would seem that he ought, at the least, if his political character be known, and transit be not refused, to enjoy all the facilities for transit which would be accorded to the most favoured subject of the State, but that, in the event of his being accused of committing a breach of the law, his person might be detained till reparation from his own government had been obtained.

Consuls are a class of diplomatic agents in the great central and provincial towns of a country who do not enjoy any of the special privileges attached to the classes of agents already described. They are sometimes citizens of the State in the territory of which they reside. They enter upon the discharge of their functions by permission of the sovereign of that State, conveyed in a document termed an "exequatur," but the refusal to receive a foreign consul is no breach of the Law of Nations. Their customary functions are to give advice and assistance to such citizens of the State they represent as may need it, to uphold their interests by due representations in the proper quarter, to witness certain public acts and the signatures to certain documents, and to exercise a certain voluntary jurisdiction by way of arbitration, especially in matters of commerce. A consul is presumed to be entitled to the same privileges as his predecessors have enjoyed.

[By special treaties the functions of consuls are often greatly enlarged, so as to comprise a certain amount of civil, and even of criminal jurisdiction, in cases in which citizens of the State they represent are concerned. It is under such treaties that the English consulates in the Levant and in China are established.

[CHAPTER III.

OF THE GENERAL RIGHTS OF STATES.

INASMUCH as the only ground of a just war is either the actual, or the apprehended violation of a right, it is of the utmost importance to determine what are the rights of States in their relations with one another. These rights exist either independently of special treaty engagements, or through the medium of such engage

It will be convenient to consider the former class of rights, those existing independently of treaty, first.

SECTION I.

Of Rights independently of Treaty.

The largest and most important of these rights are those that relate to a State's territory, ships of war, and citizens. In modern times, the territory of a State is an essential element in the structure of the State itself, and, in fact, the ideas of a State and of its territory cannot be disjoined. Nevertheless, the modes of acquiring fresh territory, of acquiring rights in the territory of another State, of using for certain definite purposes the territory of another State, and, especially, of exactly marking the confines of a State's territory, whether composed of land or water, are matters requiring exact legal circumscription, if controversies are to be prevented, or to be readily settled after they have arisen.

The only two modes of acquiring territory in modern times are" Occupation" and "Cession" by treaty, whether following upon a war or not. It would seem at the