Skip to main content

Full text of "A guide to diplomatic practice"

See other formats


Edited by ARNOLD D. McNAiR, C.B.E., LL.D. 

Fellow of Gonville and Caius College and Reader 
in Public International Law in the University of 



Edited by ARNOLD D. McNAIR, C.B.E., LLJ>. 


Being a Selection from the Decisions of International and 
National Courts and Tribunals. 

Edited by ARNOLD D. McNAIR, C.B.E., LL.D., and 
H. LAUTERPACHT, LL.D., Dr. jur., Dr. Sc. Pol. 

For the years 1925 and 1926 . . 35s. net. 
For the years 1927 and 1928 . . 42s. net. 


(With Special Reference to International Arbitration.) 

By H. LAUTERPACHT, Dr. jur., Dr. Sc. Pol., LL.D. 25s. net. 

A Contribution to the Theory and Practice of Inter- 
national Mandates. 

By J. STOYANOVSKY, Docteur en Droit, Paris, LL.D., London. 

25s. net. 


By Sir JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS, C.B.E., K.C. 25s. net. 


By Professor PHILIP NOEL BAKER, M.A. 21s. net. 


By NORMAN BENTWICH, Attorney-General of Palestine. 

15s. net. 


By the Right Hon. Sir ERNEST SATOW, G.C.M.G. 
Third Edition Revised by H. RITCHIE, C.M.G. 

Edited by L. OPPENHEIM, M.A., LL.D. 

By Professor JAMES WILFORD GARNER. Two Vols. 42s. net. 


25s. net. 


Three Lectures. By Professor L. OPPENHEIM, LL.D. 


A Monograph. By R. F. ROXBURGH. 7s. 6d. net. 



G.C.M.G., LL.D., D.C.L. 



H. RITCHIE, C.M.G., O.B.E., I.S.O. 









Made in Great Britain 


THE late Sir Ernest Satow, who died on August 26, 1929, 
published his " Guide to Diplomatic Practice" in 1917. To 
its preparation he brought legal qualifications of a high order, 
an extensive knowledge of the writings of earlier authorities, 
and the experience of a long and distinguished career in 
His Majesty's Diplomatic Service. In an editorial introduction 
to the first edition the late Professor Oppenheim said that the 
intention was to produce a work that would be of service alike 
to the international lawyer, the diplomatist and the student of 
history, and remarked that it was unique with regard to its 
method of treatment of the subject, as well as the selection of 
the topics discussed and in the amount of original research 
which it embodied. The work deservedly attained a high 
reputation, and its widespread circulation led to the issue of a 
further edition in 1922. 

Since the date of the original publication many changes and 
developments have occurred. Some matters of former impor- 
tance have receded into the background ; others have arisen 
demanding inclusion in a work of this kind. In preparing a 
third edition considerable revision has been found necessary. 
The long lists of congresses and conferences, dating from 
1648, which were set out in the former edition have been 
replaced by a chapter descriptive in general of such assem- 
blies, supplemented by outstanding instances of the numerous 
conferences held within recent years. Similarly, events of an 
earlier epoch which were narrated in the chapters on good 
offices and mediation have been omitted, these subjects being 
included with others in a series of chapters on the League of 
Nations. The chapters on diplomatic immunities have been 
largely extended, prominence being given to the views of 
modern writers and the decisions of courts of law in various 
countries. The chapters on treaties and other international 
compacts have also undergone revision, former instances 
being replaced by others more recent ; while a chapter has 
been added on the British Commonwealth of Nations. But 


in essential respects the historical outline and substance of the 
original work are preserved, though often summarised, and 
sometimes amplified by the inclusion of new matter. It has been 
possible thus to bring the present edition within the compass 
of a single volume of convenient size for reference, and it is 
hoped that in this revised form (which has necessitated the 
renumbering of the paragraphs) it will continue to serve the 
useful purposes which the late Sir Ernest Satow had in mind at 
the time of his original publication. 

The editor desires to express his grateful acknowledgment of 
the help given by Mr. Stephen Gaselee, Librarian and Keeper 
of the Papers at the Foreign Office, at whose request the work 
was undertaken, and by former colleagues and friends who 
have contributed to the revision with suggestions and 
information. Whilst access has been permitted to official 
records, it must be understood that the work is entirely 
unofficial, and that the views expressed in the course of it 
are not necessarily those of the British Government. 

April, 1932. 





I. DIPLOMACY ...... i 




MATTERS ...... 23 









LEGATION . . . . . .109 


XIII. PERSONA GRATA . . . . .124 



MATIC AGENT . . . . .198 






TO THIRD STATES . . . .226 






CONCORDAT . . . . .318 


MENT . . 355 


PACTS (continued) : MODUS VIVENDI, COM- 

TION ....... 403 







INDEX 503 


THE books referred to in the Bibliography are mentioned in foot- 
notes, and a complete list is given in the Appendix, page 496. 
Certain of them, however, which are often referred to are indicated 
in the footnotes in an abbreviated form as follows : 

Annual Digest 

Br. & For. State Papers 



Cours de La Haye 
de Castro y Casaleiz . 

de Maulde-la-Claviere 
de Martens-GefFken . 

Garcia de la Vega 



Krauske . 

Annual Digest of Public International Law 

Cases. Edited by McNair and Lauter- 

pacht. Two vols. have appeared so 

far : 1925-1926, and 1927-1928. 
British and Foreign State Papers. Vols. I 

to 125 have appeared so far. 
Journal du Droit international prive et de la 

Jurisprudence comparee ; Journal du Droit 

international from 1915. 
Academic de Droit International. Recueil des 

Guia practica del Diplomdtico Espanol 

(2nd ed., 1886). 

Histoire de Louis XII, 2 dme par tie (1893). 
Le Guide Diplomatique (1866). 
Histoire de la diplomatie frangaise (2nd ed., 


Guide Pratique des Agents Politiques, etc. (1873). 
A Treatise on International Law. 8th ed., 

1924. Pearce-Higgins. 
Handbuch des Volkerrechts (1885-89). 
A Collection of all the Treaties, etc., between 

Great Britain and other Powers (1785). 
King's Bench. 

Entwickelung der stdndigen Diplomatie (1885). 
Law Reports. 

Digest of International Law (1906). 
International Law, 4th ed. McNair. 
2 vols. i. Peace (1928) ; ii. Disputes, 

War and Neutrality (1926). 


Phillimore . . Commentaries on International Law (1879-89). 

Pradier Fodere . . Cours de Droit Diplomatique (1881). 

P.R.O. . . . Public Record Office. 

Q.B. . . Queen's Bench. 

Schmelzing . . Systematischer Grundrissdes Volkerrechts (1818 


T.L.R. . . . Times Law Reports. 

Treaty Series . . British Treaty Series of Parliamentary Papers. 
Ullmann . . . Volkerrecht (1908). 

Villa Urrutia . . Relaciones entre Espana e Inglaterra durante la 

Guerra de la Independence (1911-14). 




i . DIPLOMACY is the application of intelligence and tact to 
the conduct of official relations between the governments of 
independent states, extending sometimes also to their relations 
with vassal states. 

Other definitions are : 

"La diplomatic est 1'expression par laquelle on designe depui^- 
un certain nombre d'annees, la science des rapports exterieurss" 
laquelle a pour base les diplomes ou actes ecrits emanes des souve- 
rains " (Flassan). "La science des relations exterieures ou affaires 
etrangeres des Etats, .et, dans un sens plus determine, la science 
ou 1'art des negotiations " (Ch. de Martens). "La science des rap- 
ports et des interets respectffs des Etats ou 1'art de concilier les 
interets des peuples entre eux ; et dans un sens plus determine, la 
science ou 1'art des negotiations ; elle a pour etymologic le mot 
grec StVAw/Aa, duplicata, double ou copie d'un acte emane du 
prince, et dont la minute est restee " (Garden). 

" Elle embrasse le systeme entier des interets qui naissent des 
rapports etablis entre les nations : elle a pour objet leur surete, 
leur tranquillite, leur dignite respectives ; et son but direct, imme- 
diat, est, ou doit etre au moins, le maintien de la paix et de la 
bonne harmonic entre les puissances" (same author). 

" L'ensemble des connaissances et des principes qui sont neces- 
saires pour bien conduire les affaires publiques entre les Etats " (de 
Cussy, Dictionnaire du Diplomate et du Consul}. 

" La science des relations qui existent entre les divers fitats, 


telles qu'elles resultant de leurs interets reciproques, des principes 
du droit international et des stipulations des traites " (Calvo). 

" L'art des negociations. Kliiber developpe assez bien cette 
definition en disant que c'est Tensemble des connaissances et 
principes necessaires pour bien conduire les affaires publiques 
entre les Etats.' La diplomatic eveille en effet 1'idee de gestion des 
affaires internationales, de maniement des rapports exterieurs, 
d'administration des interets nationaux des peuples et de leurs 
gouvernements, dans leur contact mutuel, soit paisible soit hostile. 
On pourrait presque dire que c'est ' le droit des gens applique ' 
(Pradier-Fodere) . 

" Die Kenntniss der zur ausseren Leitung der offentlichen 
Angelegenheiten und Geschafte der Volker oder Souveraine, und 
der zu miindlichen oder schriftlichen Verhandelungen rnit fremden 
Staaten gehorigen Grundsatze, Maximen, Fertigkeiten und 
Formen " (Schmelzing, Systematischer Grundriss des Volkerrechts] . 

According to Rivier, the use of" diplomacy" is three-fold : 

i st. La science et 1'art de la representation des Etats et des 

2nd. On emploie le meme mot . . . pour exprimer une 
notion complexe, comprenant soit 1'ensemble de la representation 
d'un Etat, y compris le ministere des affaires etrangeres, soit 
1'ensemble des agents politiques. C'est dans ce sens que Ton 
parle du merite de la diplomatic franchise a certaines epoques, de 
la diplomatic russe, autrichienne. 

3rd. Enfin on entend encore par diplomatic la carriere ou 
profession de diplomate. On se voue a la diplomatic, comme on 
se voue a la magistrature, au barreau, a 1'enseignement, aux armes 
(Principes du droit des gens] . 

2. The diplomat, says Littre, is so called, because diplomas 
are official documents (actes) emanating from princes, and the 
word diploma comes from the Greek StVAw/xa (Si7rAda>, I double) 
from the way in which they were folded. A diploma is under- 
stood to be a document by which % privilege is conferred : a 
state paper, official document, a charter. The earliest English 
instance of the use of this word is of the year 1645. 

Leibniz, in 1693, published his Codex Juris Gentium Diplo- 
maticus, Dumont in 1726 the Corps universel Diplomatique du Droit 
des Gens. Both were collections of treaties and other official 
documents. In these titles diplomaticus, diplomatique, are applied 
to a body or collection of original state-papers, but as the 
subject-matter of these particular collections was international 
relations, " corps diplomatique " appears to have been treated 
as equivalent to " corps du droit des gens," and " diplo- 
matique ' as ' having to do with international relations." 
Hence the application also to the officials connected with such 


matters. Diplomatic body x now came to signify the body of 
ambassadors, envoys and officials attached to the foreign 
missions residing at any seat of government, and diplomatic 
service that branch of the public service which supplies the 
personnel of the permanent missions in foreign countries. The 
earliest example of this use in England appears to be in the 
"Annual Register" for 1787. Burke, in 1796, speaks of the 
" diplomatic body," and also uses " diplomacy " to mean skill 
or address in the conduct of international intercourse and nego- 
tiations. The terms diplomat., diplomate, diplomatist were adopted 
to designate a member of this body. 2 In the eighteenth 
century they were scarcely known. Disraeli is quoted as 
using " diplomatic ' in 1826 as " displaying address ' in 
negotiations or intercourse of any kind (New English 
Dictionary). La diplomatique is used in French for the art of 
deciphering ancient documents, such as charters and so forth. 

3. The words, then, are comparatively modern, but diplo- 
matists existed long before the words were employed to denote 
the class. Machiavelli (1469-1527) is perhaps the most cele- 
brated of men who discharged diplomatic functions in early 
days. D'Ossat (1536-1604), Kaunitz (1710-1794), Metter- 
nich (1773-1859), Pozzo di Borgo (1764-1842), the first Lord 
Malmesbury (1764-1820), Talleyrand (1754-1838), Lord 
Stratford de Redcliffe (1786-1880) are among the most 
eminent of the profession in more recent times. If men who 
combined fame as statesmen with diplomatic reputation are 
to be included, Count Cavour (1810-1861) and Prince 
Bismarck (1815-1898) enjoyed a world-wide celebrity. 

4. " Diplomatist 5: ought, however, to be understood as 
including all the public servants employed in diplomatic 
affairs, whether serving at home in the department of foreign 
affairs, or abroad at embassies or other diplomatic agencies. 
Strictly speaking, the head of the foreign department is also a 
diplomatist, as regards his function of responsible statesman 
conducting the relations of his country with other states. This 
he does by discussion with their official representatives or by 
issuing instructions to his agents in foreign countries. Some- 
times he is a diplomatist by training and profession ; at others 
he may be a political personage, often possessed of special 
knowledge fitting him for the post. 

5. When we speak of the " diplomacy " of a country as 

1 This use of the expression first arose in Vienna about the middle of the 
eighteenth century (Ranke, cited by Holtzendorff, iii. 617). 

2 Callieres, whose book was published in 1716, never uses the word diplomats. 
He always speaks of " un bon " or " un habile negociateur." 


skilful or blundering, we do not mean the management of its 
international affairs by its agents residing abroad, but their 
direction by the statesman at the head of the department. 
Many writers and speakers are disposed to put the blame for 
a weak or unintelligent diplomacy on the agent, but this 
mistake arises from their ignorance of the organisation of 
public business. The real responsibility necessarily rests with 
the government concerned. 


6. A SOVEREIGN within the territory of a foreign state, so 
long as he is there in his capacity of sovereign, is entitled to all 
ceremonial honours befitting his position and dignity. He is 
exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the local 
tribunals, from all taxation, police regulations ; his place of 
residence may not be entered by the state authorities without 
his permission. 1 The movables he carries with him are ordin- 
arily exempt from customs duties and visitation by customs 
officers ; this privilege is also extended by general comity to 
goods destined for delivery to a foreign sovereign or his family in 
their transit through foreign countries. 2 The members of his 
suite enjoy the same immunities as himself. If he commits 
acts against public order or security, he can only be expelled, 
the necessary precautions being taken to prevent a repetition 
of such acts. On the other hand, he cannot exercise juris- 
diction over persons belonging to his suite ; if one of them 
should commit an offence, he must be sent home in order 
that the case may be dealt with by the tribunals of his own 
country, and similarly with respect to civil matters. The 
foreign sovereign cannot protect a delinquent, not a member 
of his suite, who takes refuge with him, but must surrender 
him on demand. He must not ignore administrative regula- 
tions made for the preservation of the public peace and public 
health. He must, of course, take care that they are equally 
observed by the persons in his suite. 

7. If, however, a sovereign travels incognito in the terri- 
tories of a foreign state, he can only claim to be treated as a 
private individual ; but if he declares his identity, then he 
becomes entitled to all the immunities pertaining to his rank 
as sovereign. The same rule would hold good if he entered 
the service of another sovereign ; he could only recover his 
rights by resigning the service in which he was engaged. 

8. The case of the Duke of Cumberland, who was a peer 

1 Hall, 220 ; Ullmann, 158. 2 Phillimore, ii. 139. 


of the realm in Great Britain, and King of Hanover, was 
peculiar. 1 It is conceived that if he had come to England as 
Duke, he could only have become entitled to be treated as a 
sovereign in England by returning to Hanover and coming 
again in his capacity of King. 

9. A regent governing in place of a sovereign during 
the infancy or incapacity of the sovereign, is as the incumbent 
entitled to all the privileges due to the latter, even if not a 
member of the reigning family. 2 

10. Writers differ as to the position of the president of a 
republic when in the territory of another state. While some 
see no reason for drawing any distinction between a sovereign 
and a president who is the elected head of a state, others hold 
an opposite view : 

" L'exterritorialite ne s'applique pas au president d'une repub- 
lique. De prime abord il est clair que lorsqu'un souverain, aussi 
bien qu'un president, sejournent a 1'etranger pour y exercer des 
fonctions diplomatiques, les privileges de 1'exterritorialite prennent 
existence en vertu de leur caractere diplomatique. Le droit des 
gens accorde cependant, en dehors de cela, au souverain, 1'exterri- 
torialite en vertu de la position qu'il occupe, comme chef supreme 
de 1'Etat. Pareille position ne peut etre attribute a un president ; 
il n'est pas souverain, mais seulement chef du pouvoir executif et 
simple fonctionnaire, employe de 1'fitat qu'il preside. Dans ce 
cas 1'exterritorialite n'a aucune justification et n'a pas a etre 
appliquee." 3 

11. But, however this may be, it cannot be doubted that 
no head of a republic would expose himself to any risk of 
being refused the immunities accorded to a sovereign, and 
that on the rare occasion when a president visits a foreign 
state he would expect to receive, or has been assured before- 
hand, treatment in all respect the same as that of a sovereign. 
All such ceremonious honours as those accorded to a sovereign 
appear to have been accorded on the occasion of the visit of 
the President of the French Republic to Russia in 1914, on 
the visit of the President of the United States to England in 
1918, and on the visit of the President of the French Republic 
to England in 1927. 

12. If a sovereign privately owns real property in a foreign 
state, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the local tribunals. 
Hall holds, 4 with justice in our opinion, that this applies also 

See Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1844), 6 Beav. i ; 2 H.L.C. I. 

2 Oppenheim, i. 352. 

3 Heyking, L' Exterritoriality Cours de La Haye (1925), ii. 283. 

4 Hall, 222. 


to personalty, not coming within the categories previously 
mentioned, owned in a foreign state. This seems also to be 
Ullmann's 1 view. Execution of a judgment in respect of 
contract or tort might in practice encounter difficulties. The 
practice of the English courts, both of equity and common 
law, has been in favour of the privileged exemption of 
sovereigns in all matters of contract. And the French courts 
have upheld the same principle. 2 

13. If he appeals in a civil matter to the courts of a foreign 
state, he must submit to cross-proceedings being taken against 
him 3 as the condition on which his action is entertained by 
the court. In England he must comply with the rules of 
the court, for a sovereign bringing an action in the courts of 
a foreign country brings with him no privilege which can vary 
the practice or displace the law applying to other suitors in 
those courts. 4 

14. A sovereign who has been deposed by his people, or 
who has abdicated, and whose deposition or abdication has 
been recognised by other states, and a president of a republic 
whose term of office has expired, or who has been overthrown 
by a revolution, enjoy no immunities. Any privileges ac- 
corded to such personages during their residence in other 
countries must depend on the course which the authorities of 
those countries deem it expedient to adopt. 5 

15. Ceremonial of the Visit of the President of the French Republic 
to England, May 16, 1927. 

On May 16, 1927, the President and Suite left Calais in the 
s.s. Invicta at 11.30 A.M. The vessel was met half-way across the 
Channel and escorted into Dover by a Naval Escort of four 
British destroyers, and an Air Escort of five fighter aeroplanes. 
As she approached Dover salutes were fired by the shore 

On arrival at Dover the Prince of Wales went on board to 
welcome the President on behalf of the King. His Royal Highness 
was accompanied by the French Ambassador, and presented the 
British Suite specially attached to the President for the period of 
the State visit. 

In attendance on the President : Field Marshal Earl Haig ; 
Lord Colebrook, Lord-in- Waiting to the King ; Major Reginald 
Seymour, Equerry to the King. 

The following were the names of the French Suite in attend- 
ance : Monsieur Jules Michel, Secretaire General Civil de la 

1 Ullmann, 1 59 and footnote. 

2 Phillimore, ii. 144 ; Oppenheim, i. 1 15. 3 See on this point 348. 
4 Phillimore, ii. 151. 5 Ibid., ii. 149. 


Presidence de la Republique ; Monsieur P. de Fouquieres, Ministre 
Plenipotentiaire, Directeur du Protocole ; Monsieur le Contre- 
Amiral Vedel, Attache a la personne du President de la Repub- 
lique ; Monsieur le Lieutenant-Colonel de Boyve, Attache a la 
personne du President de la Republique ; Monsieur le Lieutenant- 
Colonel Philippe, Attache a la personne du President de la Repub- 
lique ; Monsieur Barbier, Administrateur de 1'Agence Havas ; 
Monsieur Dubois, Officier d'Administration de lere Classe, Chef 
du Secretariat Militaire. 

Monsieur A. Briand, President du Conseil, Ministre des Affaires 
fitrangeres, and Monsieur Leger, Ministre Plenipotentiaire, Chef 
du Cabinet, also accompanied the President. 

At i P.M. the President was conducted on shore by the Prince 
of Wales, and was received by the Lord Warden of the Cinque 
Ports, His Majesty's Lieutenant for the County of Kent, the Com- 
mander-in-Chief The Nore, the General Officer Commanding- 
in-Chief Eastern Command, and the Air Officer Commanding 
Coastal Area. 

Guards of Honour of the Royal Navy and of the First Battalion, 
Lancashire Fusiliers, were mounted on the Pier. 

An address was presented to the President by the Mayor and 
Corporation of Dover, on the Station Platform. 

A special train left Dover Marine Station at 1.15 P.M. to convey 
the President to London. 

The President of the French Republic, accompanied by the 
Prince of Wales, arrived at Victoria Station at 3 P.M., where they 
were met by the King and Members of the Royal Family. 

There were also present at the station the Prime Minister, the 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for 
the Home Department, H.M. Vice-Lieutenant for the County of 
London, the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, the First Sea Lord of the 
Admiralty, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the Chief of 
the Air Staff, the Chairman of the London County Council, and 
the Mayor of the City of Westminster. 

Levee dress was worn. 

A Guard of Honour of the 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards 
was mounted at the station. 

The President was conducted to his carriage by the Earl of 
Granard, Master of the Horse, and then proceeded in carriage pro- 
cession, accompanied by the King and Prince of Wales, and escorted 
by a Sovereign's Escort of the Household Cavalry with Standard, 
to Buckingham Palace. The Procession left Victoria Station at 
3.10 P.M., and arrived at Buckingham Palace at 3.25 P.M. 

First Carriage. 

The President of the French Republic. 
The King. 

H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. 
H.R.H. Prince Henry. 


Second Carriage. 

Monsieur A. Briand. 
The French Ambassador. 
Monsieur Jules Michel. 
The Master of the Horse. 

Third Carriage. 

Monsieur de Fouquieres. 
Monsieur le Contre-Amiral Vedel. 
Monsieur Leger. 
Field-Marshal Earl Haig. 

Fourth Carriage. 

Monsieur le Lieut. -Colonel de Boyve. 
Monsieur le Lieut. -Colonel Philippe. 
Monsieur Barbier. 
Lord Colebrooke. 

Fifth Carriage. 

Monsieur Dubois. 
Captain Sir C. Gust, Bart., R.N. 
Major Reginald Seymour. 
Capt. Hon. Alexander Hardinge. 

The streets were lined with troops. 

The King's Guard, with the King's Colour and Band, were 
mounted in the Quadrangle of the Palace. 

The Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, the Captain of the 
Gentlemen-at-Arms, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, 
the Treasurer to the King and the Keeper of the Privy Purse, the 
Private Secretary to the King, the Master of the Household, the 
Comptroller of the Lord Chamberlain's Office, the Crown Equerry, 
the Deputy Treasurer to the King, the Marshal of the Diplomatic 
Corps, and the Gentlemen of the Household-in- Waiting were in 
attendance in the Grand Hall. 

The Queen received the President of the French Republic in 
the Bow Room. The Mistress of the Robes, the Ladies-in- Waiting, 
the Lord Chamberlain to the Queen, the Treasurer to the Queen, 
and the Private Secretary to the Queen were in attendance. 

The Suite of the President of the French Republic were received 
by the King and Queen in the Bow Room. 

Guards of the King's Bodyguard of the Honourable Corps of 
Gentlemen-at-Arms and His Majesty's Bodyguard of the Yeomen 
of the Guard were on duty in the Grand Hall. The King's Indian 
Orderly Officers were also on duty. 

Levee dress was worn. 

At 4.30 P.M. the President and Suite left Buckingham Palace 
in motor-cars to visit the Cenotaph and the Grave of the Unknown 
Warrior in Westminster Abbey, being received at the Cenotaph 


by the Second Sea Lord of the Admiralty, the Adjutant-General to 
the Forces, and a Service Member of the Air Council ; and at 
Westminster Abbey by the Very Reverend the Dean. 

Afterwards the President visited members of the Royal Family. 

At 5.45 P.M. the President arrived at St. James's Palace, where 
he received the personnel of the French Embassy, Addresses from 
the London County Council and the City of Westminster, and held 
a reception of the French Chamber of Commerce and the French 

Morning dress was worn. 

In the evening the King and Queen gave a State Banquet at 
Buckingham Palace in honour of the President at 8.10 P.M. 

A Guard of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard 
were on duty. 

Full dress was worn. 

On May 1 7, the President and Suite visited Oxford University, 
where he received the Degree of Doctor of Civil Law, thereafter 
returning to Buckingham Palace. Morning dress was worn. In 
the evening the President entertained the King and Queen to 
dinner at the French Embassy. Evening dress (Decorations, 
Star and Riband) was worn. 

On May 18, the President visited the French Hospital, after- 
wards receiving the Chefs de Mission of the Corps Diplomatique 
in the Bow Room, Buckingham Palace. Morning dress was worn 
by the Corps Diplomatique. In the afternoon he visited the 
Guildhall, where an Address was presented by the Lord Mayor 
and the Corporation of the City of London, and was entertained 
at luncheon by the Corporation of the City of London. Levee 
dress was worn. Later the President visited 1'Institut Franc.ais 
du Royaume-Uni. In the evening the President was entertained 
to dinner at the Foreign Office by the Secretary of State for Foreign 
Affairs. Levee dress was worn. 

On May 19, the State Visit of the President of the French 
Republic concluded. 

1 6. Ceremonial of the Vatican on the reception of a Sovereign, 
as observed on the visit of the King and Queen of the Belgians, the 
Duke and Duchess of Brabant, the Count of Flanders, and Princess 
Marie Jose, January 7, 1930. 

General Dispositions. The Ceremony is directed by the Mon- 
signor Secretary of Ceremonial. The Italian Government under- 
takes to keep the Piazza of Sf. Peter's and the Colonnade entirely 
clear of the public from at least two hours before the arrival of the 
Royal Procession until Their Majesties shall have left the City of 
the Vatican. The police service along the route within the Vatican 
City, including the Piazza of St. Peter's, is entrusted to the Com- 
mandant of the Pontifical Gendarmerie, who will be careful to see 
that all windows and doors opening on the line of route are kept 
closed. The Museums, Galleries and Offices of the Vatican City 


and the Basilica of St. Peter's are all closed. All Military Guards are 
posted two hours before the arrival of the Royal Procession and are 
withdrawn only when Their Majesties have left the Vatican City. 
Admission to, and circulation within, the line of route are pro- 
hibited to all strangers. Those who, for official reasons, have need 
to enter the Vatican City are furnished with a special card issued 
by the Governor of the Vatican City. The Military are under 
the orders of the Governor of the Vatican City and of Monsignor 
the Master of the Household. All persons on duty in the Ante- 
Chamber do not leave the Pontifical Apartments until they receive 
orders from the Master of the Household. The Privy Chamberlains 
of Sword and Cape on duty are increased in accordance with the 
exigencies of the service. The Dignitaries of the Pontifical Court 
on duty wear full dress. 

The Commandant of the Noble Guard is warned for duty in 
the Secret Ante-Chamber, and at the appropriate moment, in 
company with the Master of the Household proceeds to the Porch 
of the Papal Stairs, accompanied by an officer of his Staff to await 
the arrival of the Sovereigns. At the same time another officer of 
the Noble Guard proceeds with the Privy Almoner to the Sala 
Clementina. Two Cadets and eighteen Guards are on duty in 
the usual apartment. Sixteen Guards are formed up in a double 
rank and the remaining two on sentry duty, one at the threshold 
of their apartment, the other at the door of the Secret Ante- 
Chamber. Twenty Guards are paraded in the Sala Ducale, on 
the window side. Full dress uniform. 

A double Picket of Swiss Guards posted at the edge of the 
Piazza of St. Peter's renders due honours to the Sovereigns while 
the Band of the Corps plays the Belgian National Anthem. Pickets 
are posted on the line of route and at the Porch of the Papal Stairs. 
An escort is in waiting consisting of one Sergeant, one Corporal, 
and seven Guardsmen. A detachment is paraded in the Sala 
Clementina, under the command of an officer, to render the usual 
honours. Two officers are in the Sala degli Arazzi, the Lieutenant- 
Colonel in the Throne Room and the Colonel Commandant in the 
Secret Ante-Chamber. The latter, at the appropriate moment, 
accompanies the Master of the Household and the Commandant 
of the Noble Guard to the Porch of the Papal Stairs to await the 
arrival of the Sovereigns. Guards are posted in the Chapel of the 
Blessed Sacrament and along the Altar of the Confession. Full 
dress uniform. 

A Company of the Palatine Guard is paraded on the edge of 
the Piazza of St. Peter's, under the command of a Captain, and 
detachments are posted along the line of route. The Band of the 
Corps and the Guard of Honour are in the Cortile di S. Damaso. 
Ten officers line the route between the entrance to the Cortile of 
the Holy Office and the Papal Stairs. On the arrival of the 
Sovereigns in the Cortile di S. Damaso, the Band plays the Belgian 
National Anthem, while the Guard of Honour renders the cus- 
tomary salute. Various detachments are posted in the Papal 


Apartments, the Colonel Commandant in the Throne Room. 
There is also a guard in the Portico of the Basilica of St. Peter's 
and the Guard of Honour with the Band subsequently proceeds 
to the steps outside the Basilica to render honours on the departure 
of the Sovereigns. Full dress uniform. 

A platoon of the Pontifical Gendarmerie is posted at the entrance 
to the Vatican City and Guards line the route on police service. 
In the Cortile Borgia two Trumpeters announce the arrival of the 
Sovereigns. In the Cortile di S. Damaso there is a Guard of 
Honour with the Band. Two Guards with drawn swords are 
posted at all the entries into the Cortile di S. Damaso. In the 
Papal Apartments a Picket is posted to render the due honours to 
the Sovereigns. The Major Commandant of the Corps is in the 
Throne Room and two Gendarmes are on duty in the Apartments 
of the Secretary of State. Full dress uniform. 

The Visit to His Holiness. The Royal Procession enters the 
Piazza of St. Peter's from the Piazza Rusticucci and halts on coming 
to the border. Awaiting them are the Governor of the Vatican 
City with his Staff, the Counsellor General of the Vatican City and 
the Postmaster-General. The Guards of Honour of the Swiss 
Guard and of the Palatine Guard give a Royal Salute and the 
Band of the Swiss Guard plays the Belgian National Anthem. The 
Governor approaches the Royal Carriage and presents to Their 
Majesties the Counsellor General and the Postmaster-General, who 
in their own carriages join the Procession, which proceeds to the 
Cortile di San Damaso where the Band of the Palatine Guard 
plays the National Anthem and the Royal Salute is given. On the 
first landing of the Papal Stairs the Master of the Household, the 
Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, the Secretary of Ceremonial, 
the Quarter-Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, the Master of 
the Horse, the Commandants of the Noble Guard and of the Swiss 
Guard and four Privy Chamberlains await Their Majesties. Six 
Parafrenieri, the Picket of the Swiss Guard, and six Ushers are in 
readiness to form the Procession. The Grand Master of the Sacred 
Hospice descends into the Cortile and opens the door of the carriage 
for Their Majesties to alight. The Secretary of the Ceremonial 
presents to the Sovereigns the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, 
who in his turn presents the Master of the Household. The 
Secretary of the Ceremonial receives the other Royalties and 
presents the Master of the Household. In the meantime the Suite 
alight from their carriages and take up position in the Procession 
which ascends the Papal Stairs in the following order : 

A Sergeant of the Swiss Guard ; six Parafrenieri followed by 
the Dean of the Papal Apartments ; six Ushers ; Their Majesties, 
with the Master of the Household on their right, and on their left 
the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, who offers his arm to her 
Majesty the Queen ; the Princes and the Princesses and the Royal 
Suite accompanied by Pontifical Dignitaries ; the Escort of the 
Swiss Guard flanks and closes the procession. 

In the Sala Clementina Their Majesties are awaited by the 


Almoner to His Holiness, the Sacrist, two Monsignori Chamber- 
lains Partecipanti, a Pontifical Master of the Ceremonies, a 
Monsignor Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary, an Officer of the 
Staff of the Noble Guard and two Consistorial Advocates. The 
Master of the Household presents to the Sovereigns and to Their 
Royal Highnesses the Privy Almoner. The Procession crosses the 
Sala Clementina, and the Swiss Guards fall out and line the entrance 
to the Sala dei Parafrenieri awaiting the return of the Royal Pro- 
cession. Similarly in the next room the Parafrenieri fall out. 
Likewise the Suite of the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, and 
also in the Sala degli Arazzi the six Ushers. The Procession then 
enters the Throne Room, where the Commandant of the Palatine 
Guard, the Lieutenant-Colonel of the Swiss Guard and the Com- 
mandant of the Pontifical Gendarmerie, one clerical and one lay 
Privy Chamberlain with three others are waiting. At the entrance 
to the Throne Room the Privy Chamberlains and the Consistorial 
Advocates fall out from the Procession to await the return of the 
Sovereigns. Their Majesties then enter the Hall of St. John, where 
the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, the Privy Almoner and 
the Secretary of Ceremonial together with the Royal Suite fall out, 
while the Master of the Household introduces the Sovereigns and 
Their Royal Highnesses to the Holy Father in the Little Throne 

His Holiness, in rochet and mozzetta, on notification from the 
Chamberlain on duty, proceeds to meet Their Majesties and Their 
Royal Highnesses in the doorway of the Little Throne Room. The 
Holy Father seats himself on the Chair under the Canopy and 
invites his guests to be seated. The Master of the Household, after 
offering chairs to Their Majesties and to Their Royal Highnesses, 
withdraws. The visit over, Their Majesties present to His Holiness 
their Suite, who are introduced by the Master of the Household. 
Then His Holiness accompanies them to the door of the Little 
Throne Room and takes his leave. The Sovereigns and Their 
Royal Highnesses, accompanied by the Master of the Household, 
pass into the Secret Ante-Chamber, where its members are pre- 
sented in order of precedence. The Procession is then re-formed 
in the same order as before. During the passage through the 
various Apartments the Master of the Household presents the 
various Dignitaries on duty. At the exit from the Sala Clementina 
the Privy Almoner, the Sacrist, the two Clerical Privy Chamberlains, 
the Master of the Ceremonies, the Staff Officer of the Noble Guard, 
and the two Consistorial Advocates take leave of Their Majesties. 

Visit to the Cardinal Secretary of State. The Procession descends 
to the first floor, to the Apartments of the Cardinal Secretary of 
State. In the Hall of the Congregations there are awaiting them 
the three Prelates, Heads of Departments in the Secretariat of 
State, i.e. the Under-Secretary and Assistant Under-Secretary of 
State and the Chancellor of Apostolic Briefs. In the entrance Hall, 
two Prelates, a Pontifical Master of the Ceremonies, the Cardinal's 
Gentleman-in-Waiting, his Master of the Household, and Train 


Bearer, await Their Majesties. The Cardinal Secretary of State 
moves 'to meet Their Majesties half-way along the Corner Room. 
The Master of the Household of His Holiness presents His Eminence 
to the Sovereigns and to Their Royal Highnesses. The Cardinal 
accompanies Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses into the 
Throne Room, where he invites them to be seated. The Master 
of the Ceremonies, after offering them chairs, retires and the 
remainder of the Party wait in the Hall of the Congregations. 
The conversation over, the Cardinal accompanies the Sovereigns 
into the Hall of the Congregations, where reciprocal presentations 
are made. Then the Cardinal accompanies Their Majesties to the 
Corner Room and takes his leave. During the visit the participants 
in the Procession, other than those in the Hall of the Congregations, 
are posted in the various Rooms of the Cardinal's Apartments and, 
on the return of the Sovereigns, resume their proper places in the 
Procession, which then by the Sala Giula, the Sala Ducale and 
the Sala Regia, descends the Scala Regia to the Statue of Con- 
stantine and enters the Basilica of St. Peter by the Main Door. 

Visit to the Basilica of St. Peter. To the right of the main entrance, 
the Cardinal Arch-Priest, in cappa magna, accompanied by his 
Court, the Econome of St. Peter's and a Commission of six Canons 
in Choir Dress await Their Majesties. In front of His Eminence 
are also placed the Clerics of the Vatican in Choir Dress. The 
Master of the Household presents the Cardinal Arch-Priest to the 
Sovereigns and to Their Royal Highnesses, who in turn presents 
to Their Majesties the Econome of the Basilica, the six Canons, 
the Chapter and the Clergy of the Basilica " en masse." The 
Cardinal Arch-Priest then offers to Their Majesties and to Their 
Royal Highnesses the Holy Water, with which they make the Sign 
of the Cross. Their Majesties, accompanied by the Cardinal 
Arch-Priest and by the Master of the Household of His Holiness 
and followed by Their Royal Highnesses, the Econome, the Com- 
mission of Canons, and the Dignitaries forming part of the Pro- 
cession, proceed by the Central Nave to the Chapel of the Blessed 
Sacrament. There they say a prayer on the prie-dieu placed at 
their disposal while the Suite and the Pontifical Dignitaries kneel 
at special places prepared for them. Then Their Majesties pro- 
ceed to the Altar of the Confession to pray at the Tomb of St. 
Peter. The visit over, the Royal Procession proceeding down the 
Central Nave leaves by the Main Door, where the Cardinal Arch- 
Priest, the Econome and the Commission of Canons take their leave. 

During the visit of Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses 
the rest of the Vatican Clergy remain in their places to render 
honour to the Sovereigns on their departure from the Basilica. 
The Sovereigns and Their Royal Highnesses depart by the Piazza. 
of St. Peter's. At the foot of the steps the Master of the Household, 
the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, the Secretary of the 
Ceremonial and the other Dignitaries of the Pontifical Court take 
their leave. Their Majesties enter their carriage, the Grand Master 
of the Sacred Hospice closing the door. Their Royal Highnesses 


and the Suite then enter their carriages and the Procession departs 
in the original order. The Guard of Honour of the Palatine Guard 
drawn up on the steps presents arms, while the Band plays the 
Pontifical Hymn. 

Return Visit. As soon as Their Majesties have returned to their 
Apartments in the Quirinal Palace, the Cardinal Secretary of State 
together with his Noble Court proceeds thither to return the visit. 

Non-Catholic Sovereigns, Heads of States and Other Royal Personages. 
The ceremonial for the reception of non-Catholic Sovereigns, 
Heads of States and Royal Personages of lesser grades, is arranged 
generally on the above lines, with the modifications adapted to 
meet each individual case. 


17. THE minister for foreign affairs is the regular inter- 
mediary between the state and foreign countries. His func- 
tions are regulated by domestic legislation and traditions, and 
his powers vary according to the political organisations of 
different states. 

Foreign governments address themselves to the minister for 
foreign affairs either through their own diplomatic agent 
abroad, or through the diplomatic agent who represents his 
sovereign or government at their own capital. As a general 
rule notes and other communications concerning relations 
with other countries are signed by him, or on his behalf. 
Under his orders are drawn up documents connected with 
foreign relations, drafts of treaties and conventions, state- 
ments of fact and law, manifestos and declarations. The 
negotiation of treaties rests with him and he watches over 
their execution. Ratifications of treaties are exchanged by 
him or his agents. He proposes to the head of the state the 
nomination of diplomatic agents, he draws up .their credentials 
and full powers for signature by the head of the state, and 
gives them their instructions. He advises the head of the 
state as to the acceptance of persons who have been proposed 
to be accredited to him, and also as regards the issue of 
exequaturs to foreign consular officers. The consular service 
receives its orders from him. Foreign representatives address 
themselves to him in order to obtain an audience of the head 
of the state. 

1 8. On taking office the minister for foreign affairs 
informs the diplomatic representatives of foreign states, and 
customarily receives them as soon as possible thereafter at his 
official residence to exchange greetings with them. He also 
informs the diplomatic agents of his own country accredited 

19. In Great Britain it is usual for the retiring Secretary 
of State for Foreign Affairs to address to the foreign diplo- 
matic representatives an announcement in some such terms as 


I have the honour to inform you that the King has been 
graciously pleased to accept my resignation of the office of His 
Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to 
confide the seals of this Department to . 

His successor, on assuming office, addresses a notification to 
the foreign diplomatic representatives in such terms as 

I have the honour to acquaint you that the King has been 
graciously pleased to accept the Right Honourable 's resig- 
nation of the office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, and to confide to me the seals of this 

Arrangements are then made for the reception by the 
incoming Secretary of State of the heads of missions in the 
order of their precedence in the diplomatic list. 

20. In all communications with the government of the 
state to which they are accredited, diplomatic agents should 
address themselves to the minister for foreign affairs, whether 
in seeking information as to the views or practice of that 
government in regard to various matters that may arise, or 
in furnishing information as to the views or practice of their 
own government. 

The Pan-American Convention respecting diplomatic officers, 
signed at Havana on February 20, 1928, lays down for the signa- 
tory States the following rules : 

'' Article 13. Diplomatic officers shall, in their official com- 
munications, address themselves to the Minister of Foreign 
Relations or Secretary of State of the country to which they are 
accredited. Communications to other authorities shall also be 
made through the said Minister or Secretary." 

21. Of this high office, Baron de Martens said : 

" A 1'egard des relations exterieures . . . il faut demander, 
sollicker, negocier ; le moindre mot inconsidere peut blesser toute 
une nation ; une fausse demarche, un faux calcul, une combinaison 
fausse ou hasardee, une simple indiscretion, peuvent compromettre 
et la dignite du gouvernement et 1'interet national. La politique 
exterieure d'un tat presente des rapports si varies, si compliques, 
si sujets a changer, et a la fois environnes de tant d'ecueils et de 
difficultes, qu'on concevra facilement combien doivent etre difficiles 
et delicates les fonctions de celui qui est appele a la direction d'une 
telle administration. . . . On est tellement habitue a juger d'apres 
le caractere, les principes et les qualites personnelles du ministre des 
relations exterieures, le systeme de sa politique, que sa nomination 
ou son renvoi sont toujours considered comme des evenements 
politiques. . . . 


" II doit avoir une connaissance exacte des interets commerciaux 
qui rapprochent les Etats, des ressources materielles de tout genre 
qui font leur force, des traites et conventions qui les lient, des 


lites de puissances qui en compliquent 1'action ; depositaire en 
quelque sorte de 1'honneur et des interets generaux de son pays, 
dans ses rapports exterieurs, il doit s'appliquer a bien connaitre 
les homines, afin de ne faire que des choix convenables dans le 
personnel de ses agents au dehors, et de ne remettre qu'a des mains 
capables et dignes la sauvegarde de ces interets si graves et de 
cet honneur si ombrageux. L'experience acquise, les services 
anterieurement rendus, la notoriete du talent, la consideration 
personnelle, sont des elements essentiels de sa confiance." l 

At the present day the duties and responsibilities of the 
minister who is entrusted with the conduct of the foreign 
relations of his country range over a yet wider field than when 
the above was written. The birth of new states, the advance- 
ment of others, constitutional changes which may occur in 
their methods of government, the growth of organisations 
designed to foster a better understanding between the nations 
of the world, the ever-increasing complexity of international 
relationships, and the many questions to which all these give 
rise, have largely extended the area within which diplomacy 
finds its proper scope, and call for close and unremitting 

22. In every country the Foreign Minister is assisted by a 
trained staff who, under his guidance, constitute the Foreign 
Office or Ministry for Foreign Affairs. In Great Britain the 
permanent staff of the Foreign Office has at its head the 
Permanent Under- Secretary of State, who has the rank of 
ambassador ; two Deputy Under-Secretaries of State and two 
Assistant Under-Secretaries of State, who have the rank of 
minister ; and the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State, 
who holds office as a member of the government in power 
for the time being. 

* 23. In most countries the title of the minister who directs 
foreign relations is Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the language 
of the country concerned, or Minister of Foreign Relations. 
In Great Britain it is Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ; in 
the United States it is Secretary of State, though the authority 
of the President predominates in foreign affairs as in all other 
matters. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics foreign 

1 de Martens-Geffken, i. 25. 


relations are controlled by the People's Commissary for 
Foreign Affairs. 

Occasionally the holder of the office combines this with 
other functions. In Great Britain within modern times the 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has on two occasions 
also been Prime Minister. In France he is often President of 
the Council. In Germany, he might be also Chancellor ; in 
Austria, also State Chancellor. 

24. In England the King's Secretary is first heard of in 
1253, in the reign of Henry III. The office was at first a 
part of the royal household. Its holder might be a man of 
character and capacity, fit to be a member of the King's 
Council, or to be sent as an envoy to foreign powers. Such 
were the Secretaries of Henry III and Edward I. Or he 
might be an inferior officer of the household, and such seems 
to have been the position of the Secretary of Edward III. 
In 1433 (reign of Henry VI) two Secretaries were appointed, 
one by the delivery of the King's Signet, the other by patent. 
In 1476 (reign of Edward IV) a newly appointed Secretary is 
described as Principal Secretary. In the reign of Henry VIII 
the position of Principal Secretary was advanced. They were 
still members of the household, but ranked next to the greater 
household officers, and in Parliament and Council they had 
their place assigned by statute. In 1539 a warrant issued to 
Thomas Wriothesley and Ralph Sadler gave them " the name 
and office of the King's Majesty's Principal Secretaries during 
his Highness' pleasure." After Henry's reign the Secretary 
ceased to be a member of the household. 

During the greater part of Elizabeth's reign there was 
but one Secretary, but at the close of it Sir Robert Cecil 
shared the duties with another, he being called " Our Prin- 
cipal Secretary of Estate," and the other " one of our Secre- 
taries of Estate." From this time, until the year 1794, it was 
the rule that there should be two Secretaries of State ; the 
exceptions occurred in 1616, when there were three from 
1 707 until 1 746, when there was usually a third Secretary for 
Scottish business and from 1768 until 1782, when there was a 
third Secretary for Colonial business. 

Down to 1 782 the duties of the two Secretaries, as regards 
foreign affairs, were divided geographically into Northern and 
Southern Departments, and until that year they were described 
in official documents relating to the staff common to both as 
" His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for Foreign 
Affairs." The Northern Secretary used to announce himself 


to resident heads of foreign missions thus : ' Le Roi m'ayant 
fait 1'honneur de me nommer aujourd'hui son Secretaire 
d'fitat pour le department du Nord," but on March 27, 
1782, Fox announced to them that " le Roi m'ayant fait 
1'honneur de me nommer son Secretaire d'fitat pour le 
Departement des affaires etrangeres, etc." Since 1782, there- 
fore, the Secretaryship of State for Foreign Affairs has always 
been entrusted to a single person. Sir William Anson says : 
" I cannot ascertain that any Order in Council or depart- 
mental minute authorises or records this important administra- 
tive change." 1 

25. The mode of appointment of His Majesty's Secretary 
of State for Foreign Affairs is by the delivery to him by the 
sovereign of the seals of office. There are three seals, the 
signet, a lesser seal, and a small seal called the cachet ; all 
these are engraved with the Royal arms, but the signet alone 
has the supporters. In the Foreign Office, diplomatic and 
consular commissions signed by the sovereign pass under 
the signet ; the lesser seal is used for royal warrants (such 
as instruments authorising the affixing of the Great Seal to 
full powers and to ratifications of treaties) ; the cachet is 
used to seal the envelopes of letters containing communica- 
tions of a personal character made by the King to foreign 

Patents were issued from the fifteenth century onwards till 
1852. From that time the practice was intermittent till 1868, 
but since the latter date patents have not been issued, nor in 
any case would they affect the powers of the Secretary of 
State, for these follow the seals. 2 

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs holds a general 
full power from the King, authorising him to negotiate and 
conclude, subject if necessary to His Majesty's ratification, 
any treaty in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 
and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate 
members of the League of Nations. 

26. It was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that 
most of the European monarchies established a special branch 
of the administration for foreign affairs. In the reign of 
Francis I of France there was a secret committee to which 
was committed the discussion of questions of foreign policy. 
In 1547, at the beginning of the reign of Henry II, the depart- 
ment of Secretaries of State was founded. There were four 

1 Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution (3rd ed.), ii. pt. i, 166. 

2 Anson, op. cit., 168. 


such secretaries who shared home and foreign affairs among 
them. In the reign of Charles IX the Foreign Office was 
divided into four departments : (i) Italy and Piedmont, 
(2) Denmark, Sweden and Poland, (3) the Emperor, Spain, 
Portugal, the Low Countries, England and Scotland, (4) Ger- 
many and Switzerland. In 1589 a single ministry for foreign 
affairs was formed, and all foreign correspondence was com- 
mitted to a single Secretary of State. But previously to 1787 
he shared the direction of home affairs with the departments 
of War, Marine and the Household. Thus, he had charge of 
Upper and Lower Guyenne, Normandy, Champagne and 
part of La Brie, the principality of Dombes and Berry. 
But on Montmorin succeeding to Vergennes as Secretary of 
State in that year, his functions were confined to foreign 
affairs. 1 

Charles V of Spain had a secret council of state which 
furnished advice to the Emperor through the minister charged 
with the foreign branch of the administration, while in Spain 
a somewhat complicated system was established. 

Under the Tsar Ivan III of Russia a " chamber of em- 
bassies " was employed about international relations. 

27. In most countries special care has been devoted to 
the preservation of public documents. In England, from the 
fourteenth century, papers were deposited at the Tower of 
London. Queen Elizabeth, in 1578, created the State Paper 
Office for the documents belonging to the Secretary of 
State, which has developed into the existing Public Record 

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the foreign, 
domestic, colonial and military records, generally described 
as State Papers, were preserved in a common repository, at 
first in Whitehall, and after 1833 in the new State Paper Office 
built in St. James's Park. During this period they were under 
the immediate charge of a Keeper of the State Papers and a 
separate staff; but in 1854 the establishment of the State 
Paper Office was amalgamated with that of the Public Record 
Office, and in 1862 the building was pulled down and its 
contents transferred to the Record Office. 

The older Foreign Office records, that is those prior to 
1760, were transferred to the Public Record Office in 1862, 
with the rest of the contents of the State Paper Office. Fre- 
quent transfers of the more modern papers have taken place 
since 1868, but at irregular intervals. The Foreign Office 

1 Masson, Le De'partement des Affaires Etrangeres pendant la Revolution, 56. 


records now in the Public Record Office extend up to 1909, 
and public access may be had up to 1885. Correspondence of 
later date than 1909 is retained by the Foreign Office, which 
also keeps the indexes and registers of letters received from 

28. In many other countries public documents are simi- 
larly centralised, and access thereto permitted up to certain 
dates, concerning which particulars can doubtless be obtained, 
where desired, by application to the proper department of the 
government concerned. 




29. THE Pope in early times claimed the right of fixing the 
order of precedence among the heads of states. The prece- 
dence of the Pope above all other potentates was assumed as 
a matter of course. Next in order came the Emperor 1 ; then 
the King of the Romans, who was the heir-apparent of the 
latter (by election). 

30. The list of sovereigns frequently attributed to Pope 
Julius II in 1504 was never promulgated by him. But in 
that year Paris de Grassis of Bologna became one of the two 
masters of ceremony of the papal chapel. At the beginning of 
a diary kept by him occurs the list, which with some variations 
has been regarded as a regulation intended to settle disputed 
questions of precedence. It formed part of a passage relating 
the reception on May 12, 1504, of the ambassade cT obedience 
from the King of England, and is as follows : 

Ordo Regum Christianorum. 

Imperator Caesar, 

Rex Romanorum, 

Rex Franciae, 

Rex Hispaniae, 

Rex Aragoniae, 

Rex Portugallise, 

Rex Angliae, cum tribus discors praedictis, 

Rex Sicilian, discors cum rege Portugalliae, 

Rex Scotiae et Rex Ungarias inter se discordes, 

Rex Navarrae, 

1 " Emperor of Germany," though often found in historical works applied to 
the head of the Holy Roman Empire, and even " German Emperor," were 
probably only convenient corruptions of the proper title (Bryce, Holy Roman 
Empire, lib. edit., 1889, p. 305). From the eleventh to the sixteenth century, 
that was, until his coronation, Romanorum rex semper Augustus, and after the 
ceremony, Romanorum Imperator semper Augustus. In 1508 Maximilian obtained 
a bull from Julius II permitting him to call himself Imperator electus. This became 
till 1806 the strict legal designation, though the word " elect " was often omitted 
(ibid., p. 432). 


Rex Cipri, 
Rex Bohemiae, 
Rex Poloniae, 
Rex Daniae. 

Ordo Ducum. 

Dux Britanniae, 
Dux Burgundiae, 
Dux Bavariae, comes Palatinus. 
Dux Saxoniae, 
Marchio Brandenburgensis, 
Dux Austriae, 
Dux Sabaudiae, 
Dux Mediolani, 
Dux Venetiarum, 
Duces Bavariae, 

Duces Franciae et Lotharingiae, 
Dux Borboniae, 

Dux Aurelianensis, Isti quatuor non praestant obedien- 
tiam Sedi Apostolicae quia subditi imperatoris sunt, 
Dux Januae, 
Dux Ferrariae. 1 

31. A bull of Leo X dated March, 1516, uses the following 
language : 

' Christianissimus in Christo filius noster, Maximilianus, in 
imperatorem electus, Julii II praedecessoris nostri, nostro vero 
tempore, clarissimae memoriae, Ludovicus Francorum et ceteri 
reges Christiani. . . . Laterensi concilio adhaeserunt," 2 which 
shows that the king of France enjoyed precedence over all 
other kings. 

32. The first place being conceded to the Pope, and the 
second, with universal assent, to the Emperor, up to the fall 
of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, the question was as to 
the others. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden asserted the equality 
of all crowned heads, Queen Christina maintained it at the 
Congress of Westphalia, and in 1718 it was claimed for Great 
Britain on the occasion of the Quadruple Alliance. 

33. A comparison of the antiquity of royal titles shows the 
following order : 

France (accession of Clovis, A.D. 481, besides the rank 
derived from the character of" eldest son of the Church " 
attributed to the King of France) . 

1 Paris de Grassis Brit. Mus., Diarium, MSS. 8440, 8444, quoted by Nys 
Revue de Droit International et Legislation compare, xxv. 515. 

2 de Maulde la Claviere, 2nd part, i. 65. 


Spain (kingdom of the Asturias in 718). 

England (Egbert, 827). 

Austria (Hungary a kingdom since 1000). 

Denmark (Canute, 1015). 

Two Sicilies (Norman kingdom, 1130). 

Sweden (1132, reunion of the kingdoms of the Swedes and 


Portugal (Affonso I, in 1139). 
Prussia (kingdom, January n, 1701). 
Italy (kingdom of Sardinia, 1720). 

Russia (assumption of the title of Emperor,October 22,1721). 
Bavaria (December 26, 1805). 
Saxony (December n, 1806). 
Wiirttemberg (December 26, 1806). 
Hanover (October 12, 1814). 
Holland (May 16, 1816). 
Belgium (July 2, 1831). 
Greece (May 7, 1832). 
Turkey (" admitted to share in the advantages of European 

public law and concert ' : by the Treaty of Paris, 

March 30, 

34. But until the matter was finally settled at the Congress 
of Vienna in 1815 constant disputes arose. 

In 1564 Pius IV declared that France was entitled to pre- 
cedence over Spain in a question respecting the relative rank 
of the ambassadors of the two Powers at Rome. 2 In i633, 3 
Christian IV of Denmark having proposed to celebrate the 
wedding of his son, the Crown prince, a dispute arose between 
the French and Spanish ambassadors, the Comte d'Avaux and 
the Marques de la Fuente. The Danish ministers proposed 
to d'Avaux various solutions of the difficulty, and among these 
that he should sit next to the King, or next to the Imperial 
ambassador. To this he replied : "I will give the Spanish 
ambassador the choice of the place which he regards as the 
most honourable, and when he shall have taken it, I will turn 
him out and take it myself." To avoid further dispute, de la 
Fuente, on a plea of urgent business elsewhere, absented him- 
self from the ceremony. In 1657, a contest of the same kind 
occurred at The Hague, between de Thou, special ambassador, 
and the Spanish ambassador Gamarra. 4 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 525. 

2 Flassan, ii. 66 ; Prescott, Philip II (ed. 1855), 233, says it was Pius V. 

3 Flassan, iii. 13. 

4 Lefevre-Pontalis, Jean de Witt, i. 245 ; Chappuzeau, L 'Europe Vivante, cited 
by D. J. Hill, History of European Diplomacy, iii. 26. 


35. A more serious affair happened in London on Sep- 
tember 30, 1 66 1, on the occasion of the state entry of the 
Swedish ambassador. It was the custom at such " functions " 
for the resident ambassadors to send their coaches to swell the 
cortege. The Spanish ambassador de Watteville sent his 
coach down to the Tower wharf, whence the procession 
was to set out, with his chaplain and gentlemen, and a train of 
about forty armed servants. The coach of the French ambas- 
sador, Comte d'Estrades, with a royal coach for the accom- 
modation of the Swedish ambassador, were also on the spot. 
In the French coach were the son of d'Estrades with some of 
his gentlemen, escorted by 150 men, of whom forty carried 
firearms. After the Swedish ambassador had landed and 
taken his place in the royal coach, the French coach tried to 
go next, and on the Spaniards offering resistance, the French- 
men fell upon them with drawn swords and poured in shot 
upon them. The Spaniards defended themselves, hamstrung 
two of the Frenchman's horses, mortally wounded a postilion 
and dragged the coachman from his box, after which they 
triumphantly took the place which no one was any longer 
able to dispute with them. 1 Louis XIV, on learning of this 
incident, ordered the Spanish ambassador to quit the kingdom, 
and sent instructions to his own representative at Madrid to 
demand redress, consisting of the punishment of de Watteville 
and an undertaking that Spanish ambassadors should in 
future yield the pas to those of France at all foreign courts. 
In case of a refusal a declaration of war was to be notified. 
The King of Spain, anxious to avoid a rupture, recalled de 
Watteville from London, and despatched the Marques de la 
Fuente to Paris, as ambassador extraordinary, to disavow the 
conduct of de Watteville and to announce that he had pro- 
hibited all his ambassadors from engaging in rivalry in the 
matter of precedence with those of the Most Christian King. 2 
The question was finally disposed of by the " Pacte de Famille " 
of August 15, 1761, in which it was agreed that at Naples and 
Parma, where the sovereigns belonged to the Bourbon family, 
the French ambassador was always to have precedence, but 
at other courts the relative rank was to be determined by the 
date of arrival. If both arrived on the same day, then the 
French ambassador was to have precedence. 3 

36. Similar rivalry manifested itself between the Russian 

1 Diary of John Evelyn (Wheatley's edition), ii. 486 ; Pepys' Diary (under date 
of Sept. 30, 1661). 

3 Dumont, Corps universe! diplomatique, vi. pt. ii. 403. 
3 Flassan, vi. 314. 


and French ambassadors. The latter had instructions to 
maintain their rank in the diplomatic circle by all possible 
means, and to yield the pas to the papal and imperial ministers 
alone. On the other hand, Russia had not ordered hers to 
claim precedence over the French ambassador, but simply not 
to concede it to him. At a court ball in London, in the winter 
of 1 768, the Russian ambassador, arriving first, took his place 
immediately next to the ambassador of the Emperor, who was 
on the first of two benches arranged in the diplomatic box. 
The French ambassador came in late, and climbing on to the 
second bench, managed to slip down between his two colleagues. 
A lively interchange of words followed, and in the duel which 
arose out of the incident the Russian was wounded. 1 

37. Pombal, Prime Minister of Portugal, in 1760, on the 
occasion of the marriage of the Princess of Brazil, caused a 
circular to be addressed to the foreign representatives, an- 
nouncing the ceremony, and acquainting them that ambas- 
sadors at the court of Lisbon, with the exception of the papal 
nuncio and the imperial ambassador, would thenceforth rank, 
when paying visits or having audiences granted to them, 
according to the date of their credentials. Choiseul, the 
French minister for foreign affairs, when the matter was 
referred to him, maintained that " the King would not give 
up the recognised rank due to his crown, and his Majesty did 
not think that the date of credentials could in any case or 
under any pretext weaken the rights attaching to the dignity 
of France." He added that though kings were doubtless 
masters in their own dominions, their power did not extend 
to assigning relative rank to other crowned heads without the 
sanction of the latter. " In fact," said he, " no sovereign in 
a matter of this kind recognises powers of legislation in the 
person of other sovereigns. All Powers are bound to each 
other to do nothing contrary to usages which they have no 
power to change. . . . Pre-eminence is derived from the 
relative antiquity of monarchies, and it is not permitted to 
princes to touch a right so precious. . . . The King will 
never, on any pretext, consent to an innovation which 
violates the dignity of his throne." Nor did Spain accord a 
more favourable reception to this new rule of etiquette, while 
the court of Vienna, though the imperial rights had been 
respected, replied to Paris that such an absurdity only de- 
served contempt, and suggested consulting with the court of 
Spain in order to destroy the ridiculous pretension of the 
Portuguese minister. 2 

1 Flassan, vii. 376. 2 Ibid., vi. 193. 


38. Pombal's proposal consequently did not succeed, and 
matters remained in this state until the beginning of last 
century. At the Congress of Vienna the plenipotentiaries 
appointed a committee which after two months' deliberation 
presented a scheme dividing the Powers into three classes, 
according to which the position of their diplomatic agents 
would be regulated. But as it did not find unanimous 
approval, especially with the rank assigned to the greater 
republics, they fell back upon the simple plan of disregarding 
precedence among sovereigns altogether, and of making the 
relative position of diplomatic representatives depend, in each 
class, on seniority, i.e. on the date of the official notification of 
their arrival. And in order to do away with the last relic of 
the old opinions that some crowned heads ranked higher than 
others, they also decided that : " Dans les actes ou traites 
entre plusieurs puissances qui admettent 1'alternat, le sort 
decidera, entre les ministres, de 1'ordre qui devra etre suivi 
dans les signatures." J > 2 

39. The alternat consisted in this, that in the copy of the 
document or treaty which was destined to each separate 
Power, the names of the head of that state and his plenipo- 
tentiaries were given precedence over the others, and his 
plenipotentiaries' signatures also were attached before those 
of the other signatories. Thus each Power occupied the place 
of honour in turn. 

40. England and France established the alternat between 
themselves in 1 546,2 though it was not consistently followed 
thereafter. In the treaty of January 13, 1631, between 
Gustavus Adolphus and Louis XIII, the name of the latter 
having been placed first in both originals, the Swedish King 
protested, and the matter was arranged in accordance with 
his wishes. France did not claim it in treaties with the 
Emperor, but refused it to the courts of Berlin, Lisbon and 
Turin up to the end of the reign of Louis XVI. 4 In 1779, at 
the Treaty of Teschen, it was observed between the French 
and Russian courts. 5 

41. When the accession of Philip V to the Quadruple 
Alliance of 1718 was recorded at The Hague, twelve copies 

1 But though the reglement states that the order of signature shall be decided 
by lot, the signatures appended to that document followed the alphabetical 
order of the French language, and the same procedure was adopted for the 
signature of the acte final of the Congress of Vienna. 

2 d'Angeberg, Le Congres de Vienne, prem. part. 501, 503, 504, 612, 660, 735 ; 
deux. part. 932, 939. 

3 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 134/2. 4 Garcia de la Vega, 253. 
6 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 133 n. 


of the Protocol were signed, six for the Emperor and two each 
for France, Spain and England. The Emperor's plenipo- 
tentiary signed first in all, according to the following table : 

By Spain . . . . Emperor, Spain, England, France. 

,, ,, Emperor, Spain, France, England. 

By France. . . . Emperor, France, England, Spain. 

,, ,, Emperor, France, Spain, England. 

By England . . Emperor, England, Spain, France. 

,, ,, Emperor, England, France, Spain. 

For Spain. . . . Emperor, Spain, England, France. 

,, Emperor, Spain, France, England. 

For France . . Emperor, France, England, Spain. 

Emperor, France, Spain, England. 

For England . . Emperor, England, Spain, France. 

,, ,, Emperor, England, France, Spain. 

So that, the primacy of the Emperor being recognised, the 
other three Powers admitted the alternat among themselves. 

42. It was doubtless to avoid disputes about the alternat 
that on some occasions the practice was substituted of the 
plenipotentiaries signing only the copy intended for the other 
party, as in the case of the Treaty of Westminster of January 16, 
1756, between George II and Frederick the Great, and other 
instances. Kliiber says that at the Congresses of Utrecht (1713) 
and Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) each of the High Contracting 
Parties delivered to each of the others an instrument signed 
by himself alone. 1 

43. The Holy Roman Empire came to an end in July 
1806, in consequence of the establishment of the Confederation 
of the Rhine, and the precedence over other sovereigns 
formerly enjoyed by the German Emperor disappeared and 
could not be claimed by the Emperor of Austria, whose title 
in 1815 was only eleven years old. Nor was France at that 
time in a position to reassert her claims to rank before the 
rest of the Powers. From this date the equality in point of 
rank of all independent sovereign states, whether empires, 
Jkingdoms or republics, has been universally admitted, and it 
is improbable that any instances of the refusal of the alternat in 
connexion with treaties are now likely to occur, though in the 
case of multilateral treaties the more convenient method of 
signing a single instrument in the alphabetical order of the 
participating countries has in modern times supplanted former 
methods of signing several originals according precedence to 
each in turn. 

1 Aden des Wiener Congresses, vi. 207. 


44. While, however, the events recorded relate to an era 
when questions of precedence between states were jealously 
regarded as matters affecting the personal dignity of their 
sovereigns, it hardly appears that changes to more democratic 
forms of government lessen the importance attached by states 
to the maintenance of their position vis-d-vis other states. As 
Vattel said : 

"si la forme du gouvernement vient a changer chez une nation, 
elle n'en conservera pas moins le rang et les honneurs dont elle est 
en possession. Lorsque 1'Angleterre cut chasse ses rois, Cromwell 
ne souffrit pas que Ton rebattit rien les honneurs que Ton rendait 
a la couronne ou a la nation, et il sut maintenir partout les ambas- 
sadeurs anglais dans le rang qu'ils avaient toujours occupe." l 

The same might be said of France on successive changes 
from monarchical to republican forms of government. 

45. In the Soviet Union diplomatic representatives have 
the title of " representants plenipotentiaires " alone, but this 
title is qualified by ascribing to each in his credential letter 
the rank of ambassador, minister, etc., so preserving his 
relative precedence (see 216). The Soviet representative 
accredited to China thus became doyen of the diplomatic corps. 

46. In the Treaty of Versailles and other peace treaties 
resulting from the Peace Conference of Paris, 1919, the five 
principal Allied and Associated Powers took precedence of all 
other states ranged against the Central Powers. 
^47. Dr. J. B. Scott 2 narrates that at the First Peace 
Conference at The Hague in 1899 tne United States repre- 
sentatives took their place at the table under the letter E 
(Etats-Unis), but at the Second Peace Conference of 1907 
under the letter A (Amerique), it having in the meantime 
been remembered that United States of America was the 
official title ; and he observes that this happy philological 
discovery enabled the United States delegates at the latter 
conference to claim the benefit of the first letter of the alphabet, 
and to take precedence over other American states. 

1 Droit des Gens, ii, c. 3, 39. 

2 Le Francis, langue diplomatique, 19 ; cited by Genet. Traite de Diblomatie, etc. 



48. ORIGINALLY the title of " Majesty ' belonged to the 
Emperor alone, who in speaking of himself said : " Ma 
Majeste." Kings were styled " Highness," or " Serenity." 
In very early charters the titles Altitudo, Illuster (for illustris) 
and Nobilissimus occur in mentioning the Emperor, and the 
last of these was given to the King of France until the twelfth 
century. Sons of emperors were styled Nobilissimus or Pur- 
puratus. 1 Since the end of the fifteenth century other crowned 
heads assumed it, the kings of France setting the example. 
Then it was adopted by King John of Denmark (1481-1513) ; 
in Spain by Charles I (V, as Emperor) ; in England under 
Henry VIII ; by Portugal in 1 578.2 England and Denmark 
mutually applied it in 1520 ; Sweden and Denmark in 1685. 
France first accorded it to the King of Denmark at the 
beginning of the eighteenth century, and in 1713 to the King 
in Prussia, whose kingly title dated only from 1701. The 
Emperor gave it to the King of France at the Peace of West- 
phalia in 1648, and soon afterwards to other kings. The 
Emperor Charles VII accorded it to all kings without 

49. The Pope's title of courtesy is Most Holy Father, Tres- 
SaintPere,3\so Venerable or Tres-Venerable Pere, Holiness, Saintete, 
or Beatitude, and a Catholic sovereign, in addressing him by 
letter, will sign devoue, or tres-devoue,fils. He in turn writes to 
them as Carissime in Christo Fili, or Dilectissime in Christo Fili, in 
Italian Dilettissimo, Carissimo Figlio. To emperors Sire and 
Majeste Imperiale are used. Kings are addressed as Sire and 
Majeste. For other sovereign princes entitled to royal honours 
Monseigneur and Altesse Royale, for those who do not enjoy them 
Monseigneur and Altesse Serenissime. For the heir-presumptive 
of an imperial or royal crown, Monseigneur and Altesse Imperiale, 
or Roy ale, as the case may be. 

50. The same titles of courtesy are given to empresses, 

1 de Maulde-la-Claviere, 289. 

2 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 25 ; Pradier-Fodere, i. 67. 


queens and princesses, according to the birth or rank of their 
husbands, with Madame instead of Sire. When a princess 
entitled by birth to be called Altesse Imperiale or Royale marries 
a prince who has not that title she continues to be addressed 
by it ; but with this exception, princesses bear the same titles 
as their husbands, unless a different rule has been established 
by convention. 

51. The German Emperor was Majeste Imperiale et Royale. 
The title of the Emperor of Austria was Empereur d'Autriche, 
Roi Apostolique de Hongrie. The Emperor of Russia was 
Empereur et Autocrate de toutes les Russies. The Russian title 
Tsar was not to be used in speaking of him officially. The 
Emperor of Japan is styled Tenno in the Japanese language ; 
the title Mikado is antiquated, and its use is not desired. 

52. In accordance with a proclamation made by King 
George V at Buckingham Palace on May 13, 1927, His 
Majesty's title is : In Latin, " Georgius V, Dei Gratia 
Magnae Britanniae, Hiberniae et terrarum transmarinarum 
quae in ditione sunt Britannica Rex, Fidei Defensor, Indiae 
Imperator " ; and in English, " George V, by the Grace of 
God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions 
beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of 
India." The French rendering is " Georges V, par la Grace 
de Dieu, Roi de Grande Bretagne, dTrlande et des Terri- 
toires britanniques au dela des Mers, Defenseur de la Foi, 
Empereur des Indes." 

It is, however, usual in the preamble of treaties between 
heads of states to cast the King's title in the shorter form 
"His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the 
British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India " ; in 
French, " Sa Majeste le Roi de Grande Bretagne, dTrlande 
et des Territoires britanniques au dela des Mers, Empereur 
des Indes." 

53. Emperors and kings who ceased to reign in consequence 
of their abdication or for other reasons continue sometimes to 
receive the title of " Majesty " from friendly sovereigns. The 
Treaty of Paris of April 1 1, 1814, provided that their Majesties 
the Emperor Napoleon and the Empress Marie-Louise should 
preserve these titles and qualities. 

54. The title of Altesse (Highness), which at the outset 
was given principally to Italian sovereign princes, and in 
Germany to the Electors, as well as to reigning Dukes and 
Princes, was borne later by princes on whom the German 
Emperor * had conferred it. Although the German title 

1 See footnote, p. 23. 


Hoheit corresponds literally to Altesse, it became a title inter- 
mediary between Altesse Royale and Altesse Serenissime ; but 
Hoheit, when applied to a prince of an imperial or royal family, 
was always accompanied by kaiserliche or konigliche. By itself 
Hoheit, which implied a sort of superiority to Durchlaucht, was 
adopted in 1844 by reigning princes of the ancient ducal 
families of Germany, such as those of Saxony, Anhalt, Nassau 
and Brunswick, in distinction to Durchlaucht (likewise signifying 
Altesse), which was borne by sovereign princes (not of ancient 
descent) of Germany, as well as by high civil or military 
functionaries on whom, being already princes, it was conferred. 
The qualification of Erlaucht was granted to the ancient 
families of the German counts mediatised after the dissolution 
of the empire in 1806. x A list of such families may be found 
in Part II of the Almanack de Gotha. 

55. The title Sa Hautesse (His Highness) was formerly 
ascribed to the Sultan of Turkey : in the treaties concluded 
with Turkey in 1854 and 1856 he was styled Sa Majeste 
Imperiale, and the latter title became that habitually used. 
Formerly the Khedive of Egypt was styled Son Altesse ; the 
King of Egypt is Sa Majeste. 

56. The title Grand Duke was originally the prerogative 
of the reigning princes of Tuscany, after Pope Pius V had 
conferred it on Cosmo i er de Medicis. 2 Until after the 
War of 1914-18 it was borne by six reigning princes in 
Germany, viz. : those of Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg- 
Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg and Saxe- Weimar- 
Eisenach. The Grand Duchess of Luxemburg bears this 
title and is styled Royal Highness. In Russia the heir pre- 
sumptive to the throne was Tsarevitch ; all the other members 
of the Imperial Family bore the titles of Grand Duke and 
Grand Duchess. 3 

57. In Austria, with the exception of the eldest son of the 
Emperor, who was Prince Imperial, the other members of the 
Imperial Family were styled Archduke or Archduchess 4 
(Latin, archidux, German, Erzherzog). 

58. The titles formerly accorded to certain republics have 
become obsolete. The States-General of the United Provinces 
of the Netherlands were addressed as " Their High Mighti- 
nesses " (Hautes Puissances], and in the letters written to them 
by sovereigns they were addressed as Tres-chers amis, or Chers 
et bans amis et allies. The Presidents of the United States of 

1 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 27 n. 

2 Genet, Traite de Diplomatic etc., i. 352. 

3 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 24. * Ibid., ii. 23. 


America and of the French Republic are addressed by other 
heads of states as " Good Friend !: or " Great and Good 

59. In former times the King of France was designated 
" le Roi Tres-chretien," and the King of Portugal " le Roi 
Tres-fidele ' since 1748. The King of Spain became " le 
Roi Catholique " in 1496, the sovereign of Austria-Hungary 
was " His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty " since 1758. 
These titles were conferred by various Popes. Leo X bestowed 
that of " Fidei Defensor !: (Defender of the Faith) on 
Henry VIII in 1521, and his successors have continued to 
bear this title. The other titles mentioned were never 
employed by the sovereigns themselves ; it was only in 
addressing or speaking of them that they were used. 

60. In early times the Russian sovereigns bore the title of 
Autocrator, Magnus Dominus, Grand-Prince or Czar (Tsar), 
the last being the Russian word for Emperor. 

The surname Monomachus, or Monomakh, was assumed in 
the twelfth century by Vladimir II, according to some writers 
because at the siege of Theodosia (Kaffa) he had vanquished in 
single combat the general of the Genoese, 1 but according to others, 
by derivation from the title of his maternal grandfather the Greek 
Emperor Constantine Monomachus. 2 

In the seventeenth century the Russian sovereigns began 
to make use of the word Imperator in the Latin translations of 
official documents addressed to other Powers, and it was 
Peter the Great who in 1721, after his victories over 
Charles XII, formally took the title of Emperor of Russia. 
Notification was made of this fact to all the ambassadors of 
foreign courts, which did not, however, at once decide to 
recognise the new title. Queen Anne was the first to do this 
in 1710, when she instructed Lord Whitworth to present an 
apology to Peter the Great for the insult committed against 
his ambassador Mathveof (Matveev) in I7o8. 3 

61. The Elector of Brandenburg assumed the title of King 
of Prussia in 1 701 . It was first recognised by the Holy Roman 
Emperor, then by most of the other sovereigns of Europe 
at the conclusion of the Congress of Utrecht. The Pope 
withheld recognition until 1786.* 

62. After the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine 
by Napoleon I, the Electors of Bavaria, Saxony and Wiirttem- 
berg took the title of King, the Margrave of Baden and the 

1 Raabe and Duncan, History of Russia, 62 n. 

2 Kluchevsky, History of Russia, ii. 22. 

3 Ch. de Martens, Causes ctlebres, etc., i. 47. 4 Pradier-Fodere, i. 51. 


Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt that of Grand Duke, and the 
Prince of Nassau that of Duke. These titles were not at first 
recognised by all the Powers, but they were tacitly acquiesced 
in by those which were parties to the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 
1814, and by the acte final of the Congress of Vienna to which 
all European sovereigns acceded. 

63. On the latter occasion the Emperor of Russia took 
the additional title of Tsar and King of Poland ; the King of 
England Elector of Hanover, that of King of Hanover ; the 
King of Sardinia the additional title of Duke of Genoa ; the 
Dutch branch of Nassau those of King of the Netherlands and 
Grand Duke of Luxemburg ; the King of Prussia that of 
Grand Duke of Posnania and of the Lower Rhine ; the Dukes 
of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Saxe- 
Weimar that of Grand Duke ; and the Landgrave of Hesse- 
Cassel that of Elector. 

64. Since the Popes and the Emperors of the Holy Roman 
Empire ceased to grant the title of King to other potentates, 
European Powers adopted the principle that the title taken by 
the head of a state could not of itself give rise to any sort of 
precedence over other crowned heads, and that the latter could 
either recognise the new title, or refuse to do so, or recognise 
it on conditions. 1 

65. In 1818 the Elector of Hesse-Cassel notified to the 
diplomatic assembly at Aix-la-Chapelle that he intended to 
take the title of King, having previously written to the 
sovereigns of the Five Powers letters in which he asked for 
their consent. At the sitting of October n, the plenipoten- 
tiaries agreed that the title borne by a sovereign is not a simple 
matter of etiquette, but a fact involving important political 
questions, and that they could not collectively give a decision 
on the request put forward. However, the Protocol stated 
that the cabinets, taken separately, declared the Elector's 
request not justifiable on any satisfactory ground, and that 
there was no inducement to them to accede to it. The 
cabinets at the same time took an engagement not to recog- 
nise for the future any change, either in the titles of sovereigns, 
or in those of the princes of their families, without coming 
to a previous agreement. They maintained all that had 
hitherto been decided in this respect by formal documents 
(actes). The five cabinets explicitly applied this reserve to the 
title of Royal Highness, which they would henceforth only 
admit for the heads of grand-ducal houses, including the 
Elector of Hesse, and their heirs-apparent. 2 

1 Ch. de Martens, op. cit., ii. 89. 2 Pradier-Fodere, i. 53 n. 


66. A vote of parliament at Turin on March 17, 1861, 
conferred on Victor Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, the title 
of King of Italy, recognised by Great. Britain, March 30. It 
was not at first admitted by Prussia and Austria. 

Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria took the title of King on 
October 5, 1908, and was recognised as such by the Great 
Powers of Europe between April 20 and 29, 1909, n.s. 

Prince Charles of Roumania was unanimously elected 
King by the national representatives, March 14, 1881. 

Prince Milan of Serbia took the title of King, March 6, 

King Haakon became King of Norway, November 18, 

King Zogou was proclaimed King of Albania, September i, 

67. Certain sovereigns use three sorts of title : the grand 
litre, the litre moyen and the petit litre. 

The first of these includes the names of the fictitious as 
well as of the real dominions. For instance, the King of 
Spain's grand tilre included the two Sicilies, Jerusalem, Corsica, 
Gibraltar, Austria, Burgundy, Brabant and Milan, Habsburg, 
Flanders, Tyrol, all of which were fictitious, one of them, 
Jerusalem, being also claimed in the grand litre of Austria. 
Those of the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Russia also 
were very long. The latter is shown in 122. 

The tilre moyen is confined to real facts, and the petit litre, 
the most generally used, is the highest of all namely, that 
by which the sovereign is habitually designated. 

68. Sovereigns in addressing each other officially begin 
Monsieur Mon Frere (Sir My Brother) , adding the name of any 
blood relationship that may exist between them. To an 
empress or queen it is Madame Ma Sceur (Madam My Sister) ; 
to a reigning Grand Duchess, Madam My Sister and Cousin. 

69. Letters from the Pope to the British court may begin 

' Serenissimo Augustoque Principi "... " Serenissime Rex, 

salutem et felicitatem " ; or " Augusto Principi . . ." " Au- 

guste Rex et Imperator salutem et felicitatem." The reply 

begins, " Your Holiness." 

70. A Foreign Office memorandum says that other forms 
of writing Royal letters are : ist, commencing with " Sir My 
Brother " (or " Sir My Cousin," etc., as the case may be), and 
ending thus : 

" Sir My Brother, 

Your Majesty's 

Good Brother." 


2nd, commencing with the King's titles. In these letters 
the plural " We " and " Our" are employed yistead of" I " and 
" My," and the letters terminate thus : " Your Good Friend." 
This form is used mainly for Royal letters to Presidents of 

71. Titles of heirs-apparent, when not styled Prince 
Imperial or Prince Royal : 

Belgium : Due de Brabant. 

Great Britain : Prince of Wales (by patent). 

Italy : Prince of Piedmont. 

Roumania : Grand Voivode of Alba Julia. 

Sweden : Duke of Scania. 

As long as the Holy Roman Empire continued to exist, the 
heir- apparent was designated King of the Romans (by election). 
Napoleon I copied this when he conferred on his infant son 
the title of King of Rome. 

The heir-apparent of the German Emperor was Kronprinz, 
so also the heir of the Emperor of Austria. 

72. As no rule has been devised for regulating precedence 
among sovereigns or among the members of their respective 
families, the question of the relative place to be taken by them 
on the occasion of a gathering of more than two must naturally 
present difficulties. The meeting of the emperors Napoleon I 
and Alexander I at Erfurt, in September 1808, was attended 
by a number of kings, grand dukes and princes belonging to 
the Confederation of the Rhine. Among them were the 
Kings of Saxony, Wiirttemberg, Westphalia, Bavaria, the 
Dukes of Oldenburg, Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 
Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and the 
Prince of Thurn and Taxis. At a great dinner at Weimar on 
October 6, the order among these kings seems to have been 
Westphalia, Bavaria, Wiirttemberg, Saxony. 1 

73. At the Congress of Vienna in 181415 there was an 
assemblage of crowned heads. Francis I of Austria was the 
host, and among the guests Alexander I of Russia naturally 
ranked first. Next to him was the King of Prussia. Among 
the lesser sovereigns Christian VI doubtless had the first place. 
Then in order came Maximilian Joseph I of Bavaria and 
Frederick I of Wiirttemberg, the Elector of Hesse and the 
Grand Duke of Baden. 2 

74. During the meeting of the three emperors (Austria, 

1 Vandal, Napoleon et Alexandre ler, i. 414, 444. 

2 Cambridge Modern History, ix. 580 et infra. 


Germany, Russia) at Berlin in 1872, these sovereigns took 
precedence over each other alternately in each succeeding 
ceremony, and the national hymns of each country were also 
played accordingly. 

75. On the occasion of the Vienna Exhibition of 1873, 
the sovereigns representing the Great Powers, including the 
King of Italy and the Sultan, enjoyed precedence over one 
another in alphabetical order according to the French 
language. A similar rule was observed as regarded the 
hereditary princes. 

76. It is not usual for crowned heads to attend at each 
other's coronations, marriages and on other similar occasions, 
but they are often represented by members of their families. 
The order in which these are placed must be determined by 
the court officials, or in the last resort by the sovereign who 
is host. At the inauguration of King Leopold of Belgium in 
December 1865, when one crowned head, the King of Portugal, 
was present, he naturally had the place of honour. Next to 
him came the Comte de Flandre (Belgium), the Prince of 
Wales (Great Britain), Prince Arthur of England, the Crown 
Prince of Prussia, the Duke of Cambridge, the Archduke 
Joseph of Austria, Prince George of Saxony, Prince William 
of Baden, Prince Nicholas of Nassau, Prince Louis of Hesse, 
Prince Augustus of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Prince Leopold 
of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. 1 

77. At King George's coronation at London in 1911, 
which, in accordance with custom, was not attended by 
crowned heads, the order of precedence followed appears to 
have been : Crown Princes of Great Powers, followed by 
other princely representatives of such Powers ; the Prince of 
Wales ; Crown Princes of lesser Powers ; German Grand 
Dukes ; representatives of the United States and France ; the 
Duke of Connaught and Princesses of the British Royal 
Family ; the special envoy of the Vatican ; princely, grand 
ducal and ducal members of the German, Netherlands and 
Greek Royal houses ; Princes of lesser Oriental states ; 
followed by special envoys accredited by foreign states to take 
part in the ceremonies. 

78. The frequent intermarriages between members of 
Christian reigning families created a bond of relationship 
among the crowned heads and render it natural and usual to 
communicate to each other news of events, such as accession 
to the throne, births, marriages and deaths, etc. On important 
occasions communications are also addressed by the sovereign 

1 Garcfa de la Vega, 561. 


to presidents of republics. Such notifications are in the form 
of letters from the sovereign and are transmitted through his 
diplomatic agents, with instructions to present them through 
the appropriate channel, and this is done by forwarding them 
to the minister for foreign affairs, with the request that they 
may be communicated to their high destination. Sometimes 
a special mission is sent, particularly on such occasions as 
accession to the throne, or a coronation, or the celebration of 
a national event of exceptional importance. If the distance 
is great, the local diplomatic agent may be accredited as 
special ambassador or envoy for the occasion. 

79- Questions of precedence have sometimes arisen as 
between the diplomatic agents, permanently accredited, and 
those accredited for the purpose of such ceremonial missions. 
According to Article 3 of the Regulations adopted at the 
Congress of Vienna ( 277) those engaged on an extraordinary 
mission have not on this ground any claim to precedence. 
But in practice some variation exists. M. Genet recalls that 
on the accession of Pedro V of Portugal the special envoys of 
Great Britain, Austria, Belgium and Saxony took precedence 
over the ministers accredited to Lisbon, and ceded it only to 
the nuncio ; while at the coronation of the Emperor 
Alexander II of Russia the permanent diplomatic agents 
maintained precedence over those specially accredited for the 
occasion and having equivalent rank. At the accession of 
Leopold II of Belgium the specially accredited agents took 
precedence over the permanent envoys. 

" D'une maniere generale la personne chargee de mission 
speciale n'a pas de rang diplomatique proprement dit, a raison de 
la mission speciale, tout en ayant cependant le caractere diplo- 

" Tout agent accredite a done en principe le pas sur elle ; en 
pratique pourtant et comme par une faveur insigne, le pas leur est 
generalement cede et on temoigne des egards tout particuliers aux 
envoyes de cette categoric. ' Ils ne prennent pas la preseance, ils 
la re9oivent.' Inter se, ils se classent suivant le grade reel ; a grade 
egal, c'est 1'ordre de la remise des lettres de creances qui leur 
donne le rang." l 

At the coronation of King George V, 77 appears to show 
that the special representatives attending the ceremony 
enjoyed precedence. 

80. Friendly sovereigns sometimes exchange high orders 
of chivalry, which are occasionally also conferred on members 
of reigning families. On the outbreak of war, in August 1914, 

1 Genet, op. cit., i. 86. 


the Emperor of Austria, the German Emperor, the King of 
Wurttemberg, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, the Duke of Cumber- 
land, the Grand Duke of Hesse, Prince Henry of Prussia, the 
German Crown Prince and the Grand Duke of Mecklen- 
burg-Strelitz having become enemies, ceased to be members 
of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, and their banners were 
removed from St. George's Chapel at Windsor. When one 
sovereign confers a decoration on another, the intention to 
confer is expressed by letter. On rare occasions the Garter 
has been conferred on a foreign sovereign on the occasion of 
his visiting England. Usually it has been conveyed to him 
by a complimentary special mission. 1 

81. An official notification made by the Vatican in 
December 1931 to diplomatic representatives accredited to the 
Holy See says that cardinals are regarded as equal in rank to 
princes of the blood, and, in accordance with canon law, claim 
precedence over everyone except sovereigns and crown princes 
(principi ereditari] . 

1 For an account of what takes place in connection with the investiture see 
Redesdale, Garter Afission to Japan ( 1 906) . 


82. AT the so-called Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1818, 
a protocol was signed on November 21 which contained the 
following paragraph : 

" Des doutes s'etant eleves sur les principes a observer relative- 
ment au salut de mer, il est convenu que chacune des Cours 
signataires de ce protocole fera remettre a la Conference minis- 
terielle a Londres les reglements qu'elle fait observer jusqu'ici a cet 
egard, et que Ton invitera ensuite les autres Puissances a com- 
muniquer les memes notions de leur cote, afin que 1'on puisse 
s'occuper de quelque reglement general sur cet objet." 

This protocol bears the signatures of Metternich, Welling- 
ton, Nesselrode, Richelieu, Hardenberg, Capo dTstria, Castle- 
reagh and Bernstorff. 

Nothing seems to have been done at the time to carry 
this agreement into effect. Certain arrangements have, how- 
ever, since been entered into between the maritime Powers ; 
in particular those referred to in Articles 72 and 90 of the King's 
Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, extracts from which 
are appended to this Chapter. 

83. The British rules governing the number of guns 
forming a salute to each class of diplomatic officers, the places 
and occasions, are set forth in Article 66 of the King's Regula- 
tions and Admiralty Instructions. It is to be observed, how- 
ever, that not all of his Majesty's ships are " saluting ships " ; 
the point is mainly governed by the size of the ship and the 
number of guns that can be fired for saluting purposes. The 
number of guns accorded in British practice may occasionally 
differ from the number accorded in the practice of other 

84. When a British diplomatic agent pays an official 
visit in a foreign port to the officer commanding the 
naval forces of his (the agent's) own country, he is received 
on board with much ceremony. A salute is fired, in con- 
formity with the table shown in Article 66, at the moment 


when he leaves the ship to return on shore. He acknowledges 
the compliment by removing his hat until the last gun 
is fired. If he desires it, the commanding officer^ of the 
ship he visits will send a boat to bring him and his suite, 
if any, on board, and back again ashore. In going on 
board the person of highest rank ascends the ship's side first. 
When he leaves her to take his place in the boat, he is the last 
to leave the ship's deck and enter the boat. (As regards 
uniform to be worn on such occasions see 475-) 

85. When men-of-war happen to be lying in a foreign 
port on the occasion of a national ceremony it is customary for 
British warships to adopt the same ceremonial as regards 
salutes, dressing ship and half-masting flags, as the ships^ of 
the foreign nation concerned, provided, of course, the occasion 
is one which can be properly recognised by His Majesty's 
Government. A royal salute is one of twenty-one guns. 

86. These are, however, matters with which the diplo- 
matic agent is not, as a rule, concerned, except in countries 
where the capital happens to be situated at a port where ships 
can lie, and the conduct of the ceremonies to be observed in 
such cases concerns the naval officers ; the diplomatic official 
does not intervene, but he will do well, if resident at such a 
place, to inform himself of the rules that are observed in this 
respect by the navy of his own country. 

87. In many countries there exists a regulation prohibiting 
more than a certain number of war-ships of any foreign 
country from lying at the same time in a port of the country. 
When an official friendly visit is to be paid by a larger number, 
the diplomatic agent will probably be the channel through 
whom the arrangements have to be made, and he may 
perhaps be afforded an opportunity of presenting some of 
the principal officers of the squadron to the sovereign or 
president at a private audience granted for the purpose. 

88. The regulations with regard to salutes by His Majesty's 
ships to foreign sovereigns or other distinguished personages, 
dressing of ship, visits and other matters of etiquette, are laid 
down in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, 
the following Articles of which contain all such information as 
is likely to be of interest to British diplomatic officers : 


40. Salutes to (British) Royal Family. Whenever any members 
of the Royal Family shall arrive at, or quit, any place where there 
is a fort or battery from which salutes are usually fired, they shall 


receive a Royal salute on their first arrival and final departure, 
from such fort or battery, and from all His Majesty's ships present. 
Any ship arriving at or leaving that place during the stay of a 
member of the Royal Family, shall also fire a Royal salute on 
arrival or departure. 

2. Whenever any member of the Royal Family shall go on 
board any of His Majesty's ships, the Standard of His or Her Royal 
Highness shall be hoisted at the main on board such ship, and a 
Royal salute shall be fired from her, on such member of the Royal 
Family going on board, and again upon leaving her. 

3. Whenever any member of the Royal Family shall be em- 
barked in any ship or vessel, and the Standard of His or Her Royal 
Highness shall be hoisted in her, every one of His Majesty's ships 
meeting, passing or being passed by her shall fire a Royal salute. 

43. Foreign Sovereigns or Chiefs of States. Whenever any foreign 
Crowned Heads or Sovereign Princes, or the consorts of any foreign 
Crowned Heads or Sovereign Princes, or the President of a Republic, 
shall arrive at or quit any place in His Majesty's dominions they 
shall receive a Royal salute on their first arrival and again on their 
final departure from any ships present and from any fort or battery 
at such place, from which salutes are usually fired ; and from any 
ship on her arrival or departure, which may arrive at or leave that 
place during the stay of such foreign personage. A similar salute 
is also to be fired upon their going on board or leaving any of His 
Majesty's ships. On such occasions all ships shall be dressed, either 
overall or with masthead flags as may be ordered, in accordance 
with Article 93. ... 

4. The following procedure is to be observed in the case of a 
foreign warship which is wearing a Royal or Imperial Standard or 
President's flag visiting a British port : 

(a) The visiting warship will salute the flag of the country. 

(b) National salute is returned by the above battery. 

(c) British warships present and shore battery salute Royal, 

Imperial or Distinguished personages. 

44. Foreign Royal or Imperial Family. Whenever any Prince or 
Princess, being a member of a foreign Royal or Imperial Family, 
shall arrive at or quit any British port, or visit any of His Majesty's 
ships, the same salutes shall be fired and compliments paid to him 
or her as are directed by Article 40 to be paid to the members of 
the British Royal Family, the flag of the nation of such foreign 
Prince or Princess being displayed at the main. 

2. In Foreign Ports. Whenever such visits to His Majesty's ships 
shall take place in a foreign port, corresponding salutes shall be 
fired, and the flag of the nation of the Royal or Imperial visitors 
hoisted, as already explained. 

46. Standards of Royal or Imperial Personages at Foreign Ports. 
Whenever any of His Majesty's ships arrive at a foreign port in 
which salutes are returned (see Article 72) and where the Standard 


of any Royal or Imperial personage, British or foreign, or the flag 
of the President of a Republic, is hoisted, the customary salute to 
the flag of the nation to which the port belongs is in all cases to be 
fired first, the Standards or President's flag present being sub- 
sequently saluted in the order directed in Article 45. 

2. Salute to National Flag. In case the Standard of any member 
of the Royal or Imperial Family or the flag of the President of the 
Republic of the nation to which the port belongs is hoisted in the 
port, the salute to the national flag is to be considered as personal 
to that Standard or flag as representing the nation, and in this case 
the salute will not be returned. 

In the event, however, of this salute being returned, a further 
salute of 2 1 guns is to be fired. 

50. Birthday of Foreign Sovereigns or other National Festivities. On 
the occasion of the celebration of the birthday of the King or Queen 
of a foreign nation, or of other important national festivals and 
ceremonies, by any ships of war or batteries of such nation, His 
Majesty's ships present may, on previous official information being 
received by the Senior Officer, fire such salutes in compliment 
thereto, not exceeding 2 1 guns, as are fired by the ships or batteries 
of the foreign nation, the flag of such nation being displayed at the 
main during the salute only, or the ships being dressed in accord- 
ance with Article 93, in conformity with the action taken by the 
ships of such nation. 

5OA. Death of Foreign Sovereign or Chief of State . Orders concern- 
ing the ceremony to be observed will be issued by the Admiralty 
on each occasion. The usual procedure to be followed will be for 
the flag to be half-masted on the day of the funeral only, with the 
ensign (if available) or the national flag of the bereaved nation at 
the dip on the mainmast. No gun salutes are to be fired unless 
specially ordered. 

2. In the event of His Majesty's ships being in company with 
a ship or in a port of the bereaved nation, His Majesty's ships are 
to act in unison with the procedure adopted by the Commanding 
Officer of the foreign ship or with the observances in the port. 

In the event of a ship of the bereaved nation being in a British 
port, His Majesty's ships should act in unison with the procedure 
adopted by the foreign ship. 


66. British authorities shall be saluted when in their official 
capacities as laid down in the following table (extract) : 

At all places, whenever 
he embarks, and if he 

Ambassador Extraordinary 

and Plenipotentiary . 19 guns. 

goes to sea in a ship, on 
finally landing, by such 
ship. No limitation of 



Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary, 
and others accredited to 
sovereigns (with the ex- 
ception of such as are 
accredited in the specific 
rank of Minister Resident) 1 7 guns 

Minister Resident, Diplo- 
matic authorities below the 
rank of Envoy Extraordi- 
nary and Minister Pleni- 
potentiary, and above 
that of Charge d' Affaires 1 5 guns 

Charge d'Affaires, or a sub- 
ordinate diplomatic agent 
left in charge of a mission 1 3 guns ) 

Consul-General . .11 guns 

Consul .... 7 guns 

Within the precincts of 
the nation to which he 
is accredited. By the 
ship from which he 
may land, and also 
that in which he may 
finally embark. When 
visiting a ship, upon 
going on board or on 
quitting her. As the 
occasion arises. Only 
once within twelve 
months and by one ship 
only on the same day. 

Within the foreign port 
to which he belongs. 
When visiting a ship, 
upon going on board 
or on quitting her. 
Only once within twelve 
months, and by one 
ship only on the same 


72. The Captain of a ship, or the Senior Officer of more than 
one ship, visiting a foreign port where there is a fort or saluting 
battery, or where a ship of the nation may be lying, shall salute 
the national flag with 21 guns, on being satisfied that the salute 
will be returned. A salute is not to be fired when passing through 
territorial waters with no intention of anchoring, or making fast in 
any way, in them, even if a saluting station is passed, unless unusual 
circumstances make it desirable. 

The salute shall be fired on each occasion that a ship visits a 
foreign port, except that of a ship leaving port temporarily, when, 
by agreement with the local authorities, the salute on her return 
may be dispensed with. This rule has been concurred in by the 
maritime Powers generally. 

2. When a ship visits a foreign port where there is no saluting 
battery and no ship of the nation is lying on arrival and a ship of 
the nation arrives during the visit, a salute to the national flag shall 
only be fired after mutual agreement between the Senior Officers 
of the ships concerned. 

3. If a ship of a senior British Officer is already present in the 
port, the junior will not fire a salute. 


73. Recognised Governments. Salutes to foreign Imperial and 
Royal personages and other foreign authorities and flags are only 
authorised in the case of a government formally recognised by 

His Majesty. 

74. Salutes to Foreign Functionaries. Salutes in conformity with 
the table of salutes given in Article 66 shall be fired in compliment 
to foreign officials, from either ships or forts, in the same manner 
and in circumstances similar to those in which salutes to a British 
official would be fired. 

(See also Article 78 Salutes to foreigners visiting His Majesty's 


78. Salutes to Foreigners visiting His Majesty's Ships. If a foreigner 
of high distinction, or a foreign General Officer or Air Officer, 
should visit any one of His Majesty's ships, he may be saluted on 
his going on board, or on leaving the ship, with the number of guns 
with which he, from his rank, would receive on visiting a ship of 
war of his own nation ; or with such number of guns not exceeding 
19 as may be deemed proper ; should the number of guns to which 
he is entitled from ships of his own nation be less than is given 
to officers of his rank under Article 66, he is to be saluted with the 
greater number. 


90. To Foreign Royal or Imperial Personages or Authorities. In the 
case of salutes from His Majesty's ships, forts and batteries to 
foreign Royal or Imperial personages and other functionaries, the 
following arrangement entered into with the maritime Powers is 
to be observed : 

i . Salutes not returned. Salutes from ships of war which will not 

be returned : 

(a) to Royal or Imperial personages, Presidents of Republics, 

Chiefs of States or members of Royal or Imperial Families, 
whether on arrival at, or departure from, a port, or upon 
visiting ships of war ; 

(b] to Diplomatic, Military or Consular authorities, or to 

Governors or Officers administering a Government, 
whether on arrival at, or departure from, a port, or when 
visiting ships of war ; 

(c) to foreigners on visiting ships of war ; 

(d] upon occasions of national festivities or anniversaries. 

Mote. By this clause (taken in conjunction with clause 3) His 
Majesty's ships will not return a personal salute to a British officer 
fired by foreign vessels ; nor will such return salute be expected by 
the officers of a Power which adheres strictly to the international 
arrangement. If, however, on any occasion where personal 
salutes are exchanged, a personal salute, fired by one of His 
Majesty's ships or by the ship of some third nation to a foreign 
officer is returned, it is an excess of courtesy which it would be 


impossible not to reciprocate by returning any personal salute to 
a British officer fired immediately afterwards under like conditions. 
His Majesty's ships may even take the initiative in returning per- 
sonal salutes, if such is known to be the custom of the nation whose 
ship has saluted, and if it is expected that a personal salute to an 
officer of that nation will presently have to be fired and will be 

2. Salutes returned. Salutes from ships of war which will be 
returned gun for gun : 

(a) to the national flag on anchoring at a foreign port, except 
in the circumstances detailed in Article 46 (2). 

3. Reciprocity with Foreign Ships. When foreign ships of war 
salute the British flag or British Royal or other personages, or any 
of His Majesty's functionaries in similar circumstances, the same 
rules are to be reciprocally observed by His Majesty's ships present, 
as to returning or not returning the salutes. 


93. Dressing Ship. . . . 

4. His Majesty's ships are also to be dressed by order of the 
Senior Officer present when in the presence of a Royal or Imperial 
Standard on occasions of visits of Royal or Imperial personages, 
and on certain foreign ceremonial occasions when in the presence 
of ships, or in the waters, of the nations concerned. The manner 
of dressing and time during which ships are to be dressed are to be 
stated on each of these occasions according to circumstances. 

94. Flags hoisted during Salutes. When salutes are interchanged 
with foreign ships of war or forts or batteries, or when salutes to 
flag and personal salutes are fired in honour of foreigners, the follow- 
ing rules as to the flags that shall be displayed are to be observed 
by His Majesty's ships : 

(a) Royal or Imperial Personages, etc. In the case of a foreign 

Royal or Imperial personage, President of a Republic or 
Chief of State, the flag of the nation of such Royal or 
Imperial personage, &c., is to be hoisted at the main, if 
necessary, alongside any Standard, flag or broad pendant 
which may already be hoisted in that position. 

(b) National Flag. On arrival at a foreign port, the flag of the 

foreign nation which is being saluted is to be hoisted at 
the main during the salute, if necessary, alongside any 
Standard, flag or broad pendant which may already be 
hoisted in that position. 

(0 . . . 

(d) Visits of Foreign Authorities. On the occasion of visits from 
Governors-General, Governors or Officers administering 
a government, Diplomatic, Naval, Military, Air or Con- 
sular authorities, or of persons of high distinction entitled 


to salutes, the flag of the foreign nation to which the person 
saluted belongs is to be hoisted at the fore during the 
personal salute, if necessary, alongside any flag or broad 
pendant which may already be hoisted in that position. 

2. To British Authorities. The distinguishing flags particularised 
in Article 112 are to be hoisted respectively at the fore whenever 
any of His Majesty's Military, Air, Diplomatic, Dominion, Colonial 
or Consular authorities are receiving salutes to which they may be 
entitled ; should, however, the proper distinguishing flag not be 
on board the ship saluting, the blue ensign is to be hoisted when 
saluting Consular officers, and the red ensign when paying the same 
honours to any of the other authorities. Should the ship have 
neither a red nor blue ensign, a white ensign may be hoisted at the 
fore when saluting any of the British authorities referred to. 


95. Visits to Foreign Ports. The preliminary arrangements for 
visits of His Majesty's ships to foreign ports will always be made by 
the Foreign Office with the foreign government concerned, except 

(a) on certain foreign stations, where the Commander-in-Chief 

is authorised to communicate direct with His Majesty's 
representative in the country which it is proposed to visit ; 

(b) in the circumstances specified in clause 3. 

2. As soon as the consent of the foreign government concerned 
has been obtained, the Senior Officer of the visiting fleet or squadron, 
or the Commanding Officer of a single ship, will notify the British 
Consul direct of the date and time of the intended arrival of the 
fleet, squadron or ship at the foreign port and the probable dura- 
tion of the visit. Ceremonial visits are to be exchanged in accord- 
ance with Articles 950, 96, 97 and 98. 

The customary visit to the Governor or Chief Authority at a 
foreign port should always be made unless there is some special 
reason for not doing so. Communication should always be 
established with the Consular officer on arrival. 

3. In the event of a visit of His Majesty's ship to a foreign port 
being of very short duration and purely informal as distinct from 
a ceremonial nature, e.g. for the purpose of shipping or landing 
persons or stores, the British Consul is to be notified of the proposed 
visit direct by the Commanding Officer of the ship, with a request 
that the local authorities may be informed. The British representa- 
tive at the seat of government of the country visited is to be notified 
at the same time that the visit will be made, and requested to inform 
the government of the informal character of the proposed visit. 

Communication should be established with the consular officer 
on arrival, and the Commanding Officer should consult with him 
as to the practicability of exchanging any ceremonial visits. When 


a call is made at a naval port, visits should always be paid to the 
naval authority. 

95^. To Foreign Authorities. The Governor of a province, terri- 
tory or colonial possession, if residing in or near the port, is to 
receive the first visit from the Senior Officer in command of His 
Majesty's ship or squadron visiting a foreign port. 

The visit will be returned in person to all Flag Officers 
and Commodores, and by an Aide-de-Camp, or other officer, to 
officers of lower rank. 

To 'Foreign Civic Authority. The chief civilian authority of the 
port should, as a general rule, receive the first visit from the Senior 
Officer in command of His Majesty's ship or squadron visiting a 
foreign port. 

97. British Diplomatic Functionaries. Every Flag or other officer 
in command will, on arrival, pay the first visit to His Majesty's 
diplomatic functionaries in charge of embassies or legations, of or 
above the rank of Charge d'Affaires, but they will receive the first 
visit from diplomatic functionaries below that rank. 

2. In case of doubt as to the status of a diplomatic functionary 
in charge of an embassy or legation, an officer should be sent on 
shore to ascertain it previous to the interchange of visits. 

98. Consular Authorities. On the arrival of a fleet, squadron or 
ship at a foreign port, the first visit will be made by the naval or 
consular officer who is subordinate in rank to the other, according 
to the following scale : 

(a] Consuls-General . . To rank with, but after Rear- 


(b] Consuls . . . .To rank with, but after Captains 

of the Royal Navy. 

(c] Vice-Consuls . . .To rank with, but after Lieu- 


(d] Consular Agents . . To rank with, but after Lieu- 


2. The officer in charge of a consular post during the absence 
of the titular incumbent will take for the time being the rank of 
that incumbent. 

100. Boats for Visits. The Senior Officer present will arrange, 
when necessary, to provide a suitable boat to enable the Diplomatic, 
Dominion, Colonial or Consular officer to pay any official visits 
afloat, and to take him ashore, on the officer notifying his wishes 
to that effect. 

1 1 o. Flags and Pendants displaced. By Admiralty Flag. 

3. The flags of other functionaries ordered to be hoisted in ships 
of war by Articles 1 1 2 to 1 1 4 . . . are not to displace at the mast- 
head the flag of an Admiral of any grade, nor the broad pendant 
of a Commodore of either class. When therefore a flag or broad 
pendant is hoisted, the distinguishing flag of the civil or military 
functionary is, if possible, to be hoisted at another masthead ; but 


if not possible, then it is to be hoisted side by side with the other, 
subject to the discretion conferred on the Senior Naval Officer in 
Article 1 14. 


112. Particulars of Flags. The flags authorised by His Majesty 
to be displayed afloat are : 

(a) ... 

(b) By His Majesty's diplomatic servants, the Union flag, with 

the Royal Arms in the centre thereof on a white ground 

encircled by a garland. 
(d) By Consuls-General, Consuls and Consular Agents, the 

blue ensign with the Royal Arms in the centre of the fly 

thereof, that is in the centre of that part between the 

Union and the end of the flag. 

2. No other distinguishing flag or flags are authorised to be 
worn afloat by any of these functionaries. 

113. When to be Hoisted. Whenever any of the functionaries 
particularised in Articles 99 and 1 1 2 are embarked : 

(a) In a boat for the purpose of paying visits of ceremony or 
on other official occasions the proper distinguishing flag 
within the respective limits prescribed by the following 
clause (b) may be hoisted at the bow, but when the boat 
belongs to one of His Majesty's ships she is to have her 
white ensign flying. 

(b} In one of His Majesty's ships for passage : 

(i) . . . 

(ii) If a diplomatic functionary and in charge of a mission 
the proper distinguishing flag, with the approval of the 
Senior Naval Officer, may be hoisted at the fore, and 
be kept flying within the limits of the mission, provided 
the diplomatic functionary be proceeding on the public 

(iii) . . . 

(iv) The distinguishing flag of consular authorities is to be 
hoisted in boats only and not in ships, except when 
they are being saluted. 

(c) In one of His Majesty's ships on the occasion of an official 

visit the distinguishing flags are to be hoisted respectively 
at the fore whenever any of His Majesty's Military, Air, 
Diplomatic, Dominion, Colonial or Consular functionaries 
are receiving salutes to which they are entitled. 

(d) In British ships and boats, other than those of His Majesty, 

these functionaries, except consular officers as to ships, are, 
with the sanction of the owners or masters, authorised to 
fly their proper distinguishing flags on the same occasions, 
and within the same limits, and these regulations shall be 


a sufficient warrant to the master under the Merchant 
Shipping Act for so doing, but the permission to hoist such 
masthead flags indicative of the presence on board of any 
of these functionaries in no way affects or alters the 
character or status of the merchant ship in time of peace 
or in time of war, whether His Majesty is belligerent or 

114. Approval of Senior Officer. With regard to the previous 
approval of the Senior Officer, whenever a requisition is received 
for the embarkation or conveyance of any of the functionaries 
particularised in Article 99 or 112, the Senior Officer present, in 
the absence of special orders from superior authority, will issue the 
necessary directions, provided that, after consultation with, and 
on requisition from, the official to be embarked, he considers it for 
the benefit of the service about to be performed that such flag 
should be hoisted within the authorised limits. Should the officer 
who has to determine the question consider it, in the circumstances, 
undesirable that the distinguishing flag should be hoisted, he is to 
inform the functionary of his reasons, and at once report the same 
for the information of the Admiralty. 

2. When Ambassador, etc., is Embarked. In the event of an 
Ambassador being embarked, or a Governor-General, Governor, 
High Commissioner, etc., of a Dominion or Colony being detached 
on a foreign mission in his official capacity as Governor-General, 
Governor or High Commissioner, special instructions will be issued 
in each case as to the flag which should be hoisted in a man-of-war 
in which he may be embarked ; in the absence of instructions from 
the superior authority, the Senior Officer present is to exercise his 
discretion in consultation with the official about to embark. 



89. FORMERLY the language in universal use was Latin, 
which may be said to have been at first the only language in 
which men knew how to write, at least in central and western 
Europe. When French, Spanish, Italian and English took on 
a literary form, the instructions to diplomatic representatives 
came to be framed in the language of the envoy's own country, 
German was the latest of all to be written. Latin was also 
used in conversation between diplomatists, where the parties 
were unable to speak each other's language. French came 
next in frequency of use after Latin. At the end of the 
fifteenth century it had become the court language of Savoy 
and the Low Countries, and also of the Emperor's court. 
When the League of Cambrai was formed, in 1508, the full 
powers of both Imperial and French negotiators were drawn 
up in French, but the ratifications were in Latin. Henry VI 
of England wrote to Charles VII of France in French, and 
that language was usually employed both in writing and 
speaking between the two countries. At the end of the 
sixteenth century the King of France no longer writes Latin 
except to the King of Poland, to such an extent had the use 
of French gained ground. 1 

90. At the beginning of the sixteenth century all agree- 
ments drawn up in English, German or Italian have a domestic 
or quasi-domestic character. English served for Anglo-Scottish 
relations, German for those of German princes and of Germany 
with Bohemia, Hungary and Switzerland. Italian was some- 
times employed between the smaller Italian states. In the 
Low Countries, Lorraine, and at Metz, French was naturally 
the native language. Only two languages, however, were 
admitted for drawing up international compacts : Latin for 
the apostolic notaries and the whole school attached to the 
Roman Chancery, and French. England and Germany con- 

1 de Maulde-la-Claviere, i. 80, 389. 


stantly used the latter, above all for treaties with France and 
the Low Countries. At the end of the fifteenth century 
England reverted to Latin for its treaties with France. 1 

91. The treaties of Westphalia (1648) were in Latin. The 
Treaty of January 30, 1648, between Spain and the United 
Provinces, by which the independence of the latter was 
recognised, was in French and Dutch, but Latin was used for 
all communications between France and the Empire up to 
the time of the French Revolution. 2 The Anglo-Danish 
Treaty of July n, 1670, was in Latin ; also the Anglo-Dutch 
Treaty of 1674 ; but the Treaty of Alliance of 1677-8 in 
French. The Treaty of the Grand Alliance of September 7, 
1701, was in Latin, and likewise that of May 16, 1703, between 
Great Britain, the Emperor and the States-General, members 
of the Grand Alliance, and Portugal. In 1711 Queen Anne 
wrote to her allies in Latin, and the full powers given to her 
plenipotentiaries for the Congress of Utrecht were in the same 
language. But at the first conference, in 1712, the English 
demands were presented in French, as were also those of 
Prussia, Savoy and the States-General. The commercial 
treaty between England and France of April n, 1713, was in 
Latin, certain forms appended were in Latin and French, and 
the Queen's ratification was in Latin. But the certificate of 
the exchange of ratifications was drawn up in French. The 
treaties signed on the same day by France with Portugal, 
Prussia, the Duke of Savoy and the States-General were in 
French. Sweden and Holland exchanged correspondence 
about the same period in Latin, but Peter the Great used 
French. On July 13, 1713, Spain and Savoy signed a treaty 
of peace in Spanish and French, while the treaty of peace of 
September 7, 1714, signed by the Emperor and the Empire 
with France, was in Latin. Russia used German in her early 
treaties with Brandenburg ; with Austria, German, Latin and 
French on different occasions, but from about the middle of 
the eighteenth century always French ; with England always 
French from 1715 onwards. 3 

92. At Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, a separate article was 
annexed to the treaty of peace signed by Great Britain, 
Holland and France, to the effect that the use of the French 
language in the treaty of peace was not to be taken as preju- 
dicing the right of the contracting parties to have copies 
signed in other languages. 

1 de Maulde-la-Claviere, i. 209. 

2 Garden, Histoire des Traites de Paix, v. 1 55 n. 

3 F. de Martens, Recueil des Traites, etc., v. and ix. (x.). 


93. A similar article was attached to the Treaty of Paris 
of 1763, between Great Britain, France and Spain, and to the 
Treaty of Versailles of 1783, between Great Britain and 
France. 1 Article 120 of the Final Act of the Congress of 
Vienna declared that : 

' La langue frar^aise ayant etc exclusivement employee dans 
toutes les copies du present traite, il est reconnu par les Puissances 
qui ont concouru a cet acte que 1'emploi de cette langue ne tirera 
point a consequence pour 1'avenir ; de sorte que chaque Puissance 
se reserve d 'adopter, dans les negotiations et conventions futures, 
la langue dont elle s'est servie jusqu'ici dans ses relations diploma- 
tiques, sans que le traite actuel puisse etre cite comme exemple 
contraire aux usages etablis." 2 

94. In March 1753, on the occasion of the settlement of 
prize claims under the declaration of July 8, 1748, between 
Great Britain, France and the States-General, the French 
commissioners proposed to return to the British a memorandum 
presented by them, on the ground of its being drawn up in the 
English language, and claimed a prescriptive right to have all 
transactions carried on in French. The British Government 
sent instructions to Paris, stating that out of complaisance they 
had at first usually accompanied the English memoranda (or 
memorials) with a French translation, but the French com- 
missioners having found fault with its wording, the commis- 
sioners had been ordered to confine themselves in future to the 
English language ; the French commissioners having now, 
however, demanded the use of French as a right, to comply 
would be to establish a precedent ; and it was added : 

" All nations whatsoever have a right to treat with each other in 
a neutral language. As such, the French is made use of in transac- 
tions with the princes of the Empire and other foreign Powers, and 
if the Court of Versailles thinks fit to treat with His Majesty in 
Latin, the King will readily agree to it. ... It is the King's express 
command that you should not for the future accept any paper 
from the French commissaries in their own language, unless they 
shall engage to receive the answer . . . returned to it in English." 

95. In 1800 Lord Grenville introduced the practice of 
conducting his relations with foreign diplomatists accredited 
to the Court of St. James' in English instead of French, the 
language previously employed. Lord Castlereagh, when at the 
headquarters of the allied Powers in 1814-15, wrote in English 
to the foreign sovereigns and ministers. Canning, in 1823, 

1 Jenkinson, iii. 342. 2 d'Angeberg, Le Congres de Vienne, 1432. 


discovered that the British representative at Lisbon was in the 
habit of writing in French to the minister for foreign affairs, 
although the latter addressed him in Portuguese ; he therefore 
instructed him to use English in future. In 1826 a controversy 
arose with the Prussian Government in consequence of Count 
Bernstorff's refusal to receive an English note from the British 
representative, 1 on the ground that it was the official rule to 
receive such communications only when written in French or 
German. The question remained in abeyance until 1831, 
when the British minister was instructed to use English in 
future. In 1851, the President of the German Diet having 
set up the pretension to receive translations of notes addressed 
to that body, Lord Palmerston instructed the British repre- 
sentative that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government 
every government was entitled to use its own language in 
official communications, on the ground that it is more certain 
of expressing its meaning in its own language. He regarded 
as objectionable the practice of furnishing a translation, 
because it led to the translation being treated as an original in 
place of the English version. 

Since that time the right of British diplomatic agents to 
use their own language for communications to the government 
to which they are accredited does not seem to have been 
further contested, the right claimed by Great Britain being 
recognised by her as appertaining to every other state. 

96. Sometimes, however, the use of one's own language 
may cause inconvenience, as is shown in an anecdote related 
to Dr. Busch by Count Bismarck 2 : 

By the way, Keudell, he said suddenly, it just occurs to me 
that I must get a full power from the King to-morrow in German 
of course. The German Emperor may only write in German, the 
Minister may be guided by circumstances. Official correspond- 
ence should be conducted in the language of the country and not 
in that of the foreign one. Bernstorff tried to carry out that idea 
here, but he went too far. He used to write to all diplomats in 
German, and they all replied by arrangement of course in their 
mother tongue, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, and what not, so that 
he had to keep a whole staff of translators at the Ministry. That 
was how I found things when I took office. Budberg sent me a 
note in Russian. That wouldn't do. If they wanted their 
revenge, Gortschakoff would have to write Russian to our Minister 
at Petersburg. That would be the correct course. It might be 
permissible to require foreign representatives to know and use the 
language of the country to which they are accredited. But to 

1 Stapleton, Political Life of the Rt. Hon. George Canning, iii. 265. 

2 Graf Bismarck, 4th ed. (1878), ii. 289. 


reply in Russian to me in Berlin to a note in German was unreason- 
able. So I laid it down that anything received which was not in 
German, French, English or Italian should be left untouched and 
put away in the archives. Budberg then wrote complaint after 
complaint always in Russian. No reply ! The notes were put 
away in the presses. Finally he came himself and asked why I 
didn't reply. ' Reply ? ' I said in astonishment ' what to ? I 
have seen nothing from you.' Now, he had written weeks before, 
and had sent several reminders. I told him, if I remember right, 
that a pile of documents in Russian were lying downstairs, and that 
his notes were probably among them ; but that downstairs no one 
understood Russian, and anything in an undecipherable language 
was pigeon-holed. It was then agreed, if my memory serves, that 
Budberg would write in French, and the Foreign Ministry also 
occasionally. (Translation.} 

97. As regards treaties, conventions, etc., these, when 
concluded between two countries, are now ordinarily signed 
in two texts, i.e. in the respective languages of the two countries, 
though exceptions occur. In the case of treaties of a general 
nature multilateral treaties concluded between many states, 
*he usual practice is to use French, but often French and 
English. Those concluded under the auspices of the League 
of Nations have both French and English texts, both equally 

98. When a government addresses a formal communication 
to another, it generally does so through its diplomatic agent 
accredited to the other state, and the correspondence in the 
matter thereafter continues as a rule through the same 

99. Written official communications between a diplomatic 
agent and the minister for foreign affairs of the state to which 
he is accredited take as a rule one or other of three principal 
forms, of which examples are given below. 

100. NOTE. This may be in the first or third person. The 
former is much the more usual ; the latter is apt to be some- 
what stiff in tone. Many instances of notes in the first person 
will be found in 681-691. 

On the occasion of the annexation of Bosnia and Herze- 
govina by Austria-Hungary in 1908, that government informed 
the other governments who were parties to the Treaty of Berlin, 
1878, of the signature of a Protocol with the Turkish Govern- 
ment, and requested their assent to the abrogation of Article 25 
of that treaty. The Powers, one after another, notified their 
consent. The note of the German ambassador was in the 
third person : 



The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government having 
informed the Imperial German Government of the signature of the 
Protocol relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has been 
concluded with the Sublime Porte, and having further requested 
assent to the abrogation of Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin, the 
undersigned Imperial German ambassador, under instructions 
from his Government, has the honour to make known to His 
Excellency Baron von Aehrenthal, the Imperial and Royal Minister 
of the Imperial and Royal House and of Foreign Affairs, that the 
Imperial Government formally and without reserve gives its assent 
to the abrogation of Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin. 

The Undersigned, etc. 


Vienna, April 7, 1909. 

etc., etc., etc. 

The reply of the British ambassador was in the first 
person : 


April 17, 1909. 

In reply to the communication which the Austro-Hungarian 
Ambassador in London made to Sir Edward Grey on the 3rd inst., 
I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that His Britannic 
Majesty's Government give their consent to the suppression of 
Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin. 

I avail, etc., 

It appears to have been the practice of the German and 
Austro-Hungarian Foreign Offices to address notes in the third 
person to foreign representatives. 

1 01. NOTE VERBALE. This is in the third person and is 
neither addressed nor signed ; it should, however, terminate 
with a formula of courtesy. It is often used for the record of a 
conversation or in order to put a question. 1 Pasquier defined 
it thus : 

" C'est une expression usitee dans le langage diplomatique. Elle 
veut dire une piece dont le contenu doit etre pris en serieuse con- 
sideration, tres importante, mais qui n'est pas destinee a etre rendue 
publique. C'est comme on disait une importante declaration 
faite de vive voix, puis recueillie sur le papier pour n'etre pas 

The mandates for Togoland accepted by Great Britain and 
France provided for the delimitation by a mixed commission 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 209 ; de Martens-Geffken, iii. 3. 


of the respective zones, as recorded in the agreement between 
the two governments of July 10, 1919. This having been 
completed, the French Ambassador at London addressed a 
note verbale to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign 
Affairs : 

" Comme le salt son Excellence le Principal Secretaire d'fitat de 
Sa Majeste Britannique aux Affaires etrangeres, des conversations 
ont eu lieu entre 1'Ambassade de Sa Majeste Britannique a Paris, 
les Ministeres des Affaires etrangeres et des Colonies, en vue de 
proceder a la delimitation des zones franchise et anglaise du mandat 
sur le Togo. 

Une mission franco-anglaise ayant prepare un abornement 
definitif, dont le projet a etc arrete a Lome par les Commissaires 
franco-anglais, un rapport commun fut etabli ainsi que ses annexes 
(description de la frontiere et jeu de cartes) en trois originaux dans 
chacune des langues frangaise et anglaise et le tout signe a Lome le 
21 octobre 1929. 

Deux de ces originaux ont du etre adresses a son Excellence le 
Principal Secretaire d'Etat pour les Affaires etrangeres, 1'un pour 
etre examine par le Gouvernement de Sa Majeste Britannique et 
garde dans ses archives, 1'autre, afin d'etre transmis au Conseil de 
la Societe des Nations, lorsque les Gouvernements britannique 
et frangais se seront notifie leur accord respectif a la frontiere 

L'Ambassadeur de France a etc prie par son Gouvernement de 
faire savoir a son Excellence le Principal Secretaire d'fitat de Sa 
Majeste Britannique aux Affaires etrangeres que M. Briand a regu 
I'exemplaire qui lui etait destine, qu'il 1'a soumis au Gouvernement 
de la Republique et que le projet de frontiere ainsi tracee a obtenu 
son agrement. 

L'abornement definitif sur les lieux ne devant etre effectue que 
lorsque les deux Gouvernements se seront notifie leur mutuel 
accord, M. de Fleuriau serait tres reconnaissant a Mr. Henderson 
de bien vouloir lui faire connaitre le plus tot possible 1'adhesion du 
Gouvernement britannique. II saisit, etc. 

Ambassade de France, Londres, 
le 30 Janvier 1930." 

The reply of the British Minister for Foreign Affairs was 
in the first person, and as the correspondence 1 furnishes an 
example of a joint note addressed by the French and British 
representatives to the Secretary General of the League of 
Nations, this also is given below : 

Foreign Office, 

August 19, 1930. 

On the 3Oth January last you were good enough to address to 
me a note stating that the French Government had given their 

1 Treaty Series No. 45 (1930). 


approval to the boundary line defined in the report of the British 
and French Commissioners appointed to define the frontier between 
the British and French mandated territories in Togoland. 

2. I am now in a position to inform your Excellency that His 
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have approved this 
report, and I have the honour to suggest that, if the French 
Government concur, steps should be taken to communicate to the 
Secretary-General of the League of Nations the third copy of the 
report, with the maps attached thereto, which was forwarded to 
London by the Governor of the Gold Coast. I beg leave accordingly 
to transmit herewith, for the consideration of the French Govern- 
ment, the draft of the note which I would propose to address to 
the Secretary-General and to request that I may be informed 
whether the French Government would agree to address a similar 
note to Sir Eric Drummond. 

I have, etc. 

le 23 Septembre 1930. 


Conformement aux instructions que nous avons reues des 
Ministres des Affaires etrangeres de nos Gouvernements respectifs, 
nous avons 1'honneur de porter a votre connaissance que le 
Gouvernement francais et le Gouvernement de Sa Majeste 
Britannique dans le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande 
du Nord ont approuve par echange de notes le Rapport final en 
trois exemplaires, date de Lome, le 21 octobre 1929, presente par 
la Commission mixte de Delimitation des Territoires du Togo 
places sous le mandat des deux Hautes Parties Contractantes 
respectivement, en vertu de 1'article i er des mandats conferes par 
la Societe des Nations a la date du 20 juillet 1922. 

Le depot aux archives de la Societe des Nations du troisieme 
exemplaire original dudit Rapport final et des cartes y annexees 
s'effectue en meme temps que celui de la presente note. Ces 
documents donnent la description exacte de la frontiere telle qu'elle 
a ete determinee sur le terrain et portent les signatures des chefs 
de la mission. 

Agreez, etc. 


1 02. MEMORANDUM (me'moire, pro-memoria) . This is often a 
detailed statement of facts, and of arguments based thereon, 
not differing essentially from a note, except that it does not 
begin and end with a formula of courtesy, need not be signed, 
but it may be convenient to deliver it by means of a short 
covering note. In earlier times these were often termed 
deduction or expose de motifs. 

Perhaps the most important instance of recent years is the 


memorandum communicated by the German Government to 
the French Government on February 9, 1925, initiating the 
correspondence which led to the Locarno Conference of that 
year. 1 


(Strictly Confidential.) 

In considering the various forms which a pact of security might 
at present take, one could proceed from an idea cognate to that 
from which the proposal made in December 1922 by Dr. Cuno 
sprang. Germany could, for example, declare her acceptance of 
a pact by virtue of which the Powers interested in the Rhine 
above all, England, France, Italy and Germany entered into a 
solemn obligation for a lengthy period (to be eventually defined 
more specifically) vis-a-vis the Government of the United States 
of America as trustee not to wage war against a contracting State. 
A comprehensive arbitration treaty, such as has been concluded 
in recent years between different European countries, could be 
amalgamated with such a pact. Germany is also prepared to 
conclude analogous arbitration treaties providing for the peaceful 
settlement of juridical and political conflicts with all other States 
as well. 

Furthermore, a pact expressly guaranteeing the present terri- 
torial status (" gegenwartiger Besitzstand ") on the Rhine would 
also be acceptable to Germany. The purport of such a pact 
could be, for instance, that the interested States bound themselves 
reciprocally to observe the inviolability of the present territorial 
status on the Rhine ; that they furthermore, both jointly and 
individually (" conjointement et separement "), guaranteed the 
fulfilment of this obligation ; and, finally, that they would regard 
any action running counter to the said obligation as affecting them 
jointly and individually. In the same sense, the treaty States could 
guarantee in this pact the fulfilment of the obligation to demilitarise 
the Rhineland which Germany has undertaken in articles 42 and 43 
of the Treaty of Versailles. Again, arbitration agreements of the 
kind defined above between Germany and all those States which 
were ready on their side to accept such agreements could be 
combined with such a pact. 

To the examples set out above still other possibilities of solution 
could be linked. Furthermore, the ideas on which these examples 
are based could be combined in different ways. Again, it would be 
worth considering whether it would not be advisable so to draft the 
security pact that it would prepare the way for a world convention 
to include all States along the lines of the " Protocole pour le 
Reglement pacifique de Differends internationaux " drawn up by 
the League of Nations, and that, in case such a world convention 
was achieved, it could be absorbed by it or worked into it. 

1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. 7 (1925). 


The memorandum of the French Government in reply was 
as follows : 


The memorandum communicated to the French Government 
on the gth February by His Excellency the German Ambassador 
has been examined by them with interest and with a determination 
not to neglect anything which may contribute to European and 
world peace. The German Government will understand that the 
examination of these suggestions cannot be continued until France 
has submitted them to her Allies and has come to an agreement 
with them for the establishment of a system of security within 
the framework of the Treaty of Versailles. 


February 20, 1925. 

103. Other and less usual forms are the following : 
A method occasionally employed in some matter of weighty 
import is for the minister for foreign affairs to address a 
despatch to his representative at the other capital, setting 
forth the views of his government, with an instruction to read 
it to the Foreign Minister and to leave him a copy. 

On the passage of the Panama Canal Act by the United 
States Congress in 1912 the following despatch was addressed 
by the British Government to His Majesty's Ambassador at 
Washington 1 : 

Foreign Office, 

November 14, 1912. 


Your Excellency will remember that on the 8th July, 1912, 
Mr. Mitchell Innes communicated to the Secretary of State the 
objections which His Majesty's Government entertained to the 
legislation relating to the Panama Canal, which was then under 
discussion in Congress, and that on the 2Jth August, after the passing 
of the Panama Canal Act and the issue of the President's memo- 
randum on signing it, he informed Dr. Knox that when His 
Majesty's Government had had time to consider fully the Act and 
the memorandum a further communication would be made to him. 

Knowing as I do full well the interest which this great under- 
taking has aroused in the New World, and the emotion with which 
its opening is looked forward to by United States citizens, I wish 
to add before closing this despatch that it is only with great 
reluctance that His Majesty's Government have felt bound to raise 
objection on the ground of treaty rights to the provisions of the Act. 
Animated by an earnest desire to avoid points which might in any 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cv. 366. 


way prove embarrassing to the United States, His Majesty's Govern- 
ment have confined their objections within the narrowest possible 
limits, and have recognised in the fullest manner the rights of the 
United States to control the Canal. They feel convinced that they 
may look with confidence to the Government of the United States 
to ensure that, in promoting the interests of United States shipping, 
nothing will be done to impair the safeguards guaranteed to British 
shipping by treaty. 

Your Excellency will read this despatch to the Secretary of 
State and will leave with him a copy. 

I am, etc., 

104. Formerly when this method of communicating the 
views of one government to another was resorted to, the copy 
of the despatch was sometimes withheld, a course which might 
be held to justify a refusal to listen to the reading of the 

Canning, in January 1825, having recognised the independence 
of Buenos Aires, Colombia and Mexico, the Russian and Austrian 
ambassadors called upon him on successive days, and said they 
were instructed to read to him the despatches from their respective 
courts on the subject, but were absolutely prohibited from giving 
or allowing him to take copies. Canning asked them to give what- 
ever they had to say to him the form of a note verbale, explaining 
the difficulty in which he would be placed when, after listening to 
the reading of a long despatch, it became his duty to lay before the 
King and to convey to his colleagues a faithful impression of its 
contents, with no other voucher than his own individual recollec- 
tion of it. He therefore felt bound not to listen to the reading of 
the despatch without being allowed to take a copy of it, but was 
perfectly willing to receive any communication in a written form. 
However, after they had left, he noted down his understanding and 
impression of what they had said, and sent copies to them for their 
approval or correction. These were returned to him that from 
the Russian ambassador considerably enlarged, and that from the 
Austrian ambassador with an alteration. 

105. COLLECTIVE NOTE. This is one addressed by the 
representatives of several states to a government in regard to 
some matter in which they have been instructed to make a joint 
representation. It involves close relations between the Powers 
whose representatives sign it. 

The following notes addressed by the Italian, British and 
French representatives at Budapest to the Hungarian Govern- 
ment in 1921, concerning the deprivation of royal rights of all 
members of the House of Habsburg, are instances l : 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxvi. 513-17. 




le 4 novembre, 1921. 

D'ordre de la Conference des Ambassadeurs, nous avons 
I'honneur de transmettre au Gouvernement hongrois la declaration 
suivante datee du 2 novembre : 

" La Conference des Ambassadeurs a pris acte de la declaration 
faite aux Commissaires allies par le Gouvernement hongrois suivant 
laquelle il se remet entre les mains des Grandes Puissances alliees. 
Cette decision, en facilitant Faction que les Puissances alliees ne 
cessent d'exercer pour ramener 1'apaisement dans 1'Europe cen- 
trale, est de nature a ecarter les dangers qui menacent la Hongrie. 

" Convaincue que 1'execution de ses decisions constitue la seule 
sauvegarde de la paix, la Conference a, de meme, pris acte de la 
declaration suivant laquelle le Gouvernement hongrois proclame 
la decheance de tous les membres de la maison des Habsbourg, 
declaration dont elle attend que la confirmation soit remise par 
ecrit et sans delai aux Commissaires allies. Elle compte fermement 
que 1'Assemblee nationale hongroise, comme le Gouvernement 
hongrois en a pris 1'engagement, sanctionnera cette proclamation de 
decheance avant le 8 novembre. 

" La Conference charge les Commissaires allies de veiller a la 
stricte execution de cet engagement et decline toute responsabilite 
des evenements qui pourraient survenir s'il n'etait pas tenu dans le 
delai maximum susdit." 

Veuillez agreer, etc., 




le 5 novembre, 1921. 

D'ordre de la Conference des Ambassadeurs, nous avons 
I'honneur de signaler a votre Excellence que le texte du projet de 
loi gouvernementale, concernant la decheance de la dynastie des 
Habsbourg, apparait aux Grandes Puissances comme donnant 
prise a une equivoque qui ne leur permettra certainement pas 
d'obtenir la demobilisation de la Petite Entente. En effet, le 
projet de loi, tout en proclamant la decheance de Charles IV, et 
1'abolition de la Pragmatique Sanction, reserve a la Hongrie le 
droit d'elire son roi, sans preciser que les Habsbourg, quels qu'ils 
soient, seront exclus de cette election. 

II est indispensable que le vote de 1'Assemblee nationale soit 
de plus grande nettete et, a cet egard, ne permette pas de supposer 
que la Hongrie se derobe a la volonte tres nettement marquee par 
les Puissances dans les declarations de la Conference des Ambas- 
sadeurs des 4 fevrier, 1920, et 2 avril, 1921, en ce qui concerne 
1'exclusion du trone de tous les Habsbourg. 

En portant sans delai ce qui precede a la connaissance de votre 


Excellence, nous croyons devoir appeler tres vivement a ce sujet 
toute 1'attention du Gouvernement hongrois. 

Veuillez agreer, etc., 




le 12 novembre, 1921. 

De la part de la Conference des Ambassadeurs, nous avons 
Phonneur de transmettre a votre Excellence la communication 
suivante qui vient d'etre adressee au Haut Commissaire de France : 

'' La Conference se declare satisfaite du texte de la declaration 
complementaire de la loi de decheance qui vous a etc remis par le 
Gouvernement hongrois, et que vous m'avez communiqu6 par 
votre telegramme du 6 novembre 1921. 

' Elle est en effet d'accord avec vos propositions et elle estime 
que les assurances ainsi donnees par un acte international fournis- 
sent des garanties plus serieuses qu'une loi qui pourrait etre sujette 
a revision. 

" Je vous prie en consequence de vous concer ter avec vos coll egues 
britannique et italien, et, par une demarche conjointe, de faire 
savoir au Gouvernement hongrois que les Principales Puissances 
alliees prennent acte avec satisfaction de la declaration visee 
ci-dessus qu'elles considerent comme un engagement international." 

En portant ce qui precede a la connaissance de votre Excellence, 
nous vous prions, M. le Ministre, d'agreer, etc., 


1 06. IDENTIC NOTES. These are not always exactly similar. 
It is, however, desirable that they should be worded as closely 
as possible and be identical quant au fond. They should be 
presented, as far as possible, simultaneously. 

On February 4, 1897, a Greek force landed in Crete and 
proclaimed the occupation of the island in the name of the 
King of the Hellenes. The Powers intervened, and in concert 
drew up the terms of an identic note to be presented to the 
Greek Government by the representatives of Great Britain, 
Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. This 
was in the following terms l : 


le 2 mars, 1897. 

J'ai recu de mon Gouvernement 1'ordre de porter a la con- 
naissance de votre Excellence que les Grandes Puissances se sont 
entendues pour arreter une ligne de conduite commune destinee 
a mettre fin a une situation qu'il n'a pas dependu d'elles de pre- 
venir, mais dont la prolongation serait de nature a compromettre 
gravement la paix de 1'Europe. 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, xci. 1 75. 


A cet effet les gouvernements d'Allemagne, d'Autriche-Hongrie, 
de France, de la Grande-Bretagne, d'ltalie et de Russia sont 
tombes d'accord sur les deux points suivants : 

1. La Crete ne pourra en aucun cas, dans les conjonctions 
actuelles, etre annexee a la Grece ; 

2. Vu les retards apportes par la Turquie dans 1'application 
des reformes arretees de concert avec elles et qui n'en permettent 
plus 1'adaptation a un etat de choses transforme, les Puissances sont 
resolues, tout en maintenant 1'integrite de 1'Empire Ottoman, a 
doter la Crete d'un regime autonome absolument effectif et destine 
a lui assurer un gouvernement separe sous la haute suzerainete 
du Sultan. 

La realisation de ces vues ne saurait, dans la conviction des 
Cabinets, s'obtenir que par le retrait des navires et des troupes 
helleniques qui sont actuellement dans les eaux ou sur le territoire 
de 1'ile occupee par les Puissances. Aussi attendons-nous avec 
confiance cette determination de la sagesse du Gouvernement de 
Sa Majeste, qui ne voudra pas persister dans une voie contraire a 
la resolution des Puissances, decidees a poursuivre un prompt 
apaisement aussi indispensable a la Crete qu'au maintien de la 
paix generale. 

Je ne dissimulerai pas toutefois a votre Excellence que mes 
instructions me prescrivent de vous prevenir qu'en cas de refus du 
Gouvernement Royal les Grandes Puissances sont irrevocablement 
determinees a ne reculer devant aucun moyen de contrainte si, 
a 1'expiration d'un delai de six jours, le rappel des navires et des 
troupes helleniques de Crete n'etait pas effectue. 

107. The formal parts of a note are to give them their 
customary French designations (i) U appel or inscription; 
(2) le traitement ; (3) la courtoisie ; (4) la souscription ; (5) la 
date ; (6) la reclame ; (7) la suscription. 

(1) is the title of the person addressed, as Sire (to a 
sovereign), Monseigneur, Monsieur le Ministre, Monsieur le 
Comte, or simply Monsieur (Sir) if he is a commoner, bearing 
no title. 

It is placed en vedette, i.e. apart from the body of the letter ; 
en ligne, i.e. at the beginning of the first line ; or dans la ligne, 
i.e. after some words at the beginning of the letter. En vedette 
is used in ordinary correspondence. When the head of a 
state writes to another head of a state, the appel or inscription 
is usually en ligne ; if he is addressing a non-sovereign prince, 
or other important personage, the appel is often dans la ligne. 

(2) Traitement is mentioning the person addressed by his title 
of courtesy, such as Saintete (Holiness) to the Pope, Majeste 
(Majesty) to kings and emperors ; altesse imperiale (Imperial 
Highness) ; altesse royale (Royal Highness) ; altesse serenissime 


(Serene Highness) ; altesse (Highness) ; excellence (Excellency) ; 
seigneurie excellentissime, seigneurie illustrissime, grandeur, eminence 
(Eminence). 1 

(3) The courtoisie is the complimentary phrase which 
concludes the letter. It may express an assurance of respect, 
consideration, attachment, gratitude, etc. 

(4) The souscription is the signature. When preceded by 
" votre obeissant serviteur " it is said to be written en depeche ; 
if by " veuillez agreer les assurances de ma haute considera- 
tion," or by some similar form of words, it is said to be written 
en billet. The former is used in circumstances of ceremony, the 
latter in ordinary correspondence. 

(5) The date (Latin data, i.e. given) gives the time and 
place of writing. 

(6) The reclame consists of the name and official designation 
of the person addressed. It is placed at the bottom of the first 
page on the left. 

Suscription is the address, and is a reproduction on the 
envelope of the reclame. 

1 08. French usage since 1920. 

To foreign Ambassadors : 
Appel (en vedette] : " Monsieur 1'Ambassadeur." 
Traitement : " Votre Excellence." 
Courtoisie : " Veuillez agreer, Monsieur 1'Ambassadeur, 

les assurances de ma tres haute consideration." 

Date: " A Paris, le , 19.." 

Reclame : " Son Excellence Monsieur ou 

Monsieur le (titre nobiliaire, s'il y a lieu), 

Ambassadeur de " 

To foreign Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipo- 

Date: " Paris, le , 19.." 

Appel (en vedette} : " Monsieur le Ministre, ou Monsieur 
le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu)." 

Traitement : " Vous." 

Courtoisie : " Agreez, Monsieur le Ministre, ou Monsieur 

le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu), les assurances 

de ma haute consideration." 

Reclame : " Monsieur ou Monsieur le 

(titre nobiliaire, s'il y a lieu) et Ministre 

de " 

1 Eminence is said to have been invented by Cardinal Richelieu for himself. 
It was afterwards adopted by the other cardinals, and became generally recognised. 


To foreign Ministers Resident : 

The same as the foregoing, except that the appel is 
written en ligne. 

To foreign Charges d'Affaires : 

Date : " Paris, le , 19. ." 

Appel (en ligne} : " Monsieur le Charge d'Affaires 

vous " 

Traitement : " Vous." 

Courtoisie : " Agreez, Monsieur le Charge d'Affaires 

les assurances de ma consideration la plus 

Reclame : " Monsieur ou Monsieur le 

(titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu), Charge d'Affaires de 

109. Other rules of the French Foreign Office are : 

Letters addressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to 
the representatives of foreign Powers accredited to the French 
Republic are written on large paper with printed heading. 

The Agents of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in their 
correspondence with the authorities of the foreign country 
where they exercise their functions, must follow the forms and 
the rules laid down by the head of the mission, in accordance 
with local usages. 

Notes verbales destined for foreign representatives accredited 
at Paris are written on large paper with printed heading, 
and reclame, but without appel ; the date is written at the end. 

Notes pro-memorid, destined for foreign representatives accre- 
dited at Paris, are written on square paper, with printed 
heading. These have neither appel nor reclame, and, as they 
are to be delivered from one person to another, they do not 
require a courtoisie. The date is written at the end. 

Abbreviations such as " S.M." for " Sa Majeste, " S.A." 
for " Son Altesse," " S.A.S." for " Son Altesse Serenissime," 
" S. Exc." for Son Excellence," " S.E." for " Son Eminence," 
" Mgr." for " Monseigneur," " M." for " Monsieur," " Mme." 
for " Madame," etc., are only allowable if the name or title 
of the person follows immediately, and if the document is not 
destined for that person. Where both these conditions are 
present the use of the abbreviation is imperative. Thus 

' Dans votre entretien avec S. Exc. PAmbassadeur de 

vous ," but " Veuillez faire observer a Son Excellence 

que ," or " Le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres pre- 

sente ses compliments a Son Excellence 1'Ambassadeur de 
et a 1'honneur de Lui rappeler que " 


The expressions " Votre Majeste," " Votre Altesse," 
" Votre Altesse Serenissime," " Votre Excellence," " Prince," 
" Princesse," " Madame," " Mademoiselle," heraldic titles, 
and the words " Gouvernement," " Departement," " Ad- 
ministration," etc., may never be abbreviated. 

Forms used in addressing Sovereigns and Heads of Foreign 

States : 
Appel (en vedette] : " Sire " or " Madame," or " Monsieur 

le President." 

fraitemeni : " Votre Majeste " or " Votre Excellence." 
Courtoisie : " Je prie Votre Majeste, ou Votre Excellence, 
d'agreer les assurances * de mon profond respect." 

Date : " A Paris, le ,19. ." 

To Princes and Princesses of Sovereign Families and 

reigning Princes and Princesses : 
Appel (en vedette] : " Monseigneur " or " Madame." 
Traitement : " Votre Altesse (Imperiale, Royale, Sere- 

Courtoisie: "Je prie Votre Altesse (Imperiale, Royale, 
Serenissime) d'agreer les assurances 2 de ma respec- 
tueuse consideration." 

Date : " A Paris le ,19. ." 

Reclame : " Son Altesse (Imperiale, Royale, Serenissime) 

Monseigneur le Prince X ou Madame la 

Princesse X " 

To Foreign Cabinet Ministers : 
Appel (en vedette] : " Monsieur le Minis tre ou Monsieur 

le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu)." 

Traitement : " Votre Excellence." 

Courtoisie : " Veuillez agreer, Monsieur le Ministre ou 

Monsieur le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu), les 

assurances de ma tres haute (ou haute) consideration." 

Date : " A Paris, le ,19. ." 

Reclame : "A Son Excellence Monsieur le Ministre ou 

Monsieur le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu), 

Ministre de " 

The French Chancery may be safely taken by other 
chanceries as a model in matters of etiquette, and for that 
reason we have not hesitated to give these details. 

no. British usage. 

In all official communications, foreign ambassadors accre- 
dited in London are addressed as " Your Excellency " ; other 

1 For a sovereign, " 1'hommage." 

2 For a princess, " Phommage de mon respect." 


correspondents as " My Lord," " Sir," or " Gentlemen," as 
the case may be. 

The following terminations of notes, despatches and letters 
are prescribed : 

To foreign Ambassadors in London : 

I have the honour to be, with the highest consideraticn, 

Your Excellency's obedient servant. 

To foreign Ministers : 

I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration, 

Your obedient Servant. 

To foreign Charges d'affaires : 

I have the honour to be, with high consideration, 

Your obedient Servant. 

To His Majesty's Ambassadors abroad : 

I am, with great truth and respect, 
Sir (or, My Lord), 

Your obedient Servant. 

To His Majesty's Ministers abroad : 

I am, with great truth and regard, 
Sir (or, My Lord), 

Your obedient Servant. 

To His Majesty's Charges d'affaires abroad : 
I am, with great truth, 

Your obedient Servant. 

To the Law Officers of the Crown : 

I have the honour to be, 

Your obedient Servant. 

To other correspondents : 
I am, 

Sir (Gentlemen, My Lord), 

Your obedient Servant. 

ui. Letters addressed by the British ambassador at Paris 
to foreign ambassadors and ministers usually terminate : 

" Veuillez agreer, Monsieur , 1'assurance de ma tres 

haute consideration " ; and to charges d'affaires : ( Veuillez 

agreer, Monsieur , 1'assurance de ma haute 



112. How sovereigns address each other in correspondence 
has been explained in 68. The ceremonial observed is less 
strict than in the case of communications addressed to others ; 
between equals the style is more familiar and less formal ; for 
this reason the form designated in French Lettres de Cabinet 
is that used by preference for communications between 

Such letters (written usually on quarto paper) begin, 
Monsieur Mon Frere (et cher Beau-Frere), Sir My Brother 
(and dear Brother-in-Law) ; Madame Ma Soeur (et chere 
Niece), Madame My Sister (and dear Niece) ; Monsieur Mon 
Cousin (Sir My Cousin) ; etc. 

In the body of the letter the sovereign speaks of himself in 
the singular, and gives to his equals the title of Majeste, Altesse 
Rqyale, etc. Princes of lesser rank speak of crowned heads as 
Sire, both in the body of the letter and its signature. 

Some friendly expressions, which vary according to_ the 
relations or degree of relationship between the two sovereigns, 
close the letter, such as "Je saisis cette occasion pour Vous 
offrir les assurances de la haute consideration et de 1'invariable 
attachement avec lesquelles Je suis, Monsieur Mon Frere, de 
Votre Majeste le bon Frere, N." 

The signature of the sovereign to such letters is in some 
countries countersigned by a minister of state. Letters in this 
form are customarily employed for credentials of ambassadors 
or ministers, or letters announcing their recall, and recredentials, 
and in general for announcements of births, marriages, or 
deaths in the Royal Family, or expressions of congratulation 
or condolence conveyed to other sovereigns. 

113. Letters addressed by sovereigns to presidents of 
republics are in the more formal and ceremonious style of 
Lettres de Chancellerie (on large paper) beginning with the 
name and title of the sovereign, followed by the title of the 
head of the state to whom the letter is addressed : To the 

President of the Republic of Our Good Friend ' 

(or some equivalent). These are ordinarily credentials of am- 
bassadors or ministers, letters of recall, recredentials, announce- 
ments of the death of the late sovereign or of accession to the 
throne, congratulations on election, etc., and may^end by an 
expression of the value attached by the sovereign to the 
maintenance of the friendly relations happily subsisting between 
the two countries. They are usually countersigned by a 
minister of state. 

1 14. Letters addressed by the sovereign to other sovereigns 
are sometimes in similar formal style to Lettres de Chancellerie, 


with the designation of the sovereign to whom they are 
addressed following the name and title of the sender. 

115. Letters addressed by presidents of republics to 
sovereigns usually begin : " A.B. President of the Republic 

of To His Majesty the King of 

Great and Good Friend (or some equivalent)." These may 
be credentials of ambassadors or ministers, letters of recall, 
recredentials, announcement of election to the presidency, 
etc. In the case of many republics such announcements of 
assumption of the office of president are customary. 

116. In 1913 the Austro-Hungarian Chancery still used 
Latin for Imperial and Royal letters : 

Serenissime et potentissime Princeps, Consanguinee et Frater 
carissime. . . . 

Maiestatis Vestrae Bonus Frater 

Franciscus Josephus. 
Dabantur Viennae, die . . . mensis. . . . 


Letters of Credence or Credentials 

117. THE form of credentials used in Great Britain in the 
case of foreign sovereigns is that of a Lettre de Cabinet, as, for 
example : 


Being desirous to maintain without interruption the relations 
of friendship and good understanding which happily subsist between 
the two Crowns, I have made choice of Sir Augustus Berkeley 
Paget, a member of My Privy Council, and Knight Grand Cross 
of My Most Honourable Order of the Bath, to reside at the Court 
of Your Imperial Majesty in the character of My Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. 

The long experience which I have had of Sir Augustus Paget's 
talents and zeal for My service assures Me that the selection which 
I have made will be perfectly agreeable to Your Imperial Majesty, 
and that he will discharge the important duties of his Embassy in 
such a manner as to prove himself worthy of this new mark of My 
confidence, and to merit Your Imperial Majesty's approbation 
and esteem. 

I therefore request that Your Imperial Majesty will give entire 
credence to all that Sir Augustus Paget shall communicate to You 
in My name, more especially when he shall assure Your Imperial 
Majesty of My invariable esteem and regard, and shall renew to 
You the expression of those sentiments of sincere attachment and 
highest consideration with which I am, Sir My Brother, 

Your Imperial Majesty's 
Good Sister, 



January i, 1884. 

To My Good Brother the Emperor of Austria. 

1 1 8. Or, in the case of a republic, a Lettre de Chancellerie, 
as, for example : 

Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of 
India, etc., etc., etc. 


To the President of the United States of Venezuela, Sendeth 

Our Good Friend. Being desirous to continue without inter- 
ruption the relations of friendship and good understanding which 
happily subsist between Great Britain and the United States of 
Venezuela, and having the fullest confidence in the fidelity, 
prudence and other good qualities of Our trusty and well-beloved 
Frederick Robert St. John, Esquire, We have thought proper to 
accredit him to the United States of Venezuela in the character of 
Our Minister Resident. We doubt not that he will merit your 
approbation and goodwill by a strict observance of the instructions 
he has received from Us to evince to you Our constant friendship, 
and the sincere desire which We entertain to preserve and advance 
on all occasions the interest and happiness of both nations. We 
therefore request that you will grant a favourable reception to Our 
said Minister Resident, and that you will give entire credence to 
all that he shall represent to you in Our name, especially when, 
in obedience to Our orders, he shall assure you of Our esteem and 
regard, and of Our hearty wishes for the welfare and prosperity of 
the United States of Venezuela. 

And so We recommend you to the Protection of the Almighty. 

Given at Our Court at Osborne, the 24th day of December, in the 
Year of Our Lord 1884, and in the forty-eighth year of Our Reign. 

Your Good Friend, 

(Countersigned) GRANVILLE. 

119. Or, again in the case of certain Oriental monarchs, a 
Lettre de Chancellerie, as, for example : 

Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of 
India, etc. 

To the Most High, Mighty and Glorious Prince, His Imperial 
and Royal Majesty the Emperor of China, Our Good Brother and 
Cousin, Greeting. 

Most High and Mighty Prince. Having granted permission 
to Our Trusty and Well-beloved Sir Thomas Francis Wade, Knight 
Commander of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, who has 
for some years resided at the Court of Your Imperial and Royal 
Majesty in the character of Our Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary, to resign his Mission and remain in England, We 
cannot omit to notify to You that his functions in that capacity 
have terminated, and that he will not return to Your Court. 
Being, however, desirous to maintain without interruption the 
relations of friendship and good understanding which happily 
exist between Our respective Empires, and to promote and extend 
the commercial intercourse between Our subjects and Dominions 
and those of Your Imperial and Royal Majesty, We have selected 
Our Trusty and Well-beloved Sir Harry Smith Parkes, Grand 


Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. 
George, Knight Commander of Our Most Honourable Order of 
the Bath, in whose zeal, talents, and discretion We have the most 
perfect confidence, to reside at the Court of Your Imperial and 
Royal Majesty in the character of Our Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary. Sir Harry Smith Parkes will have the 
honour of presenting this Our Royal Letter to Your Imperial and 
Royal Majesty, and will, in obedience to Our orders, assure You 
of Our Most sincere friendship, and of Our ardent wishes for Your 
long life and uninterrupted happiness. He is fully informed as to 
all matters which concern the interests of Our subjects trading to 
or residing in the Dominions of Your Imperial and Royal Majesty, 
and will use his best efforts to perpetuate that harmony and friendly 
intercourse which it is Our earnest desire should ever prevail 
between the two great Empires. We accordingly request that Your 
Imperial and Royal Majesty will receive Our said Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in a favourable manner, 
that You will grant him free access to Your Presence, and that 
You will give entire credence to all that he shall have occasion to 
represent to You in Our Name. 

And so We recommend Your Imperial and Royal Majesty to 
the Protection of The Almighty. 

Given at Our Court at Windsor Castle, the first day of July, in the 
Year of Our Lord 1883, and in the forty-seventh Year of Our Reign. 
Your Imperial and Royal Majesty's 

Affectionate Sister and Cousin, 

(Countersigned) GRANVILLE. 
To the Most High, Mighty 
and Glorious Prince, His 
Imperial and Royal Majesty 
The Emperor of China, Our 
Good Brother and Cousin. 

120. The language of such documents is a matter of 
" common form." The highly ornate phraseology of the 
past has in modern times given way to a more simple style of 
address, and while this may differ from reign to reign, and 
between one country and another, the final phrase asking that 
credit may be given to all that the agent may say in the name of 
his sovereign or government is of universal application, as being 
what constitutes the essential part of a letter of credence. 

Letters of Recall 

121. Letters of Recall may take the form of a Lettre de 
Cabinet, as, for example : 


Des motifs de sante ayant porte le Lieutenant General de 
Bulow a desirer de rentrer en Danemark, j'ai cru devoir acceder a 


ses voeux en mettant un terme a la mission qu'il remplissait comme 
Mon Envoy e Extraordinaire et Ministre Plenipotentiaire aupres 
de Votre Majeste. J'aime a croire que cet Envoye, qui a rernpli 
cette mission honorable a Mon end ere satisfaction, aura su meriter 
la haute bienveillance de Votre Majeste, et J'espere qu'Elle lui 
permettra de Lui temoigner en personne la reconnaissance dont il 
est penetre pour les marques de bonte dont Votre Majeste a bien 
voulu 1'honorer pendant le sejour qu'il a fait aupres d'Elle. Je 
profite Moi-meme avec plaisir de cette occasion pour renouveler 
a Votre Majeste 1'expression de la haute consideration et de la plus 
parfaite amide avec lesquelles Je suis, 

Madame Ma Soeur, 
de Votre Majeste, 

le bon Frere, 

le 1 1 Mai 1 880. 

A Sa Majeste la Reine du 
Royaume-Uni de la Grande- 
Bretagne et d'Irlande, Im- 
peratrice des Indes. 

122. Or of a Lettre de Chancellerie : 

Par la Grace de Dieu, 

Nous Alexandre III, Empereur et Autocrate de Toutes les 
Russies, de Moscou, Kiow, Wladimir, Novgorod, Tsar de Casan, 
Tsar d'Astrakhan, Tsar de Pologne, Tsar de Siberie, Tsar de la 
Chersonese, Taurique, Tsar de la Georgie, Seigneur de Plescow et 
Grand Due de Smolensk, de Lithuanie, Volhynie, Podolie et de la 
Finlande ; Due d'Estonie, de Livonie, de Courlande et Semigalle, 
de Samogide, Bialostock, Carelie, Twer, Jugotie, Perm, Viatka, 
Bolgarie et d'autres ; Seigneur et Grand Due de Novgorod-inferieur, 
de Czarnigow, Riasan, Polotzk, Rostow, Jaroslaw, Beloosersk, 
Oudor, Obdor-Condie, Witepsk, Mstislaw ; Dominateur de toute 
la contree du Nord ; Seigneur dTberie, de la Cartalinie, de la 
Cabardie et de la province d'Armenie ; Prince Hereditaire et 
Souverain des Princes de Circassie et d'autres Princes montagnards ; 
Seigneur de Turkestan ; Successeur de Norvege, Due de Schleswig- 
Holstein, de Stormarn, deDithmarsen et d'Oldenbourg, etc., etc., etc. 

A la Tres-Haute et Tres-Puissante Princesse Victoire I er , par 
la Grace de Dieu, Reine du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne 
et d'Irlande, Impera trice des Indes, etc. Salut ! 

Tres-Haute et Tres-Puissante Reine, tres-chere Soeur et tres- 
aimee parente ! Nous avons juge a propos de rappeler Notre 
Conseiller Prive et Chevalier Baron Arthur Mohrenheim du poste 
de Notre Ambassadeur Extraordinaire et Plenipotentiaire qu'il 
a occupe jusqu'ici pres Votre Majeste. En informant Votre 
Majeste de cette determination, Nous La prions de vouloir bien 
congedier gracieusement Notre susdit Ambassadeur, etant persuade, 
qu'en se conformant dans 1'exercice des ses fonctions aux instructions 


que Nous lui avons donnees, il aura deploy e tout son zele pour 
entretenir les liens d'amitie qui subsistent entre Nos deux Cours, 
et aura su meriter la bienveillance de Votre Majeste. Sur ce, Nous 
prions Dieu qu'Il ait Votre Majeste en Sa sainte et digne garde. 

Donne a St. Petersbourg, le 8 fevrier, 1884, de Notre Regne la 
troisieme annee. 

De Votre Majeste 1'affectionne Frere et Cousin, 


(Countersigned) N. GIERS. 
A Sa Majeste la Reine du 
Royaume-Uni de la Grande- 
Bretagne et d'Irlande, Im- 
peratrice des Indes. 

123. Or, when addressed to a Republic : 

Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India, 
etc., etc., etc. 

To the President of the United States of America, Sendeth 
Greeting ! Our Good Friend ! 

Having need elsewhere for the services of Our Right Trusty 
and Well-beloved Councillor Sir Edward Thornton, Knight Com- 
mander of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, who has for 
some time resided with You in the character of Our Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, We have thought proper to 
notify to You his recall. We are Ourselves so entirely satisfied with 
the zeal, ability and discretion with which Sir Edward Thornton 
has uniformly executed Our orders during his mission, by studying 
to promote the friendship and good understanding which happily 
subsist between the two Nations, and which We trust will always 
continue, that We cannot doubt that You will also have found his 
conduct deserving of Your approbation. 

We gladly embrace this opportunity to assure You of the sincere 
interest which We take in the welfare and prosperity of the United 
States. And so We recommend You to the Protection of The 

Given at Our Court at Balmoral the 25th day of May, in the 
Year of Our Lord 1 88 1 , and in the 44th Year of Our Reign. 

Your Good Friend, 

(Countersigned) GRANVILLE. 

To Our Good Friend, 

The President of the United 
States of America. 

124. Or, when issued by a Republic : 

Jules Grevy, 

President de la Republique Franchise. 

A Sa Majeste la Reine du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne 
et d'Irlande, Imperatrice des Indes. 



Ayant juge a propos d'acceder au desir que Nous a exprime 
M. Charles Tissot de revenir en France, Nous avons mis fin a la 
haute mission qu'il remplissait aupres de Votre Majeste en qualite 
d'Ambassadeur de la Republique Francaise. Nous ne doutons 
pas que, pendant la duree de sa charge, M. Tissot n'ait profite de 
toutes les occasions qui se sont presentees pour exprimer a Votre 
Majeste la gratitude que lui ont inspiree les marques de bonte dont 
Vous avez bien voulu 1'honorer, et que, suivant Notre recommanda- 
tion, il Vous ait renouvele les assurances de Notre haute estime et 
de Notre inviolable amitie, ainsi que celles des voeux que Nous 
formons pour la prosperite du Royaume-Uni. 

ficrit a Paris le 19 juillet, 1883. 

(Countersigned) CHALLEMEL LECOUR. 


125. Recredential (recreance, recreditif] is the name given to 
the reply to a letter of recall. The following are examples : 


J'ai regu la lettre par laquelle Votre Majeste Royale et Imperiale 
a bien voulu M'informer qu'Elle avait juge a propos d'utiliser 
ailleurs les services de Sir Edward Baldwin Malet, Commandeur 
de Son tres-honorable ordre du Bain, charge pendant quelque 
temps d'une mission a Ma Cour en qualite d'Envoye Extraordinaire 
et Ministre Plenipotentiaire. Je saisis avec empressement 1'occasion 
qui M'est offerte pour exprimer a Votre Majeste Royale et Imperiale 
combien J'ai eu lieu d'etre satisfait de la maniere dont Sir Edward 
Baldwin Malet a constamment execute ses ordres dans 1'exercice des 
hautes fonctions qui 1'ont retenu aupres de Ma Personne. Comme 
il n'a cesse a consacrer ses efforts au developpement des rapports 
d'amitie qui existent si heureusement entre Nos deux Couronnes, 
il s'est montre digne de toute Ma bienveillance, et J'ose a ce titre 
le recommander particulierement aux bonnes graces de Votre 
Majeste Royale et Imperiale. En exprimant a Votre Majeste 
Royale et Imperiale le plaisir que Me font eprouver les temoignages 
d'amitie qu'Eile Me donne, Je La prie de recevoir 1'expression 
renouvelee de la haute estime et de ['inviolable attachement avec 
lesquels Je suis, Madame Ma Soeur et Chere Cousine, 
de Votre Majeste Royale et Imperiale 

le bon Frere et Cousin, 



le 19 octobre 1884. 

Sa Majeste la Reine du 
Royaume-Uni de la Grande- 
Bretagne et d'lrlande, Im- 
peratrice des Indes. 




Par lettres royales, datees du Chateau de Windsor, le i er 
juillet, Votre Majeste nous a fait 1'honneur de nous informer 
qu'Elle avait juge a propos de rappeler de sa mission aupres de 
nous Son Excellence Monsieur Hussey Crespigny Vivian, Son 
Envoye Extraordinaire et Ministre Plenipotentiaire pres la Con- 
federation Suisse. 

Nous ne Vous dissimulerons pas le regret que nous eprouvons 
du depart de 1'honorable Monsieur Vivian, qui a su s'attirer toutes 
nos sympathies par la bienveillance et 1'amenite qu'il a toujours 
mises dans ses relations avec nous et reserrer encore davantage les 
liens d'estime et de bonne amitie qui unissent la Suisse et la Grande- 

Nous saisissons avec plaisir cette occasion pour renouveler a 
Votre Majeste les voeux que nous formons pour la prosperite de Sa 
famille et pour le bonheur des peuples qui sont reunis sous Son 
sceptre et pour La recommander avec nous a la protection du 


le 1 9 juillet 1881. 

Au nom du Conseil federal suisse, 

Le Vice-President, 

Le Chancelier de la Confederation, X. 


Victoria by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of 
India, etc., etc., etc., 

To His Majesty Somdetch Phra Paramindr Maha Chulalonkorn 
Phra Chula Chom Klao, King of Siam, Our Distinguished and 
Beloved Friend, Sendeth Greeting. 

We have received from the hands of His Highness Prince 
Prisdang, Your Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at Our Court, the letter which You addressed to 
Us on the 1 6th of July last, and in which You acquaint Us that 
You had found it desirable to terminate his functions in that 
character. The mission of Prince Prisdang being thus at an end, 
We cannot omit to assure You that His Highness's language and 
conduct during his residence at Our Court have been such as to 
merit Our entire approbation and esteem and to strengthen and 
maintain those friendly relations which happily subsist between 
Our Dominions and those of Your Majesty, to the continuance of 
which We attach a high value. And so We recommend You to the 
Protection of the Almighty. 

Given at Our Court at Windsor Castle, the I7th day of 


December, in the Year of Our Lord 1883, and in the forty-seventh 
year of Our Reign. 

Your Majesty's Affectionate Sister and Friend, 

(Countersigned) GRANVILLE. 
To His Majesty The King of 
Siam, Our Distinguished and 
Beloved Friend. 

Full Powers 

128. These are in the form of letters patent. 

A diplomatic agent to whom a particular negotiation is 
entrusted for the conclusion of a treaty or convention, or an 
agent who is deputed to take part in a congress or conference 
for a similar purpose, requires as a general rule a special 
authorisation, called a full power, from the head of the state 
whom he represents ; or, it may be, from its government, if 
the proposed treaty arrangement is to be between governments. 

129. Before the signature of a treaty or convention, etc., 
it is the rule that the full powers of the plenipotentiaries must 
be exhibited for verification. In the case of a bilateral treaty 
this usually takes place at the ministry for foreign affairs prior 
to the signature of the treaty ; in the case of a multilateral 
treaty, the duty automatically devolves upon the headquarters 
government, viz. that of the state wherein the treaty is 
signed ; in the case of a conference a small sub-committee is 
often appointed at the outset to receive and examine the full 
powers of the representatives of the various states taking part. 

130. It is not, however, necessary that an actual exchange 
or transference of the original documents should take place. 
An inspection will suffice, and the most that could be required 
would be the retention of certified copies. That this was the 
custom in former times is shown from the practice that 
prevailed of publishing the text of the full powers conferred 
by the high contracting parties along with the treaty negotiated 
in pursuance of them. 1 But sometimes full powers, where 
given ad hoc, having served the purpose for which they were 
intended, are left with the government of the state wherein 
signature of the treaty take place, and in this event they are 
preserved in its archives with the signed treaty. 

131. Formerly, when a congress was held under the super- 
intendence of one or more mediators, the full powers of the 
plenipotentiaries were handed to them for verification. At 
the conferences of Constantinople (1876-7) and Berlin (1884) 
the plenipotentiaries appointed ad hoc alone produced full 

1 See Jenkinson, iii. 347. 


powers, which were held to be unnecessary in the case of the 
resident diplomatic agents who represented their governments 
on those occasions. 

132. In the eighteenth century the King of Great Britain 
and the Emperor conferred full powers in the Latin language ; 
France and Russia used French, Spain Spanish, and the 
United States English. For the definitive Treaty of Peace 
with the United States of September 3, 1 783, the King's full 
power was also in English. Latin was used for this purpose 
as late at least as 1806, for the full powers given first to Lord 
Yarmouth, and afterwards to Lord Lauderdale in conjunction 
with him, for the abortive peace negotiations at Lille. 

133. Full power, dated April 23, 1783, to the Duke of 
Manchester for negotiating a treaty of peace with France : 

(Signature] Georgius R. 

Georgius Tertius, Dei Gratia, Magnse Britanniae, Franciae, 
et Hiberniae, Rex, Fidei Defensor, Dux Brunsvicensis et Lune- 
burgensis, Sacri Romani Imperii Archi-Thesaurarius, et Princeps 
Elector, etc. Omnibus et singulis ad quos praesentes hae literae 
pervenerint, salutem ! Cum ad pacem perficiendam inter nos et 
bonurn fratrem nostrum Regem Christianissimum, quae jam signatis 
apud Versalios, die vicesimo mensis Januarii proxime praeteriti, 
articulis preliminariis feliciter inchoata est, eamque ad finem 
exoptatum perducendam, virum aliquem idoneum, ex nostra parte, 
plena auctoritate munire nobis e re visum sit ; cumque perdilectus 
nobis et perquam fidelis consanguineus et consiliarius noster, 
Georgius Dux et Comes de Manchester, Vicecomes de Mandeville, 
Baron de Kimbolton, Comitatus de Huntingdon Locum-Tenens 
et Gustos Rotulorum, nobilitate generis, egregiis animi dotibus, 
summo rerum usu, et spectata fide, se nobis commendaverit, quern 
idcirco titulo Legati Nostri Extraordinarii et Plenipotentiarii apud 
praedictum bonum fratrem nostrum Regem Christianissimum 
decoravimus, persuasumque nobis sit amplissime ornaturum fore 
provinciam quam ei mandare decrevimus : Sciatis igitur quod nos 
praedictum Georgium Ducem de Manchester fecimus, constituimus 
et ordinavimus, et, per praesentes, eum facimus, constituimus et 
ordinamus, nostrum verum certum ac indubitatum plenipotentia- 
rium, commissarium, et procuratorem ; dantes et concedentes 
eidem plenam et omnimodam potestatem, atque auctoritatem, 
pariter ac mandatum generale ac speciale, cum praedicto Rege 
Christianissimo, ipsiusque ministris, commissariis vel procura- 
toribus, sufficienti auctoritate instructis, cumque legatis, com- 
missariis, deputatis et plenipotentiariis aliorum principum et 
statuum, quorum interesse poterit, sufficienti itidem auctoritate 
instructis tarn singulatim ac divisim, quam aggregatim ac con- 
junctim, congrediendi et colloquendi, atque cum ipsis de pace 
firma ac stabili, sinceraque amicitia et concordia quantocius 


restituendis, conveniendi, tractandi, consulendi et concludendi ; 
eaque omnia, quae ita conventa et conclusa fuerint, pro nobis 
et nostro nomine, subsignandi, superque conclusis tractatum, 
tractatusve, vel alia instrumenta quotquot et qualia necessaria 
fuerint, conficiendi, mutuoque tradendi, recipiendique ; omniaque 
alia quae ad opus supradictum feliciter exequendum pertinent, 
transigendi, tam amplis modo et forma, ac vi effectuque pari, ac nos, 
si interessemus, facere et praestare possemus : Spondentes, et in 
verbo regio promittentes, nos omnia et singula quaecunque a dicto 
nostro Plenipotentiario transigi et concludi contigerint, grata, rata 
et accepta, omni meliori modo, habituros, neque passuros unquam 
ut in toto, vel in parte, a quopiam violentur, aut ut iis in contrarium 
eatur. In quorum omnium majorem fidem et robur prassentibus, 
manu nostra regia signatis, magnum nostrum Magnas Britanniae 
sigillum appendi fecimus. Quae dabantur in palatio nostro Divi 
Jacobis die vicesimo tertio mensis Aprilis, anno domini millesimo, 
septingesimo octogesimo tertio, regnique nostri vicesimo tertio. 1 

134. The full powers given in 1806 to Lord Yarmouth in 
the first instance, and afterwards to Lord Lauderdale and 
Lord Yarmouth conjointly, were worded in the same manner. 
Napoleon's full power to General Clarke on the same occasion 
ran as follows : 

Napoleon par la grace de Dieu, et les constitutions, Empereur 
des Frangais, Roi d'ltalie, prenant entiere confiance dans la 
fidelite pour Notre personne, et le zele pour Notre service de 
Monsieur le General de division Clarke, Notre conseiller intime 
du cabinet, et grand officier de la Legion d'honneur, Nous lui 
avons donne, et lui donnons par les presentes, plein et absolu 
pouvoir, commission, et mandement special, pour en notre nom, 
et avec tel ministre de Sa Majeste Britannique dument autorise a 
cet effet, convenir, arreter, conclure, et signer, tels traites, articles, 
conventions, declarations, et autres actes qu'il avisera bien etre ; 
promettons d'avoir pour agreable et tenir ferme et stable, accomplir 
et executer ponctuellement tout ce que le dit plenipotentiaire aura 
promis et signe en vertu des presents pleins-pourvoirs, comme aussi 
d'en faire expedier les lettres de ratification en bonne forme, et de les 
faire delivrer pour etre echangees dans le terns dont il sera convenu. 

En foi de quoi Nous avons donne les presentes signees de notre 
main, contresignees et munies de Notre sceau Imperial. 

A St. Cloud, le vingt-un juillet an mil huit cent six, de Notre 
regne le second. 


Par 1'Empereur, le Ministre Secretaire d'Etat, 


Le Ministre des Relations Exterieures, 


Prince de Benevent. 2 
1 Jenkinson, iii. 347. " Papers Relative to the Negotiations with France, 75. 



135. At the present day the full powers issued to repre- 
sentatives for such purposes as the negotiation and signature 
of a treaty, or the settlement in a similar manner at a congress 
or conference of some question of international concern, vary 
greatly in form, according to the particular constitution or 
the settled practice of the country which issues them. In the 
case of Great Britain the form used for the signature of a treaty 
or convention between heads of states is shown in 136, and 
the wording, it will be seen, follows in general that of the past 
( : 33)5 though the use of Latin for such purposes has long been 
discontinued. Many countries adopt a similar formal style ; 
in the case of others it may be simpler, and the phraseology 
employed may vary considerably. Differences may exist also 
according to the degree of importance ascribed to the treaty, 
or whether it is to be concluded between heads of states or, 
on the other hand, between governments. The essential 
feature of all such documents is that they should show by 
their terms that the representative to whom they are issued is 
invested with all necessary authority on the part of the state 
concerned to take part in the negotiations pending, and to 
conclude and sign, subject if necessary to ratification, the 
treaty instrument which may result from these negotiations. 

136. The form of full power issued by the Court of 
St. James for the purpose of a treaty or convention between 
heads of states is as follows : 

(Signature] George R.I. 

George, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and 
the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, 
Emperor of India, etc., etc., etc., 

To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come, 
Greeting ! 

Whereas for the better treating of and arranging certain matters 
which are now in discussion, or which may come into discussion, 

between Us and concerning 

We have judged it expedient to 

invest a fit person with Full Power to conduct the said discussion 
on Our part in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland \ Know 
Ye therefore, that We, reposing especial Trust and Confidence 
in the Wisdom, Loyalty, Diligence and Circumspection of Our 

have named, made, constituted 

and appointed, as We do by these presents name, make, constitute 
and appoint him Our undoubted Commissioner, Procurator and 
Plenipotentiary, in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ; 
Giving to him all manner of Power and Authority to treat, 
adjust and conclude with such minister or ministers as may 
be vested with similar Power and Authority on the part of 


any treaty, con- 
vention or agreement that may tend to the attainment of the 
above-mentioned end, and to sign for Us, and in Our Name, in 
respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, everything so agreed 
upon and concluded, and to do and transact all such other matters 
as may appertain thereto, in as ample manner and form, and with 
equal force and efficacy, as We Ourselves could do if personally 
present ; Engaging and Promising, upon Our Royal Word, that 
whatever things shall be so transacted and concluded by Our said 
Commissioner, Procurator and Plenipotentiary, in respect of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland, shall, subject if necessary to Our ratifica- 
tion, be agreed to, acknowledged and accepted by Us in the 
fullest manner, and that We will never suffer, either in the whole 
or in part, any person whatsoever to infringe the same, or act con- 
trary thereto, as far as it lies in Our power. 

In witness whereof, We have caused Our Great Seal to be 
affixed to these Presents, which We have signed with Our Royal 

Given at Our Court of St. James, the day of , 

in the Year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 

and in the year of Our Reign. 

137. In the case of an agreement between governments, 
the form of full power issued by His Majesty's Secretary of 
State for Foreign Affairs is as follows : 

Whereas for the better treating of and arranging certain matters 
which are now in discussion, or which may come into discussion, 
between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 

and Northern Ireland and the Government of 

concerning it is expedient 

that a fit person should be invested with Full Power to con- 
duct the said discussion on the part of the Government of the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ; I, 

, His Majesty's Principal 

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, do hereby certify that 

is by these Presents named, constituted 

and appointed as Plenipotentiary and Representative having Full 
Power and Authority to agree and conclude, with such Plenipoten- 
tiary or Representative as may be vested with similar Power and 

Authority on the part of the Government of , any 

Convention or Agreement that may tend to the attainment of the 
above-mentioned end, and to sign for the Government of the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland every- 
thing so agreed upon and concluded. Further I do hereby certify 
that whatever things shall be so transacted and concluded by the 
said Plenipotentiary and Representative, shall, subject if necessary 
to ratification by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland, be agreed to, acknowledged and 


accepted by the said Government of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland in the fullest manner. 

In witness whereof I have signed these Presents, and affixed 
hereto my seal. 

Signed and sealed at the Foreign Office, London, the day 

of , in the Year of our Lord 19... 

(Seal) (Signature of Secretary of State.) 

138. A French example : 

Gaston Doumergue, President de la Republique Francaise, 

A Tous Ceux qui ces presentes lettres verront, Sa*lut ; 

Une Conference Internationale s'etant reunis. a Londres en 
vue de conclure une Convention sur les marques de franc-bord, 
Nous avons charge MM. Haarbleicher Andre Maurice, Directeur des 
services de la Flotte de Commerce et du Materiel Naval au Ministere 
de la Marine Marchande, President de la Delegation, Lindemann 
Rene Hippolyte Joseph, directeur adjoint des services du Travail; ; ; 
Maritime et de la Comptabilite au Ministere de la Marine Mar-, 
chande, ITngenieur principal du genie maritime, Marie Jean 
Henri Theophile, attache aux services de la Flotte de Commerce 
et du Materiel Naval au Ministere de la Marine Marchande, de 
Berlhe A.H.A., administrateur delegue du Bureau Veritas, d'etudier 
toutes les questions qui font 1'objet de cette reunion internationale 
et, par les presentes, les nommons et constituons Nos Plenipoten- 
tiaires a 1'effet de negocier, conclure et signer avec le ou les Pleni- 
potentiaires egalement munis de pleins pouvoirs de la part des 
Puissances contractantes, tels Arrangement, Convention, Declara- 
tion ou Actes quelconques qui seront juges necessaires pour atteindre 
le resultat desire. Promettant d'accomplir et d'executer tout ce 
que Nosdits Plenipotentiaires auront stipule et signe au nom de la 
Republique Franchise, sans jamais y contrevenir, ni permettre 
qu'il y soit contrevenu directement ou indirectement pour quelque 
pretexte et de quelque maniere que ce soit, sous la reserve de Nos 
Lettres de Ratification que Nous ferons delivrer en bonne et due 
forme pour etre echangees dans le delai qui sera convenu. En 
foi de quoi, Nous avons fait apposer a ces presentes le sceau de la 

Fait a Rambouillet, le 22 mai, 1930. 

Par le President de la Republique 

(Seal) Le Ministre des Affaires fitrangeres 

(Signed) A. BRIAND. 

139. A United States example : 

Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America, 
To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting. 
Know Ye, That reposing special trust and confidence in the 
integrity, prudence and ability of Mr. H. B. Walker, President of 
the American Steamship Owners' Association, Mr. David Arnott, 


of the American Bureau of Shipping, Mr. Laurens Prior, of the 
Bureau of Navigation, Department of Commerce, Mr. H. C. 
Towle, of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Mr. S. D. 
McComb, of the Marine Office of America, Captain A. F. Pillsbury, 
of Pillsbury & Curtis, San Francisco, Mr. Robert F. Hand, of the 
Standard Oil Company, New York, Mr. James Kennedy, General 
Manager, Marine Department, Gulf Refining Company, New York, 
Mr. H. W. Warley, of the Ore Steamship Company, New York, 
and Rear-Admiral J. G. Tawresey, United States Navy, retired, 
Delegates of the United States of America to the International 
Conference on Load-Lines to convene at London on May 20, 1930, 
I have invested them jointly and severally with full and all manner 
of power and authority, for and in the name of the United States 
of America, to meet and confer with any persons duly authorised 
by the Governments of the States represented at the said Inter- 
national Conference, being invested with like power and authority, 
and with them to negotiate, conclude and sign a Convention on the 
subject of load-lines, the same to be transmitted to the President 
of the United States for his ratification, subject to the advice and 
consent thereto of the Senate of the United States. 

In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United 
States to be hereunto affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this 2Qih day of April in the 
year of Our Lord 1930, and of the independence of the United 
States the one hundred and fifty-fourth. 

(Seal] (Signed) HERBERT HOOVER. 

By the President (signed) X. 

Acting Secretary of State. 

I3QA. A Roumanian example : 

Nous, Carol II, Roi de Roumaiiie, Nous confiant pleinement 
dans le zele et le devouement de Monsieur V. V. Tilea, depute, 
lui donnons pleins-pouvoirs de negocier, de conclure et de signer, 
avec le ou les Plenipotentiaires egalement munis de pleins- 
pouvoirs en bonne et due forme de Sa Majeste Britannique un 
Traite de Commerce et de Navigation entre la Roumanie et la 
Grande-Bretagne . 

En foi de quoi, Nous avons delivre les presentes, signees par 
Notre main et revetues de Notre Sceau Royal. 

Fait a Bucarest le 28 juillet, 1930. 

(Seal) (Signed) CAROL. 

Le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres par interim 


1396. A German example : 


Der Deutsche Botschafter in London, Herr Konstantin Freiherr 
von Neurath, wird hiermit bevollmachtigt, die in London zur 


Unterzeichnung aufgelegte Ubereinkunft iiber die Unterhaltung 
von Leuchtfeuern im Roten Meer im Namen des Deutschen Reichs 
vorbehaltlich der Ratifikation zu unterzeichnen. 
Berlin, den 5. Dezember 1930. 

(Seal) (Signed) VON HINDENBURG. 

(Countersigned) CURTIUS. 

140. A Soviet Union example : 


The Central Executive Committee of the U.S.SR. announces 
that it has empowered and hereby authorises the citizen Dimitri 
Vassilievich Bogomolov, Counsellor of the Soviet Embassy in Great 
Britain, to sign such acts as may be drawn up at the international 
Conference in London on load-lines. 

Acts signed in pursuance of the present authorisation must be 
ratified in the manner prescribed by the laws of the U.S.S.R. 

Moscow, May 31, 1930. 

(Seal) President of the Central Executive Com- 
mittee of the U.S.S.R., KALININ. 

Secretary of above, ENUKIDZE. 
Commissar for Foreign Affairs, LITVINOV. 

141. A full power issued by the Vatican for the purpose 
of the signature of the Universal Postal Convention runs as 
follows : 

Segretario di Stato di Sua Santita. 

II sottoscritto Cardinale Pietro Gasparri, Segretario di Stato 
di Sua Santita, autorizza il Signor Prof. Hewins a rappresentare 
lo Stato della Citta del Vaticano al Congresso Postale che si terra 
a Londra col pieni poteri per negoziare e sottoscrivere a nome 
della Santa Sede la Convenzione Postale che in detto Congresso 
verra concordata. 

Dal Vaticano, 22 Giugno 1929. 



142. OF the qualities necessary for the profession of a diplo- 
matist, Callieres treats in his famous work " De la maniere de 
negocier avec les souverains," * and his observations, though 
made two centuries ago, have still much to commend them 
to notice. In modern days methods of diplomacy are doubtless 
less subtle and tortuous than were those of the past ; while the 
rapidity of telegraphic communication now enables a nego- 
tiator to remain in constant touch with his government 
throughout. But national character and human nature have 
not changed to any appreciable extent. Callieres' counsels 
are not here reproduced for the use of experienced diplomatists, 
but rather as hints that may prove serviceable to younger 
members of the profession. The following passages, 2 taken 
from his work, on the qualities of the good negotiator, may 
therefore fitly form an introduction to the present chapter. 


Ces qualites sont un esprit attentif et applique, qui ne se 
laisse point distraire par les plaisirs, & par les amusemens frivoles, 
un sens droit qui con9oive nettement les choses comme elles sont, 
& qui aille au but par les voyes les plus courtes & les plus naturelles, 
sans s'egarer a force de rafinement & de vaines subtilitez qui 
rebuttent d'ordinaire ceux avec qui on traite, de la penetration 
pour decouvrir ce qui se passe dans le coeur des hommes & pour 
S9avoir profiler des moindres mouvemens de leurs visages & des 
autres effets de leurs passions, qui echapent aux plus dissimulez ; 
un esprit fecond en expediens, pour aplanir les difficultez qui se 
rencontrent a ajuster les interets dont on est charge ; de la presence 
d'esprit pour repondre bien a propos sur les choses imprevues, & 
pour se tirer par des reponses judicieuses d'un pas glissant ; une 
humeur egale, & un naturel tranquile & patient, toujours dispose 
a ecouter sans distraction ceux avec qui il traite ; un abord 
toujours ouvert, doux, civil, agreable, des manieres aisees & 
insinuantes qui contribuent beaucoup a acquerir les inclinations de 

1 Paris, 1716. 

2 The orthography and accentuation of the original are preserved. 


ceux avec qui on traite, au lieu qu'un air grave & froid, & une 
mine sombre & rude, rebute & cause d'ordinaire de 1'aversion. 

II faut surtout qu'un bon Negociateur 1 ait assez de pouvoir 
sur lui-rneme pour resister a la demangeaison de parler avant que 
de s'etre bien consulte sur ce qu'il a a dire, qu'il ne se pique pas 
de repondre sur le champ & sans premeditation sur les propositions 
qu'on lui fait, & qu'il prenne garde de tomber dans le defiant 
d'un fameux Ambassadeur etranger de notre terns, qui etoit si vif 
dans la dispute, que lorsqu'on I'echaufibit en le contredisant, il 
reveloit souvent des secrets d'importance pour soutenir son 

II ne faut pas aussi qu'il donne dans le deffaut oppose de 
certains esprits mysterieux, qui font des secrets de rien, & qui 
erigent en affaires d'importance de pures bagatelles ; c'est une 
marque de petitesse d'esprit de ne savoir pas discerner les choses 
de consequence d'avec celles qui ne le sont pas, & c'est s'oter les 
moyens de decouvrir ce qui se passe, & d'acquerir aucune part a 
la confiance de ceux avec qui on est en commerce, lorsqu'on a 
avec eux une continuelle reserve. 

Un habile Negociateur ne laisse pas penetrer son secret avant 
le temps propre ; mais il faut qu'il scache cacher cette reteniie 
a ceux avec qui il traite ; qu'il leur temoigne de 1'ouverture & 
de la confiance, & qu'il leur en donne des marques effectives dans les 
choses qui ne sont point contraires a ses desseins ; ce qui les engage 
insensiblement a y repondre par d'autres marques de confiance 
en des choses souvent plus importantes ; il y a entre les Negocia- 
teurs un commerce d'avis reciproques, il faut en donner, si on veut 
en recevoir, & le plus habile est celui qui tire le plus d'utilite de ce 
commerce, parce qu'il a des vue's plus etendiies, pour profiler des 
conjonctures qui se presentent. 

II ne sufHt pas pour former un bon Negociateur, qu'il ait toutes 
les lumieres, toute la dexterite & les autres belles qualitez de 
1'esprit ; il faut qu'il ait celles qui dependent des sentimens du 
cceur ; il n'y a point d'employ qui demande plus d'elevation & 
plus de noblesse dans les manieres d'agir. 

Tout homme qui entre dans ces sortes d'employs avec un esprit 
d'avarice, & un desir d'y chercher d'autres interets que ceux qui 
sont attachez a la gloire de reiissir & de s'attirer par la 1'estime & 
les recompenses de son Maitre, n'y sera jamais qu'un homme 

Pour soutenir la dignite attachee a ces employs, il faut que 
celui qui en est revetu, soit liberal & magnifique, mais avec choix 
& avec dessein, que sa magnificence paroisse dans son train, dans 
sa livree & dans le reste de son equipage ; que la proprete, 1'abond- 
ance, & meme la delicatesse, regne sur sa table : qu'il donne 
souvent des fetes et des divertissemens aux principales personnes 
de la Cour ou il se trouve, & au Prince meme, s'il est d'humeur 
a y prendre part, qu'il tache d'entrer dans ses parties de divertis- 

1 Observe that the word diplomate did not exist when Callieres wrote. 


semens, mais d'une maniere agreable & sans le contraindre, & 
qu'il y apporte toujours un air ouvert, complaisant, honnete et un 
desir continuel de lui plaire. 

S'il est dans un Etat populaire, il faut qu'il assiste a toutes 
ses Diettes ou Assemblies, qu'il y tienne grande table pour y 
attirer les Deputez, et qu'il s'y acquiere par ses honnestetez & par 
ses presens, les plus accreditez & les plus capables de detourner 
les resolutions prejudiciables aux interets de son Maitre, & de 
favoriser ses desseins. 

Une bonne table facilite les moyens de scavoir ce qui se passe, 
lorsque les gens du pays ont la liberte d'aller manger chez 1'Ambas- 
sadeur, & la depense qu'il y fait est non seulement honorable, 
mais encore tres-utile a son Maitre lorsque le Negociateur la s$ait 
bien mettre en oeuvre. C'est le propre de la bonne chere de con- 
cilier les esprits, de faire naitre de la familiarite et de 1'ouverture 
de coeur entre les convives. 

On appelle un Ambassadeur un honorable Espion ; parce que 
1'une des ses principales occupations est de decouvrir les secrets 
des Cours ou il se trouve, & il s'acquitte mal de son employ s'il 
ne s$ait pas faire les depenses necessaires pour gagner ceux qui sont 
propres a 1'en instruire. 

La fermete est encore qualite tres-necessaire a un Negociateur 
. . . un homme ne timide n'est pas capable de bien conduire de 
grands desseins ; il se laisse ebranler facilement dans les accidens 
imprevus, la peur peut faire decouvrir son secret par les impressions 
qu'elle fait sur son visage, & par le trouble qu'elle cause dans ses 
discours ; elle peut meme lui faire prendre des mesures prejudi- 
ciables aux affaires dont il est charge, & lorsque 1'honneur de son 
Maitre est attaque, elle 1'empeche de le soutenir avec la vigueur & 
la fermete si necessaires en ces occasions, & de repousser 1'injure 
qu'on luy fait, avec cette noble fierte & cette audace qui accom- 
pagnent un homme de courage. . . . Mais 1'irresolution est tres- 
prejudiciable dans la conduite des grandes affaires ; il y faut un 
esprit decisif, qui apres avoit balance les divers inconveniens, 
sgache prendre son parti & le suivre avec fermete. 

Un bon Negociateur ne doit jamais fonder le succes de ses 
negociations sur de fausses promesses & sur des manquemens de 
foy ; c'est une erreur de croire, suivant 1'opinion vulgaire, qu'il 
faut qu'un habile Ministre soit un grand maitre en 1'art de fourber ; 
la fourberie est un effet de la petitesse de 1'esprit de celui qui le 
met en usage & c'est une marque qu'il n'a pas assez d'etendue 
pour trouver les moyens de parvenir a ses fins, par les voyes justes 
& raisonnables. 

Un homme qui se possede & qui est toujours de sang froid 
a un grand avantage a traiter avec un homme vif & plein de feu ; 
& on peut dire qu'ils ne combattent pas avec armes egales. Pour 
reiissir en ces sortes d'employs, il y faut beaucoup moins parler 
qu'ecouter ; il faut du flegme de la retenue, beaucoup de discre- 
tion & une patience a toute epreuve. 


Un homme engage dans les employs publics, doit considerer 
qu'il est destine pour agir & non pas pour demeurer trop long- 
temps enferme dans son cabinet, que sa principale etude doit etre 
de s'instruire de ce qui se passe parmi les vivans, preferablement 
a tout ce qui s'est passe chez les morts. 

Un sage & habile Negociateur doit non seulement etre bon 
Chretien ; mais paroitre toujours tel dans ses discours & dans sa 
maniere de vivre. 

II doit etre juste & modeste dans toutes ses actions, respec- 
tueux avec les Princes, complaisant avec ses egaux, carressant avec 
ses inferieurs, doux, civil & honneste avec tout le monde. 

II faut qu'il s'accommode aux mceurs & aux Coutumes du Pays 
ou il se trouve, sans y temoigner de la repugnance & sans les 
mepriser, comme font plusieurs Negociateurs qui louent sans cesse 
les manieres de vivre de leurs pays pour trouver a redire a celles 
des autres. 

Un Negociateur doit se persuader une fois pour toutes qu'il 
n'est pas assez autorise pour reduire tout un pays a sa fa$on de 
vivre, & qu'il est bien plus raisonnable qu'il s'accommode a celle 
du Pays ou il est pour le peu de temps qu'il y doit rester. 

II ne doit jamais blamer la forme du gouvernement & moins 
encore la conduite du Prince avec qui il negocie, il faut au contraire 
qu'il loue tout ce qu'il y trouve de louable sans affectation et sans 
basse flaterie. II n'y a point de Nations & d'Etats qui n'ayent 
plusieurs bonnes loix parmy quelques mauvaises, il doit loiier les 
bonnes & ne point parler de celles qui ne le sont pas. 

II est bon qu'il sache ou qu'il etudie 1'histoire du Pays ou il se 
trouve, afin qu'il ait occasion d'entretenir le Prince ou les principaux 
de sa Cour des grandes actions de leurs Ancetres & de celles qu'ils 
ont faites eux-memes ce qui lui est fort capable de lui acquerir leur 
inclination, qu'il les mette souvent sur ces matieres, & qu'il se les 
fasse raconter par eux, parce qu'il est sur qu'il leur fera plaisir de 
les ecouter, et qu'il doit rechercher a leur en faire. 

Un Negociateur doit toujours faire des relations avantageuses, 
des affaires de son Maitre dans le pays ou il se trouve, mais avec 
discretion & en se conservant de la creance pour les avis qu'il 
donne ; il faut pour cela qu'il evite de debiter des mensonges, 
comme font souvent certains Ministres de nos voisins qui ne font 
aucun scrupule de publier des avantages imaginaires en faveur 
de ceux de leur party. Outre que le mensonge est indigne d'un 
Ministre public, il fait plus de tort que de profit aux affaires de 
son Maitre, parce qu'on n'ajoute plus de foy aux avis qui viennent 
de sa part ; il est vray qu'il est difficile de ne pas recevoir quelque- 
fois de faux avis, mais if faut les donner tels qu'on les a recus, sans 
s'en rendre garand ; & un habile Negociateur doit etablir si bien la 
reputation de sa bonne-foy dans 1'esprit du Prince & des Ministres 
avec qui il negocie, qu'ils ne doutent point de la verite de ses avis 
lorsqu'il les leur a donnez pour surs non plus que de la verite de 
ses promesses. 


Un Ambassadeur doit eviter de recevoir au nombre de ses 
principaux domestiques des gens du Pays oil il se trouve, ce sont 
d'ordinaire des espions qu'il introduit dans sa maison. 

Quelques elevez que soient les Princes, ils sont homnies comme 
nous, c'est-a-dire sujets aux memes passions, mais outre celles qui 
leur sont communes avec les autres homines, 1'opinion qu'ils ont 
de leur grandeur, & le pouvoir effectif qui est attache a leur rang 
leur donnent des idees differentes de celles du commun des hommes, 
& il faut qu'un bon Negociateur agisse avec eux par rapport a 
leurs idees, s'il veut ne pas se tromper. 

II est plus avantageux a un habile Negociateur de negocier 
de vive voix, parce qu'il a plus d'occasions de decouvrir par ce 
moyen les sentimens & les desseins de ceux avec qui il traite, & 
d'employer sa dexterite a leur en inspirer de conformes a ses vues 
par ses insinuations & par la force de ses raisons. 

La plupart des hommes qui parlent d'affaires ont plus d'atten- 
tion a ce qu'ils veulent dire qu'a ce qu'on leur dit, ils sont si pleins 
de leurs idees qu'ils ne songent qu'a se faire ecouter, & ne peuvent 
presque obtenir sur eux-memes d'ecouter a leur tour. . . . L'une 
des qualitez le plus necessaire a un bon Negociateur est de scavoir 
ecouter avec attention & avec reflexion tout ce qu'on luy veut 
dire, & de repondre juste & bien a propos aux choses qu'on luy 
represente, bien-loin de s'empresser a declarer tout ce qu'il scait & 
tout ce qu'il desire. II n'expose d'abord le sujet de sa negociation 
que jusqu'au point qu'il faut pour sender le terrain, il regie ses 
discours & sa conduite sur ce qu'il decouvre tant par les reponses 
qu'on lui fait, que par les mouvemens du visage, par le ton & 1'air 
dont on lui parle ; & par toutes les autres circonstances qui peu- 
vent contribuer a luy faire penetrer les pensees & les desseins de 
ceux avec qui il traite, & apres avoir connu la situation & la portee 
de leurs esprits, 1'etat de leurs affaires, leurs passions & leurs 
interests, il' se sert de toutes ses connoissances pour les conduire 
par degrez au but qu'il s'est propose. 

C'est un des plus grands secrets de 1'art de negocier que de 
ssavoir, pour ainsi dire, distiler goute a goute dans 1'esprit de 
ceux avec qui on negocie les choses qu'on a interest de leur 
persuader. . . . 

Comme les affaires sont ordinairement epineuses par les diffi- 
cultez qu'il y a d'ajuster des interests souvent opposez entre des 
Princes & des Etats qui ne reconnoissent point de Juges de leurs 
pretentions, il faut que celuy qui en est charge employe son adresse 
a diminuer & a aplanir ces difficultez, non seulement par les 
expediens que ses lumieres luy doivent suggerer, mais encore par 
un esprit liant & souple qui scache se plier & s'accommoder aux 
passions & meme aux caprices & aux preventions de ceux avec 
qui il traite. Un homme difficultueux & d'un esprit dur & con- 
trariant augmente les difficultez attachees aux affaires par la 
rudesse de son humeur, qui aigrit & aliene les esprits, & il erige 
souvent en affaires d'importance des bagatelles & des pretentions 


mal fondees, dont il se fait des especes d'entraves qui 1'arretent a 
tous momens dans le cours de sa negociation. 

II ne se trouve presque point d'hommes qui veiiillent avoiier 
qu'ils ont tort, ou qu'ils se trompent, & qui se depoiiillent entiere- 
rnent de leurs sentimens en faveur de ceux d'autruy, quand on ne 
fait que les contredire par des raisons opposees quelques bonnes 
qu'elles puissent etre, rnais il y en a plusieurs qui sont capables de 
se relacher de quelques-unes de leurs opinions, quand on leur en 
accorde d'autres, ce qui se fait moyennant certains menagemens 
propres a les faire revenir de leurs preventions ; il faut pour cela 
avoir 1'art de leur alleguer des raisons capables de justifier ce qu'ils 
ont fait ou ce qu'ils ont cru par le passe, afin de flater leur amour 
propre, & leur faire connoitre ensuite des raisons plus fortes 
appuyees sur leurs interets, pour les faire changer de sentiment et 
de conduite . . . il faut eviter les contestations aigres & obstinees 
avec les Princes & avec leurs Ministres & leur representer la raison 
sans trop de chaleur, & sans vouloir avoir toujours le dernier 

144. Letter of the first Earl of Malmesbury to Lord 
Camden, written at his request, on his nephew, Mr. James, 
being destined for the foreign service : 

Park Place, April n, 1813. 

It is not an easy matter in times like these, to write anything on the 
subject of a Foreign Minister's conduct that might not be rendered 
inapplicable to the purpose by daily events. Mr. James' best 
school will be the advantage he will derive from the abilities of his 
Principal, and from his own observations. 

The first and best advice I can give a young man on entering 
this career, is to listen, not to talk at least, not more than is necessary 
to induce others to talk. I have in the course of my life, by endea- 
vouring to follow this method, drawn from my opponents much 
information, and concealed from them my own views, much more 
than by the employment of spies or money. 

To be very cautious in any country, or at any court, of such as, 
on your first arrival, appear the most eager to make your acquaint- 
ance and communicate their ideas to you. I have ever found their 
professions insincere, and their intelligence false. They have been 
the first I have wished to shake off, whenever I have been so 
imprudent as to give them credit for sincerity. They are either 
persons who are not considered or respected in their own country, 
or are put about you to entrap and circumvent you as newly 

Englishmen should be most particularly on their guard against 
such men, for we have none such on our side the water, and are 
ourselves so little coming towards foreigners, that we are astonished 
and gratified when we find a different treatment from that which 
strangers experience here ; but our reserve and ill manners are 


infinitely less dangerous to the stranger than these premature and 
hollow civilities. 

To avoid what is termed abroad an attachement. If the other 
party concerned should happen to be sincere, it absorbs too much 
time, occupies too much your thoughts ; if insincere, it leaves you 
at the mercy of a profligate and probably interested character. 

Never to attempt to export English habits and manners, but 
to conform as far as possible to those of the country where you 
reside to do this even in the most trivial things to learn to speak 
their language, and never to sneer at what may strike you as 
singular and absurd. Nothing goes to conciliate so much, or to 
amalgamate you more cordially with its inhabitants, as this very 
easy sacrifice of your national prejudices to theirs. 

To keep your cypher and all your official papers under a very 
secure lock and key ; but not to boast of your precautions, as Mr. 
Drake did to Mehee de la Touche. 

Not to allow any opponent to carry away any official document, 
under the pretext that he wishes " to study it more carefully " ; 
let him read it as often as he wishes, and, if it is necessary, allow 
him to take minutes of it, but both in jour presence. 

Not to be carried away by any real or supposed distinctions 
from the sovereign at whose Court you reside, or to imagine, 
because he may say a few more commonplace sentences to you 
than to your colleagues, that he entertains a special personal pre- 
dilection for you, or is more disposed to favour the views and 
interests of your Court than if he did not notice you at all. This 
is a species of royal stage-trick, often practised, and for which it is 
right to be prepared. 

Whenever you receive discretionary instructions (that is, when 
authority is given you) in order to obtain any very desirable end, 
to decrease your demands or increase your concessions according 
as you find the temper and disposition of the Court where you are 
employed, and to be extremely careful not to let it be supposed 
that you have any such authority ; to make a firm, resolute stand 
on the first offer you are instructed to make, and, if you find " this 
nail will not drive," to bring forward your others most gradually, and 
not, either from an apprehension of not succeeding at all, or from 
an over-eagerness to succeed too rapidly, injure essentially the 
interests of your Court. 

It is scarcely necessary to say that no occasion, no provocation, 
no anxiety to rebut an unjust accusation, no idea, however tempt- 
ing, of promoting the object you have in view, can need, much less 
justify, a falsehood. Success obtained by one is a precarious and 
baseless success. Detection would ruin, not only your own 
reputation for ever, but deeply wound the honour of your Court. 
If, as frequently happens, an indiscreet question, which seems to 
require a distinct answer, is put to you abruptly by an artful 
minister, parry it either by treating it as an indiscreet question, or 
get rid of it by a grave and serious look : but on no account 


contradict the assertion flatly if it be true, or admit it as true, if false 
and of a dangerous tendency. 

In ministerial conferences, to exert every effort of memory to 
carry away faithfully and correctly what you hear (what you say in 
them yourself you will not forget) ; and, in drawing your report, 
to be most careful it should be faithful and correct. I dwell the 
more on this (seemingly a useless hint) because it is a most seducing 
temptation, and one to which we often give way almost uncon- 
sciously, in order to give a better turn to a phrase, or to enhance 
our skill in negotiation ; but we must remember we mislead and 
deceive our Government by it. 

I am, etc. 1 

145. A good diplomatist will always endeavour to put 
himself in the position of the person with whom he is treating, 
and try to imagine what he would wish, do and say, under 
those circumstances. As Callieres observed : 

" II faut qu'il se depoiiille en quelque sorte de ses propres senti- 
mens pour se mettre en la place du Prince [say, the government] 
avec qui il traite, qu'il se transforme, pour ainsi dire en luy, qu'il 
entre dans ses opinions & dans ses inclinations, & qu'il se disc a 
lui-meme apres 1'avoir connu tel qu'il est, si j'etois en la place de ce 
Prince avec le meme pouvoir, les memes passions & les memes prejugez, quels 
effets produiroient en moy les choses quefay a luy representer ? ' 

146. The man who speaks in a foreign tongue, not his 
own, is to a certain extent wearing a disguise. If one wants 
to discover his ideas de derriere la tete encourage him to use his 
own language. Prince Bismarck is reported to have said : 
" Der alte (ich verstand Meyendorff) hat mir einmal gesagt : 
Trauen Sie keinen Englander der das Franzosische mit 
richtigem Accent spricht, und ich habe das meist bestatigt 
gefunden. Nur Odo Russell mochte ich ausnehmen." This 
remark cuts both ways. On the other hand, a minister who 
can spare time to study the language of the country to which 
he is sent, will find its acquisition of great advantage. The 
surest way to gain admission to the heart of a nation is to give 
this proof of a desire to cultivate intimate relations with, and 
to understand the feelings of, the people. 

147. A diplomatist must be on his guard to protect the 
dignity of the state which he represents. Thus, the Due de 
Mortemart, French ambassador at Petersburg, having been 
invited to attend a performance of the Te Deum in celebration 
of Russian victories over the Turks, learnt that it was to be 
given in a church decorated with flags taken from the French, 
and on this ground declined to be present. This course was 

1 Diaries and Correspondence, iv. 420. 


approved by both his own government and by the Emperor 
of Russia. 1 In October, 1831, after the capture of Warsaw 
from the Polish insurgents by the Russian troops, M. Bourgoing, 
the French minister, refused to be present at a Te Deum ordered 
to celebrate the triumph of the Russian Government, and he 
informed Count Nesselrode of his intention to absent himself, 
his reason being the strong sympathy for the Poles which was 
felt in France. On the same day he dined at an official 
banquet given at the Austrian embassy, went publicly the 
next day to the theatre, and passed the evening at a private 
house. It does not appear that his conduct was made a 
ground of complaint to the French Government by the 
Emperor. 2 But it is scarcely admissible for an envoy to refuse 
to be present on such occasions, merely on the ground of 
friendship between his own country and the belligerent over 
whose defeat the rejoicing is held. 

148. The head of a mission should be careful that the 
affairs, the manners and customs, of the country in which he 
is residing are not criticised at his table. What he or his 
guests may say on such subjects is sure to be repeated to his 

149. A diplomatist should not hold government bonds or 
shares in a limited liability company in the territory of the 
state where he is accredited, and in general, neither real nor 
personal property which is under the local jurisdiction. A 
fortiori he should not engage in trade or hold directorships, 
or speculate on the Stock Exchange. He must not incur the 
risk of his judgment as to the financial stability of the state 
or of local commercial undertakings being deflected by his 
personal interest. 

150. A diplomatist must be on his guard against the notion 
that his own post is the centre of international politics, and 
against an exaggerated estimate of the part assigned to him 
in the general scheme. Those in whose hands is placed the 
supreme direction of foreign relations are alone able to decide 
what should be the main object of state policy, and to estimate 
the relative value of political friendships and alliances. 

151. In former times a wide discretion in the interpretation 
of his instructions was permitted to an envoy, in case it became 
necessary to take a sudden decision, but in these days, when 
telegraphic communication is universal, if he is of opinion that 
his instructions are not perfectly adapted to secure the object 
in view, he can easily ask for the modification he judges to be 

1 Garden, Traitf complet de la Diplomatic, ii. 84. 

2 F. de Martens, Recueil des Traite's, etc., xv. 140. 


desirable. In doing this he will be well advised to explain 
his reasons at full length. It is better to spend money on 
telegrams than to risk the failure of a negotiation. 

152. A diplomatic agent should beware of communicating 
the text of the instructions he receives, whether by telegram 
or written despatch, unless he is specifically told to do so. It 
sometimes happens that he is told to read a despatch to the 
minister for foreign affairs, and to leave with him a copy. 
With this exception, the ambassador should generally confine 
himself to making the sense of his instructions known by note, 
or by word of mouth. In communicating the contents of a 
cyphered telegram he should be especially careful so to change 
the wording and order of sentences as to afford no clue to the 
cypher used by his government. 

The case of Bulwer at Madrid, in 1848, who enclosed, in 
an official note to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, 
a copy of a despatch of March 16, marked " confidential," 
in which Palmerston instructed him to offer to the Spanish 
Government advice on the internal affairs of the kingdom, 
is an example of the unwisdom of putting in writing language 
which, if used orally, would have been much less likely to 
give offence. (See 505.) 

153. Before sending home the report of any important 
conversation with the minister for foreign affairs, in which 
the latter has made statements or given promises that may 
afterwards be relied on as evidence of intentions or under- 
takings of the government in whose name he is assumed to 
have spoken, it may be advisable to submit to him the draft 
report for any observations he may desire to make. It is said 
that Lord Normanby, when ambassador at Paris, reproduced 
a conversation of M. Guizot's, which the latter asserted was 
incorrect, and he pointed out that the report of a conversation 
made by a foreign agent can only be regarded as authentic 
and irrefragable when it has previously been submitted to the 
person whose language is being reported. He added that if 
Lord Normanby had conformed to this practice, he would 
have spoken otherwise and perhaps better. 1 

154. In concluding any written agreement with the state 
to which he is accredited, the agent should take ample time 
to study the document carefully so as to avoid any ambiguity 
or imperfection in the terms employed. The use of clear and 
definite language should in all cases be secured, the meaning 
of which shall not be open to doubt or dispute. 

1 Ollivier, L'Empire Liberal, i. 322. 


155. Despatches, their style : 

' II faut que le stile des depeches soit net & concis, sans y employer 
de paroles inutiles & sans y rien obmettre de ce qui sert a la clarte 
du discours, qu'il regne une noble simplicite, aussi eloignee d'une 
vaine affectation de science & de bel esprit, que de negligence & 
de grossierete, & qu'elles soient egalement epurees de certaines 
fa<jons de parler nouvelles & affectees, & de celles qui sont basses 
& hors du bel usage. II y a peu de choses qui puissent demeurer 
secrettes parmi les hommes qui ont un long commerce ensemble, 
des lettres interceptees & plusieurs autres accidens imprevus les 
decouvrent souvent, & on en pourrait citer ici divers exemples ; 
ainsi il est de la sagesse d'un bon Negociateur de songer lorsqu'il 
ecrit que ses depeches peuvent etre vues du Prince ou des Ministres 
dont il parle, & qu'il doit les faire de telle sorte qu'ils n'ayent pas 
de sujet legitime de s'en plaindre. 1 " 

156. An English writer of despatches should be careful 
to eschew Gallicisms or idioms borrowed from the language of 
the country where he is serving. Such phrases as "it goes 
without saying 3:> (for " of course "), " the game is not worth 
the candle " (for " it is not worth while "), " in this connexion," 
" that gives furiously to think " (for " that is a serious subject 
for reflection "), and others adopted from the current style of 
journalism, are to be avoided. " Transaction " for " com- 
promise " ; " franchise of duties !: for " freedom from 
[customs] duties"; "category" for "class"; " suscitate " for 
" raise " ; " destitution ' for " dismissal " ; " rally them- 
selves to " for " come round to," and " minimal " for " very 
small " are also cases in point. " Psychological moment " is 
a mistranslation of " d^ts j psychologische Moment," which 
properly means " the psychological factor." Never place an 
adjective before a noun, if it can be spared ; it only weakens 
the effect of a plain statement. Above all^ do not attempt to 
be witty. Each despatch should treafbT one subject only, and 
tKe paragraphs should be numbered to admit of convenient 
reference. To keep a diary of events and of conversations is 
very useful. 

157. One of the chief functions of the head of a mission 
is to train the junior members of the service in the right 
performance of their duties, especially in the preparation of 
reports on subjects of interest, in drafting despatches and in 
paraphrasing the text of cyphered telegrams. This last should 
be done in such a manner as to afford no clue to the order of 
words in the original. 

1 Callieres, op. tit., 298, 304. 



158. The duties of the head of a mission include also the 
furtherance of the legitimate private interests of his own 
countrymen residing in or passing through the country to 
which he is accredited, the giving of advice to them when in 
difficulties, and especially intervention on their behalf, if they 
invoke his assistance when they are arrested and detained in 
custody. This should be done through the ministry for 
foreign affairs, to which alone he is entitled to address 
himself. He should not, however, interfere in civil actions 
that may be brought against them, or in criminal matters 
except where manifest injustice or a departure from the strict 
course of legal procedure has taken place. He must on no 
account occupy himself with the interests of any but the 
subjects or ressortissants (a much wider term) of his own 
sovereign or state, and especially not with those of the subjects 
of the local sovereign. 

159. At the present day the commercial intercourse of 
nations constitutes a sphere of great and increasing importance, 
and a diplomatic agent may often be engaged in the conduct 
of negotiations with the government to which he is accredited, 
with a view of fostering and developing relations of trade and 
commerce between the two countries. Recently Mr. Lansing, 
a former Secretary of State of the United States, has observed : 

" Formerly diplomacy was confined almost exclusively to political 
and legal subjects, and the training of the members of the diplomatic 
service was devoted to that branch of international intercourse. 
To-day our embassies and legations are dealing more and more 
with commercial, financial and industrial questions." 1 

At many capitals the diplomatic agent is now assisted by 
a commercial counsellor, secretary, or attache, who may also 
be charged with special functions in the way of furnishing 
periodical reports on matters of trade and commerce to his 

1 60. The diplomatic agent may grant passports to his own 
countrymen and certify signatures to legal documents on their 
behalf. But in British practice, and in that of most important 
countries, the duties of issuing passports and of performing 
such notarial acts as are allowable under the laws of the foreign 
state wherein they reside, are now delegated to consular 

161. A diplomatist ought not to publish any writing on 
international politics either anonymously or with his name. 
The rule of the British service is very strict in regard to the 

1 Lay, Foreign Service of the United States, 120. 


publication of experiences in any country where a diplomatist 
has served, without the previous sanction of the Secretary of 
State, and it applies to retired members as well as to those 
still on active service. 

162. Bribery. 

The books generally condemn the employment of bribes 
to obtain secret information or to influence the course 
of negotiation. Many cases are, however, recorded in 
history of such proceedings being practised on a large scale, 
and with considerable effect. Besides gifts, the furnishing of 
articles to the press, or information which editors would not 
be able to secure otherwise, was also found of great utility for 
influencing public opinion. " L'ambassadeur [Count Lieven] 
re9Ut enfin Fordre d'exercer, par 1'entremise de la presse 
periodique, une pression sur 1'opinion publique et de demontrer 
au peuple anglais que son interet le plus naturel exigeait 
1' alliance et 1'amitie de la Russie pour le meilleur developpe- 
ment de son commerce et de son Industrie. " * This was a 
century or more since, but instances of more recent date could 
no doubt be quoted. 

" If an envoy seek by means of presents to secure the goodwill 
or friendship of those who can assist him in attaining his objects, 
but without either expressly or tacitly asking from them anything 
wrong, this is not to be regarded as bribery." 2 

" It must be left to the ingenuity of the envoy to form connections 
which will enable him to obtain news and to verify what he receives. 
The Law of Nations appears to hold that it is not forbidden to 
obtain information by means of bribery ; at least no one doubts 
the daily practice of this expedient, and though it has often been 
censured, in other cases it has been not obscurely admitted. . . . 
An uniform policy, armed with strength and honesty, has little to 
apprehend from what is concealed, in either foreign or domestic 
affairs, and steady attention to what passes around us will mostly 
enable us to divine what is secret." 3 

It may be that the Law of Nations is not concerned with 
bribery. It seems rather a question of morality. 

1 F. de Martens, Recueil des Traith, etc., xi. 212. 

2 G. F. de Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, ii. 1 16. 

3 Schmalz, Europdisches Volkerrecht, 98. 


163. Ultimatum. This term signifies a note or memorandum 
in which a government or its diplomatic representative sets forth 
the conditions on which the state in whose name the declaration 
is made will insist. It should contain an express demand for a 
prompt, clear and categorical reply, and it may also require the 
answer to be given within a fixed limit of time. This is as 
much as to say that an ultimatum embodies the final condition 
or concession, " the last word," so to speak, of the person 
negotiating. 1 It ordinarily, but not always, implies a threat to 
use force, if the demand is not complied with. 

164. A good example of this is contained in the last para- 
graph of a note addressed by the Russian charge d'affaires at 
Constantinople to the Reis-Effendi in 1826, which was thus 
worded : 

Le soussigne terminera la tache que lui imposent les instructions 
de son souverain, en declarant a la Porte Ottomane que, si, centre 
la legitime attente de 1'Empereur, les mesures indiquees dans les 
trois demandes qui forment le present office n'auraient pas ete 
mises completement a execution dans le delai de six semaines, il 
quitterait aussitot Constantinople. II est facile aux ministres de Sa 
Hautesse de prevoir les consequences immediates de cet evenement. 

Le soussigne, etc. 


le 5 avril, 1826. 

165. Another case of ultimatum in the ordinary sense 
occurred in 1850, when, by the orders of Palmerston, the 
British minister at Athens presented a demand for the settle- 
ment of the Don Pacifico claim within twenty-four hours, 
failing which a blockade of the coasts of Greece would be 
established and Greek merchant ships seized. 3 

The note from the British minister to the Greek Minister 

1 Cussy, Dictionnaire du Diplomate et du Consul, s.v. ; Oppenheim, ii. 95. 

2 Garden, Traitl Complet de Diplomatic, iii. 344, 

3 Br. and For. State Papers, xxxix. 49 1 . 


for Foreign Affairs of Jan. 5/17, 1850, after making a formal 
demand for reparation for the wrongs and injuries inflicted 
in Greece upon British and Ionian subjects, and the satisfaction 
of their claims within twenty-four hours, announced that if the 
demand were not literally complied with within that period 
after the note had been placed in the hands of the Hellenic 
Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Commander-in-Chief of Her 
Majesty's naval forces in the Mediterranean would have no 
other alternative (however painful the necessity might be to 
him) than to act at once on the orders he had received from 
Her Majesty's Government. 1 

1 66. Art. I of the Hague Convention No. 3 of 1907 
declares that : 

" Les Puissances contractantes reconnaissent que les hostilites 
entre elles ne doivent pas commencer sans un avertissement pre- 
alable et non equivoque, qui aura, soit la forme d'une declaration 
de guerre motivee, soit celle d'un ultimatum avec declaration de 
guerre conditionnelle." 

167. Austrian ultimatum to Serbia. This took the form of 
a note, dated July 23, 1914, to the Serbian Government, con- 
taining various demands, and requiring an answer by six 
o'clock in the evening of the 25th. The reply of the Serbian 
Government not being regarded as satisfactory, the Austro- 
Hungarian minister left Belgrade, and war was declared 
against Serbia on the 28th. 

1 68. On July 31, 1914, the German ambassador in Paris 
asked the President of the Council (who was also minister for 
foreign affairs) what would be the attitude of France in the 
case of war between Germany and Russia, and said he would 
return for a reply at one o'clock on the following day. On 
August 3, at 6.45, alleging acts of aggression committed by 
French aviators, he communicated a declaration of war. 
This does not appear to have been preceded by an ultimatum. 

169. At midnight on July 31, 1914, the German ambas- 
sador at St. Petersburg, by order of his government, informed 
the Russian minister for foreign affairs that if within twelve 
hours Russia had not begun to demobilise, Germany would 
be compelled to give the order for mobilisation, and at 
7.10 P.M. on August i the German Government, on the 
alleged ground that Russia had refused this demand, pre- 
sented a declaration of war. The demand for demobilisation 
was in the nature of an ultimatum. 

1 See also Ollivier, L'Empire Literal, ii. 320 ; and F. de Martens, Recueil des 
Trails, etc., xii. 262. 


170. The German ultimatum to Belgium of August 2, 1914, 
demanded permission to march through Belgian territory and 
threatened to regard Belgium as an enemy 

"sollte Belgian den deutschen Truppen feindlich entgegentreten, 
insbesondere ihreni Vorgehen durch Widerstand der Maas- 
Befestigungen oder durch Zerstorungen von Eisenbahnen, Strassen, 
Tunneln oder sonstigen Kunstbauten Schwierigkeiten bereiten." 

The note of the German minister presenting this demand did 
not mention any length of time for an answer, but it appears 
from the telegram of August 3 sent out by the Belgian minister 
for foreign affairs to the Belgian ministers at St. Petersburg, 
Berlin, London, Paris, Vienna and The Hague, that the 
German minister had verbally required an answer within 
twelve hours. 

171. On the same occasion the British Government, on 
July 3 1 , asked the German and French Governments to engage 
to respect the neutrality of Belgium, adding that it was 
important to have an early reply. France at once acceded 
to the request, but, no reply having been received from the 
German Government, Great Britain on August 4 protested 
against a violation of the treaty by which Belgium was con- 
stituted a neutralized state, and requested an assurance that her 
neutrality would be respected by Germany. Later in the day 
a telegram was sent to Berlin, instructing the ambassador to 
ask for the same assurance to respect the neutrality of Belgium 
as had been given by France, and for a satisfactory reply to 
the requests of July 3 1 and of that of the morning of August 4 
to be received in London by midnight. These requests, 
especially the last, amounted in substance to an ultimatum. 

172. But the meaning of ultimatum is not restricted to the 
sense which it bears in the foregoing examples. During the 
course of a negotiation it may imply the maximum amount of 
concession which will be made in order to arrive at an agree- 
ment, where no resort to compulsion is contemplated in case 
of refusal. Cases have occurred in which it has been used as 
denoting an irreducible minimum which would be accepted, 
a plan or scheme of arrangement which it was sought to 
impose, a maximum of what would be conceded, and the like. 

173. Uti possidetis and Status quo. 

These two phrases often amount to the same thing, and 
are used to denote actual possession by right of conquest, 
occupation or otherwise, at some particular moment, which 
has to be defined with as much exactness as possible in the 


proposals for a treaty of peace, or in the treaty itself. 1 But 
while uti possidetis relates to the possession of territory, the 
status quo may be the previously existing situation in regard to 
other matters, e.g. to privileges enjoyed by one of the parties 
at the expense of the other, such as the French privilege of 
taking and drying fish on a portion of the coast of 

In the memorial of the King of France of March 16, 1761, 
it was proposed 

that the two Crowns shall remain in possession of what they have 
conquered from each other, and that the situation in which they 
shall stand on the ist September, 1761, in the East Indies, on the 
ist July in the West Indies and Africa, and on the ist May following 
in Europe, shall be the position which shall serve as a basis to the 
treaty which may be negotiated between the two Powers. 2 

The British reply accepted the status quo, but it is alleged 
to have said nothing " with regard to the epochs." It did, 
in fact, say 3 that 

" expeditions at sea requiring preparations of long standing, and 
depending on navigations which are uncertain, as well as on the 
concurrence of seasons, in places which are often too distant for 
orders relative to their execution to be adapted to the common 
vicissitudes of negotiations, which for the most part are subject to 
disappointments and delays, and are always fluctuating and pre- 
carious : from whence it necessarily results, that the nature of such 
operations is by no means susceptible, without prejudice to the 
party who employs them, of any other epochs than those which 
have reference to the day of signing the treaty of peace." 

The French Government took this to mean that the date of 
the treaty of peace should be the epoch to fix the possessions 
of the two Powers, and delivered a memorial of April 19, 
insisting on the dates previously proposed by them. On this, 
the British Government replied that they were ready to 
negotiate as to the dates. The French envoy to London was 
furnished with " extremely simple instructions." 

The basis of them regarded the proposition Uti Possidetis and 
he was enjoined to demand of the British Minister, whether the 
King of England accepted of the periods annexed to the proposi- 
tion of Status quo, and if His Britannic Majesty did not accept of 
them, what new periods he proposed to France ? 4 

1 Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, 246, defines uti possidetis by the 
belligerents of the territory occupied by their armies at the end of the war, but this 
seems too absolute. Cf. Oppenheim, ii. 263. 

2 Jenkinson, iii. 91. 3 Ibid., 95, 96. * Ibid., 108. 


The British proposal in reply was that July, September and 
November should respectively be the periods for fixing the 
Uti possidetis. So much difficulty arose from this original 
proposal of Uti possidetis, that it was ultimately replaced by a 
series of mutual concessions of territory to take place in 
consequence of the treaty which might be eventually con- 
cluded. In the preliminaries of peace finally signed at 
Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762, it was provided, for 
instance, by Art. 7 that Great Britain should restore the fortresses 
in Guadeloupe, Mariegalante, Desirade, Martinique and Belle- 
isle l in the same condition as when they were conquered by 
the British arms, i.e. in statu quo, and the French trading posts in 
India " in the condition in which they now are," i.e. also in 
statu quo. 2 These stipulations were renewed in the definitive 
treaty of peace of February 10, 1 763.3 

In stipulating for uti possidetis or for status quo, it is conse- 
quently of the utmost importance to fix the date to which 
either expression is to relate. 

When on the conclusion of a treaty of peace the belligerents 
agree mutually to restore all their conquests, they are said to 
revert to the status quo ante helium* In 1813 Napoleon drafted 
instructions for his plenipotentiaries to the Congress of Prague : 
"Quant aux bases, n'en indiquer qu'une seule : 1' Uti possidetis ante 
bellum," meaning by that the relative possessions of France and 
the Continental alliance before the invasion of Russia in i8i2. 5 

In May 1850 the French President, Prince Napoleon, 
demanded of the Porte that the privileges accorded to the Latin 
Church by the treaty between Francis I and Soliman should 
be upheld, without regard to those granted to the Greek 
Church by various firmans. The Emperor Nicholas resented 
this action, and addressed a letter to the Sultan Abdul Medjid 
in which he insisted on the maintenance of the status quo with 
respect to the Holy Places, i.e. the arrangements that had 
existed up to that time in virtue of the firmans. 6 This is a 
case in which status quo has nothing to do with the state of 
territorial possession. 

English writers ordinarily use the form status quo. Statu 
quo is the foreign expression for the same thing. 

1 74. Ad referendum and Sub spe rati. 
When the sovereign whom a diplomatic agent represents, 

1 Jenkinson, iii. 1 70. 2 Ibid., 171. 3 Ibid., 177. 

4 Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, 246. 

5 Sorel, L 'Europe et la Revolution frangaise, viii. 159. 

6 Ollivier, U Empire Liberal, ii. 323. 


or to whom he is accredited, dies, the mission of the agent is, 
strictly speaking, at an end. During the interval which must 
elapse before he can receive fresh credentials, he may carry 
on a negotiation which has already been commenced, sub spe 
rati, i.e. in the expectation that what he promises will be 
ratified by his sovereign. 1 

It has also been said that when a proposal is made to an 
agent, and the case is urgent and the distance from his own 
country is considerable, he may accept or decline it sub spe 
rati. 2 But in these days, when telegraphic communication is 
possible between capitals even the most distant from each 
other, a prudent diplomatist will take care not to commit his 
government by a provisional acceptance of what is not 
warranted by his previous instructions. The utmost he will 
do will be to receive the proposal ad referendum. Sub spe rati 
may be explained to indicate that the agent is himself inclined 
to favour the proposal, but there is no reason why he should 
compromise either himself or his government. 

175. Ne varietur. 
Louis Philippe wrote to Guizot, July 24, 1846 : 

' Une lettre de vous a Bresson, qu'il lui serait enjoint de lire a 
sa Majeste, et dont il devrait lui demander de laisser entre ses 
mains une copie ne varietur," 

i.e. from which no departure can be permitted. Again, an 
acte authentique is an instrument certified by a third autho- 
rity who is competent for the purpose. It has a public and 
permanent character. It is perfect in itself, without ratifica- 
tion. It is inserted in the minutes of the notaries, ne varietur* 
The Final Protocol of the Locarno Conference, 1925, in 
reciting the various treaties and conventions prepared and 
initialled at that conference, continued : 

" Ces actes, des a present paraphes ne varietur., porteront la date de 
ce jour, les representants des parties interessees convenant de se 
rencontrer a Londres le i er decembre prochain, pour proceder, au 
cours d'une meme reunion, a la formalite de la signature des actes 
qui les concernent." 

Nevertheless some slight amendments in grammar and 
spelling were found necessary, and these were agreed to by 
the plenipotentiaries at the time of the signature of the 
instruments on December i, 1925. 

1 de Martens-Geffken, i. 187. 2 Pradier-Fodere, i. 370. 

3 de Maulde-la-Claviere, ii. 3, 199. 


176. A condition sine qua non denotes a condition that 
must be accepted, if an agreement is desired by the party to 
whom it is proposed. 

1 77. Casus belli and Casusfaderis. These terms appear to be 
sometimes confused. 

The former signifies an act or proceeding of a provocative 
nature on the part of one Power which, in the opinion of the 
offended Power, justifies it in making or declaring war. Pal- 
merston defined it in 1853 as " a case which would justify war." * 

The latter is an offensive act or proceeding of one state 
towards another, or any occurrence bringing into existence 
the condition of things which entitles the latter to call upon 
its ally to fulfil the undertakings of the alliance existing 
between them, i.e. a case contemplated by the treaty of 

At the Congress of Paris, April 15, 1856, the English, 
French and Austrian plenipotentiaries signed a convention by 
which a reciprocal engagement was entered into to regard 
as a casus belli any violation of the main treaty, and any 
attempt, no matter from what quarter it might be made, on 
the independence and integrity of the Ottoman empire ; it 
also fixed the naval and military contingents to be mobilised 
in case this casus faderis should arise. 2 

178. There are certain French terms used in diplomacy 
for which it is not easy to find an exact rendering in English. 
Demarche is defined by Littre as : " Ce qu'on fait pour la 
reussite de quelque chose," and one of the examples he gives 
is : 'la demarche que FAngleterre avait faite du cote de 
Rome." This " something " may have been what in English 
might be described as an offer, a suggestion, an advance, a 
demand, an attempt, a proposal, a protestation, a remon- 
strance, a request, an overture, a warning, a threat, a step, 
a measure according to circumstances, and unless the trans- 
lator happens to know what the circumstances were under 
which the demarche was made, he will be at a loss for a precise 
English equivalent. 

179. Fin de non-recevoir is originally a legal term. Littre 
explains^ or fins as 

' toute espece de demande, pretention ou exception presentee au 
tribunal par les parties. Fin de non-recevoir, refus d'admettre une 
action judiciaire, en pretendant, par un motif pris en dehors de la 

1 Ashley, Life of Lord Palmerston, i. 35. 2 Ollivier, L' Empire Liberal, ii. 363. 


demande elle-meme et de son mal-fonde, que celui qui veut 1'intenter 
n'est pas recevable dans sa demande. 1 Dans le langage general, 
fin de non-recevoir, refus pour des raisons extrinseques. Repondre 
par des fins de non recevoir. Opposer des fins de non-recevoir." 

Cussy says : 

" Cette locution, en usage dans les tribunaux, signifie les excep- 
tions diverses qui forment autant d'obstacles a ce que le juge saisi 
d'une instance puisse s'occuper, au moins immediatement, de la 
connaissance et de 1'appreciation de la demande ; c'est un moyen 
de droit prejudiciel, par lequel on repousse une action, sans qu'il 
soit necessaire d'examiner le fond de la contestation." 2 

This latter explanation corresponds better to the notion 
conveyed when the expression is used to describe the diplo- 
matic practice which consists in rejecting an official complaint 
or demand without examining into the merits. 

" Evasive reply " may be sometimes the best rendering. 

1 80. Prendre Acte. Donmr Acte. 

The legal definition of acte is " a declaration made before 
a court, whether spontaneously or in consequence of an order 
of a court, and which has been certified to have been made." 
In diplomacy it is applied to any document recording an 
international agreement by which an obligation is under- 
taken ; such as, for instance, the convention for the suspension 
of hostilities of April 23, 1814, signed between France and 
the four allied Great Powers. 3 " Instrument " is the proper 
English equivalent, though we sometimes find it rendered by 
" Act." 

Prendre acte is to declare that one will avail one's self, 
should the necessity arise, of a declaration or admission made 
by the other party, without conceding that one is in any way 
bound by that declaration. " To take note of" is perhaps 
the English equivalent. Yet it may sometimes conveniently 
be rendered by " recognise " or " acknowledge." 

" Mais les sagesses tardives ne suffisent point ; et meme quand 
elles veulent etre prudentes, 1'esprit politique manque aux nations 
qui ne sont pas exercees a faire elles-memes leurs affaires et leur 
destinee. Dans le deplorable etat ou 1'entreprise d'un egoisme 
h6roique et chimerique avait jete la France, il n'y avait evidem- 
ment qu'une conduite a tenir ; reconnaitre Louis XVIII, prendre 

1 The nearest English legal equivalent is perhaps " demurrer," or " objection 
in point of law." 

2 Dictionnaire du diplomate, etc., s.v., 323. 

3 Mlmoires du Pr. de Talleyrand, ii. 1 75, in the preamble. 


acte de ses dispositions liberates et se concerter avec lui pour traiter 
avec les etrangers." x 

Donner acte is to give recognition to another party that he 
has performed a certain necessary act. 

181. Donner la main (in English, give the hand, German 
Oberhand] means to give the seat of honour, i.e. on the right 
hand of the host or diplomatic agent receiving a visit from a 
person of lower rank. The Elector Max Joseph of Bavaria 
was reported in 1 765 to have bestowed this mark of deference 
on the Imperial Ambassador " which certainly no crowned 
head in Europe would do." 2 In the instructions to Lord 
Gower, on his appointment as ambassador to Paris in 1790, 
he is directed to act in accordance with the Order in Council 
of August 26, 1668, and " to take the hand of envoys " in 
his own house, i.e. to place them on his left hand. 3 See also 
on this point 459. 

182. Denoncer un traite is to give notice of intention to 
terminate a treaty, to the other contracting party or parties. 
" Denounce a treaty " is not good English. 

183. National. This French term, of which the conve- 
nience must be admitted, corresponds in English to " subject 
or citizen." A similar convenience attaches to the term 
ressortissantj one who is subject to a particular jurisdiction, 
which comprises both citizens of the French Republic and 
persons under its protection, whether as subjects of a protected 
state, such as Tunis, or the natives of Morocco, who, in 
accordance with former treaty stipulations existing with that 
country, were entitled to French protection as being semsars or 
brokers, and mokhalata or employes of French commercial 
houses. 4 

1 Guizot, Memoires, etc., i. 95. 

2 Temperley, Frederick the Great and Kaiser Joseph, 67. 

3 Browning, The Despatches of Earl Gower, 2. 

4 See also Annual Digest, etc. (1927-8), Case No. 24. 





184. Diplomatic agents is a general term denoting the persons 
who carry on the political relations of the states which they 
represent, in conjunction with the minister for foreign affairs 
.of the country where they are appointed to reside. They are 
also styled " ministres publics " in French. It is not meant 
that their official intercourse is limited to the head of the 
foreign department. Matters which come under the heading 
of current business, or the details of diplomatic negotiations, 
of which the principles have already been settled, may be 
and usually are discussed with one of the minister's immediate 
subordinates. Questions affecting the vital relations of the 
two nations will, however, be treated with the head of the 

185. The duty of the diplomatic agent is to watch over 
the maintenance of good relations, to protect the interests of 
his countrymen, and to report to his government on all 
matters of importance, without being always charged with 
the conduct of a specific negotiation. At the more important 
posts, the agent is assisted in furnishing reports of a special 
character by military, naval, air and commercial attaches. 

1 86. In addition to the head of the permanent mission, 
other diplomatic agents are sometimes accredited for special 
purposes of a ceremonial character, to represent the sovereign 
or state at a coronation or other state ceremony, or it may be 
to invest a foreign sovereign with a high decoration. 

187. Every recognised independent state is held to be 
entitled to send diplomatic agents to represent its interests in 


other states, and reciprocally to receive such agents, but there 
is no obligation in international law to exercise either right. 1 

1 88. In treaties with some Oriental states the right to 
have a diplomatic representative has been expressly stipulated, 
as with China, for instance, and formerly with Japan. This 
practice, however, dates from an earlier period. In 1614 it 
was provided by a treaty between Sweden and Holland that 
the two states should mutually accredit resident envoys. 
Holland had a similar agreement, also of 1614, with Branden- 
burg, Anhalt, Baden, Oettingen and Wiirttemberg. The 
Treaty of Belgrade, 1739, between Russia and the Porte, 
provided that the former might have a resident minister at 
Constantinople, of whatever category the Russian sovereign 
might determine ; and by Article V of the Treaty of Kutchuk- 
Kainardji, 1774 (January 10, 1775), it was settled that the 
Russian representative should always be of the second class, 
taking rank immediately after the Imperial German minister ; 
but if the latter were of a higher or lower category, then the 
Russian to have precedence immediately after the Dutch, 
or, in his absence, after the Venetian ambassador. 2 Great 
Britain, up to December 1914, maintained no regular diplo- 
matic intercourse with the Holy See ; formerly, before the 
annexation of Rome to the Kingdom of Italy, a secretary of 
the British legation at Florence usually resided at Rome as 
the unofficial medium of official communication. Prussia had 
a legation at Rome, while not receiving a nuncio at Berlin ; 
so also Russia. 

189. Within recent years a number of treaties have been 
concluded, notably by Turkey and the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics, which by their terms provide for the 
establishment of diplomatic relations and treatment of diplo- 
matic agents. The Treaty of Friendship between Turkey and 
Poland of July 23, 1923, provides : 

" Les Hautes Parties Contractantes sont d'accord pour retablir 
les relations diplomatiques entre les deux fitats conformement aux 
principes du droit des gens. Elles conviennent que les ministres, 
envoyes et agents diplomatiques de chacune d'elles jouiront a 
charge de reciprocite dans le territoire de 1'autre, des privileges, 
honneurs, immunites et exemptions accordes a ceux de la nation la 
plus favorisee." 3 

190. Similar articles appear in treaties concluded by 
Turkey with Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, 

1 See also Oppenheim, i. 360. 

2 Koch and Schoell, Histoire abrigee des Traites de Paix, etc., xiv. 

3 Br. and For. State Papers, cxviii. 974. 


the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Yugoslavia, but 
in these the latter part of the article is modified to read " le 
traitement consacre par les principes generaux du droit 
international public general." 

191. By the Treaty of Rapallo, April 16, 1922, Germany 
resumed diplomatic relations with Russia. Treaties have 
since been concluded by the Soviet Union with various 
countries to the same effect. The Convention of Friendship 
and Economic Co-operation of January 20, 1925, between 
Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, e.g., says : 

" The High Contracting Parties agree that, with the coming into 
force of the present convention, diplomatic and consular relations 
shall be established between them." 1 

The Pan-American Convention, signed at Havana on 
February 20, 1928, provides in Article i : " States have the 
right of being represented before each other through diplomatic 

192. Whether semi-sovereign states possess the right or 
not is determined by the form of the tie between them and 
the suzerain power, sometimes by treaty. The right to send 
diplomatic agents is not co-extensive with that of concluding 
treaties. Thus Egypt, as long as the Turkish suzerainty lasted, 
was able to conclude commercial treaties with foreign states, 
but was not empowered to maintain permanent missions. 

193. In monarchical states the sovereign has the right of 
making appointments. Generally speaking, this right is de- 
fined by the constitution. Thus, in the French Republic it is 
exercised by the President ; in the United States by the 
President in conjunction with the Senate, whose consent is 

- necessary to the nominations sent to it by the former. 

194. In the case of a regency, the diplomatic agent is 
nevertheless accredited in the name of the sovereign, whether 
he be a minor or be prevented by infirmity from discharging 

his functions. During the minority of Louis XV, the Duke 
of Orleans being regent, Cardinal Dubois negotiated the 
Triple Alliance of The Hague in 1 7 1 7, in virtue of credentials, 
full powers and instructions made out in the name of the King. 
In England, during the periods when George III was incapa- 
citated for the transaction of affairs, the right of sending 
embassies was vested in the Prince of Wales. The Republic 
of Poland, during a vacancy of the elective throne, exercised 
the right of embassy. 2 

1 Br. and For. State Papers., cxxii. 895. a Phillimore, ii. 163-4. 


195. On the occasion of the serious illness of King George V 
in 1928 His Majesty signed Letters Patent authorising the 
issue of a Commission under the Great Seal creating a Council 
of State, composed of the Queen, Prince of Wales, Duke of 
York, Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prime Minister, who 
were authorised to sign documents. 1 Formal documents such 
as the credentials of ambassadors and ministers, full powers 
and ratifications of treaties were signed on His Majesty's 
behalf by the Regents. 

196. The maxim delegates non potest delegare was formerly 
subject to certain exceptions. Thus, after the death of 
Gustavus Adolphus at Liitzen in 1632 the Senate at Stockholm 
delegated the whole government to the Chancellor Oxen- 
stierna. Grotius, nominated by him as ambassador to France, 
had credentials in the Chancellor's name. He was received 
as the ambassador of Sweden, in virtue of the procuration of the 
Senate, and not merely as the representative of the Chancellor 
who had appointed him. 

Phillimore says that the Viceroy of a province, especially of 
a distant province, has always been held, ex necessitate rei, to 
possess the right of embassy ; and he adds that during the 
period when Spain governed Naples by a viceroy, Milan by 
a governor, and the Spanish Netherlands by a governor-general, 
the right to confer upon others the jus legationis was frequently 
exercised by these high delegates of their sovereign, generally 
without controversy. But in 1646 the French ambassador in 
Switzerland persuaded the Cantons to refuse an audience at 
their general assembly to the ambassador of the governor of 
Milan, on the ground that this ambassador had no credentials 
from the Crown of Spain. During the time that the Nether- 
lands (now Belgium) were a possession of the House of Austria, 
foreign diplomatic agents were sent to reside at Brussels, the 
seat of the governor-general's authority. The British Governor- 
General of India, the Dutch Governor of Java, and formerly the 
Spanish Governor of the Philippines are other examples. The 
Dutch, French, and British East India Companies often possessed 
this power, but this cannot be presumed ; it must have been 
conferred by the special and express grant of their respective 
governments. 2 

197. A monarch who is a prisoner-of-war cannot accredit 
diplomatic agents 3 ; nor a monarch who has abdicated, or 
has been deposed. 

1 Keith, British Constitutional Law, 35. 

2 Phillimore, ii. 164-6. 

3 G. F. de Martens, Pricis du Droit des Gens, ii. 40. 


198. When a civil war or a revolution breaks out, agents 
despatched to foreign countries by the opponents of the 
hitherto constituted government ought not to be officially 
received until the new state of things has assumed a permanent 
character and given rise to the formation of a new de facto 
government. The fact that a party in a state, during a civil 
war, has been recognised as a belligerent, conveys no right to 
be diplomatically represented abroad. But foreign states may 
negotiate with the agents of such a belligerent informally, to 
provide for the safety of their subjects and of the property of 
their subjects resident within the territory under the sway of 
such a party. 1 During the continuance of a civil war or 
revolution the diplomatist on the spot may often have to 
intervene on behalf of his own countrymen with the insurgents 
in possession, but he will do this personally and unofficially 
until his government recognises the new power which has 
been set up, and, if necessary, sends him new credentials. As 
long as its recognition does not take place, the diplomatic 
agent previously accredited continues to represent the head 
of the state which appointed him. In 1861, Great Britain, 
having recognised the Kingdom of Italy, which had annexed 
the Neapolitan dominions, intimated to the charge d'affaires of 
Naples that he could no longer be accredited as a representative 
of the King of the Two Sicilies. 2 In 1871 Count Bismarck 
insisted that, in order that the Government of National 
Defence should be recognised as having the right to represent 
France diplomatically, it must be recognised by the French 
nation. The right may sometimes be doubtful or disputed, 
e.g. when a sovereign has assumed a title which is not as yet 
recognised by other Powers. On the occasion of the corona- 
tion of King William I, Prussia not having recognised the 
Kingdom of Italy, it was doubtful whether the King of Italy 
could send an ambassador to attend the ceremony. The 
difficulty was overcome by appointing General de la Rocca 
ambassador of King Victor Emmanuel, without specifying the 
country of which he was King. 

199. There is no fixed method of according recognition to 
a new government which has assumed office as a result of a 
revolutionary outbreak. Any form of notification suffices for 
the purpose or any act on the part of a state which is consistent 
only with such recognition. 

200. In the case of the 1910 revolution in Portugal, 
official recognition was delayed by the British Government 

1 Oppenheim, i. 362. 2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 39. 


until the new republic had been confirmed by a general 
election, and until certain alterations, sufficient to protect 
British church property in Portugal, had been made in the 
Constitution. Recognition was accorded jointly with the 
Governments of Spain, Germany, Austria and Italy, and was 
expressed in notes stating that, in view of the fact that the 
Portuguese Constitution had been voted, the respective 
governments were glad to join in the recognition of the 

201. In 1924, following the plebiscite which resulted in 
favour of a republican form of government in Greece, the 
British Government accepted the verdict as representing the 
wishes of the Greek people and formally recognised the regime 
thus established. 

202. The British note of February i, 1924, to the Soviet 
Government stated that His Majesty's Government recognise 
the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics as the de jure rulers of 
those territories of the old Russian Empire which acknowledge 
their authority. 

203. In the case of revolutionary changes of government 
which have taken place in South American countries within 
recent years, viz. : Chile, Ecuador (1925), Peru (1930), the 
Argentine Republic (1930), and Brazil (1930), the British 
representative has been instructed to inform the government 
concerned that the British Government considered that diplo- 
matic relations between the two countries were in no way 
affected by the change of government. 

204. On the occasion, in April 1931, of the revolution in 

Spain and the departure of the King of Spain from that 

country the governments of most foreign states, including 

those of Great Britain and the British Dominions, forthwith 

recognised the new regime. The former Spanish ambassador 

at London, the Marquis de Merry del Val, having resigned, a 

charge d'affaires ad interim was appointed by the provisional 

government, and in May Senor Perez de Ayala took up his 

appointment at London as ambassador extraordinary and 

plenipotentiary from the provisional government, being 

received in that capacity, and his name placed on the diplomatic 

list. The British ambassador at Madrid was not, however, 

furnished with new credentials pending the confirmation by 

popular vote of the new regime which had been set up in 

Spain, and the election of a constitutional president of the 


205. The right of the Holy See to diplomatic representa- 


tion was not affected by the annexation of the States of the 
Church to the Kingdom of Italty. 

By the Treaty of February n, 1929, between Italy and the 
Holy See, Italy recognises the full ownership and the exclusive 
and absolute dominion and sovereign jurisdiction of the Holy 
See over the Vatican City, all persons having permanent 
residence there being subject to the sovereignty of the Holy 
See. Under Article 1 2 of the treaty Italy also recognises the 
right of the Holy See to active and passive legation, in 
accordance with the general rules of international law, envoys 
of foreign governments continuing to enjoy in the Kingdom all 
the privileges and immunities appertaining to diplomatic 
agents, while their headquarters may remain in Italian terri- 
tories and enjoy all immunities due to them in accordance 
with international law ; an Italian ambassador being accre- 
dited to the Holy See and a Papal nuncio to Italy, the latter 
being the doyen of the diplomatic corps in accordance with the 
customary right recognised by the Congress of Vienna. (See 
also 436.) 

206. It is a general practice to have only one permanent 
diplomatic agent at each capital. 

The counsellors of the British embassies at Paris and 
Washington are specially accredited as envoys extraordinary 
and ministers plenipotentiary. Envoys extraordinary and 
ministers plenipotentiary are also accredited at certain capitals 
in respect of the Dominion of Canada, the Union of South 
Africa and the Irish Free State. (See 775.) 

207. In time of war the representative of a neutral friendly 
Power commonly undertakes the protection of the subjects of 
one belligerent in the dominions of the other belligerent, so 
far as is permitted by the state to which he is accredited, and, 
of course, with the sanction of his own government. 

208. There is no objection in principle to one and the 
same person being accredited to more than one country. 
Indeed, this is often done where several minor states 
lie adjacent to each other, or when it is desired for reasons 
of public economy to limit expenditure on diplomatic 

The British ambassador at Buenos Aires is accredited also 
to Paraguay as minister plenipotentiary. The British envoy 
at Panama is accredited in the same capacity to Costa Rica ; 
the British envoy in Latvia also to Estonia and Lithuania ; 
and the British envoy at Guatemala also to Honduras, 
Nicaragua and Salvador. 


209. What class of agents shall be accredited is a matter 
for arrangement between the governments concerned, the 
usual practice being to exchange agents of the same class. 
France, however, appoints an ambassador to Berne, while 
the Swiss Confederation sends a minister to Paris. Generally, 
however, only the principal states are represented by ambas- 
sadors, though up to 1893 the United States made it a rule to 
appoint agents of not higher rank than envoy. At the 
beginning of Queen Victoria's reign Great Britain had am- 
bassadors at Vienna, Paris, St. Petersburg and Constantinople. 
Vienna was reduced in 1835, an d from 1844 to 1860 the post at 
St. Petersburg was occupied by an envoy and minister. The 
legation at Vienna was raised to an embassy in 1860 (but is 
at the present time again a legation), that at Berlin in 1862, 
at Rome in 1876, at Madrid in 1887, at Washington in 1893, 
at Tokio in 1905, at Brussels in 1919, at Rio de Janeiro in 
1919, at Lisbon in 1924, at Buenos Aires in 1927, at Warsaw 
in 1929, and at Santiago in 1930. 

In all these cases the change of status took place by mutual 
consent and the British diplomatic agent became ambassador. 
Similar changes have taken place all over the world during 
the last century, charges d'affaires being converted into ministers 
resident and ministers resident into envoys extraordinary and 
ministers plenipotentiary, as a matter of international com- 
pliment and in recognition of the growing importance of the 
political and commercial relations of states. 

210. The continuous residence of an embassy is, to speak 
strictly, a matter of comity, and not of strict right. 

Nevertheless, so long a custom and so universal a consent 
have incorporated this permission of strict residence into the 
practice of nations, that its refusal would require unanswerable 
reasons for its justification. 

Such refusal was the ancient practice of Far Eastern 
nations towards European states up to about the middle of 
the nineteenth century, and in the case of Corea until 1883. 
And, more recently, diplomatic representation as between 
Soviet Russia and many countries was suspended, and still is 
in the case of the United States of America and certain other 

211. As apart from diplomatic agents formally accredited 
to the heads of foreign states, representatives are often 
appointed to attend congresses or conferences for the discussion 
and settlement of matters of international concern, and to 
negotiate and sign treaties in regard to such matters ; or, it 


may be, to revise treaties which have been formerly concluded 
between the states concerned. These are commonly furnished 
with full powers from their sovereign or government for the 
purpose. ^See 365, 539.) 

Commissioners are also sometimes appointed to regulate 
boundary questions or to transact other matters requiring 
adjustment which are outside the ordinary scope of the 
permanent diplomatic representative. (See 366, 369.) 


212. IN theory the selection of heads of missions will be 
determined with reference to the absolute fitness of the man 
for the particular post. Most European states confine diplo- 
matic appointments, at least to ranks below that of ambassador, 
to a close service consisting of trained men l who have begun 
at the lowest step of the ladder and risen gradually ; a similar 
practice now extends to various American countries. In some 
the diplomatic service is amalgamated with that of the Foreign 
Office, and sometimes also with the higher ranks of the consular 
service. In Great Britain heads of missions are usually 
taken from one of the two former, seldom from the last ; 
sometimes, but rarely, they have previously been politicians ; 
formerly they belonged to the political party in power, and 
usually resigned on a change of government. The same com- 
bination of foreign office and diplomatic service apparently 
existed in Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Russia 
and Spain. In all of those countries the interchange of the 
office of minister for foreign affairs with that of ambassador 
was not infrequent, but in Great Britain no instance of the 
kind has occurred, at least in recent times, though the special 
missions to the United States of the late Earl of Balfour in 
1917, of Viscount Reading in 1918, and of Viscount Grey of 
Fallodon in 1919, may be mentioned. 

In 1754 Sir Thomas Robinson (afterwards Lord Grantham), 
who had been minister at Vienna, was made Secretary of State for 
the Southern Department and leader of the House of Commons, 
in which position he achieved no marked distinction. His son, 
the second Lord Grantham, was ambassador at Madrid from 1771 
to 1779, and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a few months 
in 1782-3. The appointment of the fifth Duke of Leeds is scarcely 
a case in point, nor is that of George Canning, of Marquess 
Wellesley, nor of the second Earl Granville, all of whom were in 
real fact politicians. The fourth Earl of Clarendon had been 
envoy at Madrid from 1833 to 1839, but did not go to the Foreign 

1 On the question of women as diplomatic agents see Oppenheim, i. 370. 


Office till 1 853. The first Earl of Kimberley was envoy at St. Peters- 
burg under his earlier title of Lord Wodehouse from 1856 to 1858, 
but did not become Secretary of State till 1894. 

213. If the diplomatist suggested for appointment as 
ambassador or envoy is married, the social gifts, character, 
religion, past history, or original nationality of his wife may 
be an important ingredient in the determination of his 

214. The regulations for the British diplomatic service 
say : 

" The Secretary of State reserves to himself the power to recom- 
mend to the King the name of any person, even though not in the 
diplomatic service, for the higher and more responsible posts in it ; 
and generally, in regard to all appointments whatever in the 
diplomatic service, the Secretary of State will not be restricted by 
claims founded on seniority, or membership of the service, from 
making any such selection as on his own responsibility he may 
deem right." * 

215. In the United States Article II, sec. 2, 2, of the 
Constitution declares that " the President shall nominate and, 
by and with the advice of the Senate, shall appoint ambas- 
sadors, other public ministers and consuls." Diplomatic 
appointments to missions of all classes were formerly conferred 
almost without exception on political supporters of the party 
whose nominee had been elected president, but in 1924 a 
career service was established, from which a number of 
appointments has since been made. A feature is the inter- 
changeability of the diplomatic and consular services. Heads 
of missions, however, it is understood, still formally send in 
their resignations when a new president is elected. 

In Japan there have been several instances of the inter- 
change of minister for foreign affairs and ambassador. 

216. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics appoint- 
ments to heads of missions are apparently made on political 
grounds. By a decree of May 22-June 4, 1918, the titles of 
ambassador, envoy, etc., were abolished, and a single class 
created called Representants < Plenipotentiaires.} But the need of 
indicating the rank of these agents when accredited to foreign 
states has since compelled a modification, and their credentials, 
while styling them Representants Plenipotentiaires, add to this 
designation " a titre d'ambassadeur extraordinaire et pleni- 
potentiaire " or other description, according to the rank to 
be assigned to them in the country in which they are to reside. 

1 Foreign Office List (1932), 119. 


217. In 1914 a British Royal Commission on the Civil 
Service presented a report containing a series of recommenda- 
tions with respect to the organisation and recruitment of the 
diplomatic service. One was that the diplomatic establish- 
ment of the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Corps serving 
abroad should be amalgamated, up to and including the 
grades of assistant under-secretary of state and minister of 
the lowest grade. Another that the existing property quali- 
fication (the possession of a private income of 400 a year) 
be abolished, and that members of the service employed 
abroad should receive a suitable foreign allowance. These 
recommendations were accepted in principle, and at the 
present time the regulations for admission to the Diplomatic 
Service and Foreign Office prescribe : 

" Admission to the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office is 
by open competition. The examination is the same as that for 
Class I of the (general) Civil Service, with special arrangements 
to ensure a thorough knowledge of French and German and some 
other modern language. Candidates desiring to be appointed to 
the combined Service will first be required to appear before a 
Board of Selection, appointed by the Secretary of State, which will 
decide whether they possess suitable qualifications for entry into 
the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service. No assurance as to 
the possession of private means will be required of candidates. All 
members of the combined Service will be liable for service abroad." i 

2 1 8. One would be disposed to say that some, if not all, 
of the following are necessary qualifications for the diplomatic 

Good temper, good health and good looks. Rather more 
than average intelligence, though brilliant genius is not 
necessary. A straightforward character, devoid of selfish 
ambition. A mind trained by the study of the best literature, 
and by that of history. Capacity to judge of evidence. In 
short, the candidate must be an educated gentleman. These 
points cannot be ascertained by means of written examinations. 
Those can only afford evidence of knowledge already acquired ; 
they do not reveal the essential ingredients of a character. At 
some posts it is useful to have had a legal training, particularly 
where the minister for foreign affairs is likely to be a lawyer. 
Some private income, even though the government should 
give a special foreign service allowance, is very desirable in 
the lower grades of the diplomatic service, and the higher the 
grade the more of it the better. 

1 Foreign Office List (1932), 116. 


219. In most countries it is an essential requirement for 
entry into the diplomatic service that the candidate should 
be a subject or citizen of the country. 

In Great Britain candidates must be natural-born British sub- 
jects and born within the United Kingdom or in one of the self- 
governing Dominions of parents also born within those territories, 
except when the circumstances are such as to justify a departure 
from the general rule, in which case they can be allowed to compete 
by special permission of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 
provided they fulfil the conditions of the rule in respect of nationality 
prescribed for candidates for admission to His Majesty's Civil 
Service as a whole, viz. : 

Every candidate must be a natural-born British subject, the 
child of a person who is, or was at the time of his death, a British 
subject. Provided that exception may be made : 

(a) in the case of candidates serving in a civil situation to which 
they were admitted with the certificate of the Civil 
Service Commissioners ; 

(b} in the case of natural-born British subjects who served in 
His Majesty's Armed Forces in the Great War between 
August 4, 1914, and November 11, 1918 ; 

(c] in the case of natural-born British subjects who have satis- 
factorily completed a period of not less than five years' 
service on full pay in His Majesty's Regular Forces. 
Provided also that if the Civil Service Commissioners are satis- 
fied, in the case of any candidate who is a British subject but does 
not fulfil all the requirements of the rule as to nationality and 
descent, that the candidate is so closely connected by ancestry and 
upbringing with His Majesty's dominions that an exception may 
properly be made to that rule, they may accept such candidate as 
eligible provided that this discretion shall not be exercisable unless 
(a) the father or paternal grandfather of the candidate was a natural- 
born British subject, and (b) neither the father nor the paternal 
grandfather had acquired any other nationality by naturalisation 
or by any other voluntary or formal act. 

220. In the British diplomatic service the age of retirement 
was formerly fixed at seventy years, though cases occurred in 
which, for special reasons, it was thought desirable to extend 
the period of service. But the Superannuation (Diplomatic 
Service) Act, 1929, now applies to members of that service the 
provisions of the Superannuation Acts governing civil servants 
in general (subject to certain modifications as regards pensions). 
The French rule is retirement at the age of sixty, which may 
be extended to sixty-five. Many states have no age limit. 

221. The qualifications and characteristics of the perfect 
diplomatist have been discussed in Chapter IX. Certain 
other observations may be cited : 


The attempt to reduce to rules the art of negotiating is as vain 
and futile as the attempt to teach the art of social intercourse. In 
addition to knowledge of affairs in general and comprehension of 
the interests of his own country in particular, the distinguishing 
characteristics of a successful negotiator, such as knowledge of men, 
which enables one to interpret looks and glances, an elasticity of 
demeanour which overcomes the weak man by earnestness and the 
strong man by gentleness, readiness to understand the opponent's 
point of view and skill in refuting his objections all these are 
qualities which can be acquired only by natural disposition, social 
intercourse and practical acquaintance with affairs. 1 

222. In a recent work, 2 the essential qualities of the perfect 
diplomatist are thus set forth : He is conciliatory and firm ; 
he eludes difficulties which cannot immediately be overcome 
only in order to obviate them in more favourable conditions ; 
he is courteous and unhurried ; he easily detects insincerity, 
not always discernible to those who are themselves sincere ; 
he has a penetrating intellect and a subtle mind, combined 
with a keen sense of honour ; he has an intuitive sense of 
fitness and is adaptable ; he is at home in any society and is 
equally effective in the chanceries of the old diplomacy or on 
the platforms of the new. 

223. Ch. de Martens said : 

" Pour que 1'agent diplomatique inspire la confiance si necessaire 
au succes des affaires, il faut que, sans abandon affecte, son carac- 
tere fasse croire a sa franchise. Le soup9on de finesse provoque la 
mefiance, et la marche des affaires en souffre. Mais la loyaute 
n'exclut pas la prudence, et Ton peut repudier la ruse sans 
renoncer a la circonspection." 3 

224. A well-known witticism of Sir Henry Wotton has been 
made use of by ill-natured persons as the foundation of a 
charge that the method principally employed by diplomatists is 
the perversion of truth. Izaak Walton, in the life prefixed 
to the Reliquia Wottoniana, reports : 

" At his first going ambassador into Italy, as he passed through 
Germany, he stayed some days at Augusta [Augsburg], where having 
been in his former Travels, well-known by many of the best note 
for Learning and Ingeniousness (those that are esteemed the 
Vertuosi of that Nation) with whom he passing an Evening in 
Merriments, was requested by Christopher Flecamore 4 to write some 

1 Schmalz ; cited by Schmelzing, ii. 105. 

2 Kennedy, Old Diplomacy and New, 366. 3 de Martens-Geffken, 152. 

4 John Christopher Flechammer or Fleckammer. See Logan Pearsall Smith, 
Life and^ Letters of Sir H. Wotton, i. 49 ., 127 . ; ii. 10. Also an article by 
E. Nys in Revue de Droit International, xxi. 388. 


Sentence in his Albo (a Book of white Paper, which for that purpose 
many of the German Gentry usually carry about them) and Sir 
Henry Wotton consenting to the motion, took an occasion from some 
accidental discourse of the present Company, to write a pleasant 
definition of an Ambassadour, in these very words : 

Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus ad mentiendum Reipublica causa. 

Which Sir Henry Wotton could have been content should have 
been thus Englished : 

An Ambassador is an honest man, sent to lie abroad for the good of his 

But the word for lye (being the hinge upon which the Conceit 
was to turn) was not so expressed in Latine, as would admit (in the 
hands of an Enemy especially) so fair a construction as Sir Henry 
thought in English. Yet as it was, it slept quietly among other 
Sentences in this Albo, almost eight years, till by accident it fell into 
the hands of Jasper Scioppius, a Romanist, a man of a restless spirit, 
and a malicious Pen : who with Books against King James, Prints 
this as a Principle of that Religion professed by the King, and his 
Ambassadour Sir Henry Wotton, then at Venice : and in Venice it was 
presently written after in several Glass-windows, and spitefully 
declared to be Sir Henry Walton's. 

This coming to the knowledge of King James, he apprehended 
it to be such an oversight, such a weakness, or worse in Sir Henry 
Wotton as caused the King to express much wrath against him : 
and this caused Sir Henry Wotton to write two Apologies, one to 
Velserus (one of the Chiefs of Augusta] in the universal Language, 
which he caused to be Printed, and given, and scattered in the most 
remarkable places both of Germany and Italy, as an Antidote against 
the venemous [sic] Books of Scioppius ; and another Apology to 
King James : which were both so ingenious, so clear, and so 
choicely Eloquent, that his Majesty (who was a pure judge of it) 
could not forbear, at the receit thereof, to declare publickly, That 
Sir Henry Wotton had commuted sufficiently for a greater offence " [4th 
edit. 1685]. 

In the letter to Mark Welser, Wotton calls his " pleasant 
definition ' 

" iocosam Legati definitionem, quam iam ante octennium istac 
transiens apud amicum virum Chris tophorum Fleckamerum forte 
posueram in Albo Amicorum more Teutonico, his ipsis verbis ; 
' Legatus est vir bonus, peregre missus ad mentiendum reipublicae 
causa.' Definitio adeo fortasse catholica, ut complecti possit etiam 
Legates a latere." 5 

This seems a sufficient exoneration as far as Sir Henry Wotton 
is concerned. 

1 L. P. Smith, op. cit., ii. 9, and Reliquia Wottoniants (4th ed.). 


225. EVERY state has the right of refusing to accept a 
particular diplomatic agent, whether on the ground of his 
personal character or of his previous record, as, for instance, 
if he is known to have entertained sentiments of enmity toward 
the state to which it is proposed to accredit him. A diplomatic 
agent may also be declined because of the character with 
which it is proposed to invest him, or, as it is tersely expressed 
in Latin, ex eo ob quod mittitur. If the Pope had announced his 
intention of sending a legate or nuncio to certain Protestant 
countries it is probable that such a representative would not 
have been received. The Ottoman Porte for a long time 
declined to exchange ambassadors with the United States, 
until the latter finally despatched a squadron of ships of war 
to Constantinople, and at the cannon's mouth, as it were, 
extracted a promise to fall in with the proposed arrangement. 1 
226. Agrfation. To avoid unpleasantness arising from a 
refusal, it is the usual practice to submit the name of the 
person whom it is desired to appoint, beforehand, to the head 
of the state to whom he is to be accredited. This is done 
confidentially as a rule, the channel generally employed being 
the retiring diplomatic agent of the country which appoints, 
or the charge d'affaires ad interim. Sometimes it is done 
by the minister for foreign affairs addressing himself to 
the diplomatic representative of the state to which the 
diplomatist is to be accredited. When the Pope was about 
to appoint a nuncio or legate to Spain (formerly also to the 
courts of Austria-Hungary, France and Portugal) he submitted 
a list of three names, called a terna, to the sovereign, who then 
was at liberty to make his choice. If there existed no special 
reasons for exercising the power of choosing, it was usual to 
take the name that stood first. In 1819, Dessolles, the French 
minister for foreign affairs, wrote to Nesselrode giving a list 
of four men, either of whom the king would be willing to 

1 Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 31. 


appoint ambassador at St. Petersburg, recommending par- 
ticularly the first on the list. Alexander, however, chose La 
Ferronays, who was the second. 1 

227. It is a matter of dispute whether a refusal must be 
accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which it is 
made, but if in such a case the reasons are asked for, and they 
are not given, or if it appears to the government whose 
candidate has been refused that the grounds alleged are 
inadequate, that Power may refuse to make an appointment, 
and prefer to leave its diplomatic representation in the hands 
of a charge d'affaires. 

Nevertheless the Pan-American Convention of February 20, 
1928, signed at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the 
following rules : " Article 8. No state may accredit its diplomatic 
officers to other states without previous agreement with the latter. 
States may decline to receive an officer from another, or, having 
already accepted him, may request his recall, without being obliged 
to state the reasons for such a decision." 

228. The books give several instances of refusals, and others 
have occurred which have not been made public. One of 
the best known is that of the refusal of the Emperor Nicholas 
of Russia to receive Sir Stratford Canning in 1832, on the 
ostensible ground that the appointment was made without 
previous notice having been given, since it was only ten days 
after it had been officially gazetted that Palmerston mentioned 
it to the Russian ambassador in London. It has been sug- 
gested that the Emperor's objection to Sir Stratford Canning 
was on personal grounds, and though the British Government 
maintained that a government was perfectly free in the choice 
of its representatives at foreign courts, the Emperor refused to 
receive him, and the ordinary relations between the two courts 
were only resumed in 1835, when Lord Durham was appointed 

229. In the past refusal to receive an envoy might occur 
on such grounds as the following : Sweden, in 1757, refused 
to accept the British envoy, Goodrich, because after his 
appointment he had visited a prince with whom Sweden was 
at war ; Great Britain consequently broke off diplomatic 
relations with Sweden. 2 In 1820, the King of Sardinia 
refused to receive the Prussian envoy, Baron von Martens, 
because he had married the daughter of a regicide. In 1847 
the King of Hanover refused to accept Graf von Westphalen 
because he was a Roman Catholic. 

1 F. de Martens, Recueil des traite's, etc., xiv, 415. 

2 Schmalz, Europaisches Volkerrecht, 87, etc. 


230. At the present day the practice of making inquiry 
beforehand is recognised by most states as thoroughly well 
established, with the possible exception of the United States, 
which observes the practice of inquiring in advance as to the 
acceptability of persons nominated as ambassadors, but, at 
any rate until recently, adhered to the rule that this was 
unnecessary in respect of envoys and diplomatic representatives 
of a lower grade. It would seem, however, that this rule has 
of late undergone modification, for Article 8 of the Pan- 
American Convention of February 20, 1928, referred to above, 
between the United States and most American countries, 
prescribes that no state may accredit its diplomatic officers 
to other states without previous agreement with the latter. 

231. In 1885 Mr. Keiley was appointed United States 
minister at Rome. The Italian Government asked that 
another choice might be made, without, however, assigning 
any reason. But it was evident that the ground of the refusal 
to receive him was a speech made by Mr. Keiley at a public 
meeting of Roman Catholics, at which a protest was made 
against the annexation of the Papal States to the Kingdom of 
Italy. Mr. Bayard, the United States Secretary of State, 
recognised " the full and independent right " of the King of 
Italy " to decide the question of personal acceptability to him 
of an envoy," and Mr. Keiley, on being made acquainted 
with the refusal of the Italian Government, resigned his 

232. Mr. Keiley was thereupon appointed to Vienna, and 
the Austro-Hungarian minister at Washington was instructed 
to the effect that since, as at Rome, scruples prevailed against 
this choice, he was to direct the attention of the United States 
Government, in the most friendly way, to the generally 
existing diplomatic practice to ask, previously to any nomina- 
tion of a foreign minister, the consent (agrement) of the govern- 
ment to which he is to be accredited. It was added that " the 
position of a foreign envoy wedded to a Jewess by civil marriage 
would be untenable and intolerable in Vienna." This afforded 
Mr. Bayard the opportunity of asserting that the only reason 
given was the allegation as to Mrs. Keiley's religion, which he 
indignantly repudiated as sufficient ground for the refusal, 
while recognising 

" the undoubted right of every government to decide for itself 
whether the individual presented as the envoy of another state is 
or is not an acceptable person, and, in the exercise of its own 
high and friendly discretion, to receive or not the person so 


Later, he discussed the question whether it was necessary 
previously to ask for the consent of the government to whom 
the minister was to be accredited ; there was no instance of 
this having been done by the United States, and the reason 
was that frequent elections at regular intervals might render 
it difficult to procure the consent of a foreign government to 
the appointment of agents whose views were in harmony with 
the latest expression of public opinion, if the new government 
should happen to have superseded one whose policy was more 
in accord with that of the foreign government concerned. 
Subsequently the Austro-Hungarian Government based their 
refusal on the ground that the Italian Government had 
objected to Mr. Keiley, and that its views had found earnest 
expression at Vienna since the President had nominated him 
to Austria-Hungary ; the fact that his wife was a Jewess did 
not influence the judgment of the government, but the latter 
could not prescribe social usage, which might be unpleasant 
in that regard. The main reason for objection was not the 
action of Italy, but the public utterances of Mr. Keiley, which 
were of a character not agreeable to the Austro-Hungarian 
Government. Finally the latter definitely refused to receive 
Mr. Keiley, who thereupon sent in his resignation. The 
President declined to make a fresh nomination and the legation 
was left in the hands of a secretary as charge d'affaires. 1 

233. In 1891 the United States appointed Mr. H. W. 
Blair minister to China. When he was on his way thither, 
the Chinese Foreign Office telegraphed their objection to the 
appointment on the ground that in 1882 and 1888 he had 
" bitterly abused China in the Senate " and " was conspicuous 
in helping to pass the oppressive Exclusion Act." In response 
to a request that they would consent to reopen the case the 
Chinese Foreign Office said " Mr. Blair is not popularly 
regarded in China," but that if the President could do anything 
to repeal the Exclusion Law of 1888 " the situation in China 
would be much changed, and then it would not make much 
difference what Mr. Blair has said, and he would be well 
received if the President asked for it." After the lapse of 
nearly three months, the President wrote to Mr. Blair accepting 
his resignation. At the same time, the minister then in China 
was instructed to deny the sufficiency of the allegations made 
in respect of the views concerning the Chinese people which 
were stated to have been entertained and uttered in legislative 
debate by Mr. Blair : 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1886. 


" If Mr. Blair may not be received as minister while that law 
[of 1 888] remains unrepealed, and because of its existence as a law, 
it is not easy to reconcile that position with the continued friendly 
reception of the present minister of the United States at Peking. 
In this aspect, as in every other aspect, the position assumed by 
China is incongruous and inadmissible." 

There was no interruption of the diplomatic representation 
at Peking. 1 

234. It is seldom that the national of a state is employed 
as the envoy of a foreign state in his own country. Before 
he can appear in that capacity he must apply for the approval 
of his own sovereign or government. 

235. In France it appears to have been for some time 
settled as a constitutional maxim that French citizens are not 
admissible as foreign ambassadors or ministers at Paris. And 
for nearly a century past the British Government has refused to 
receive British subjects as heads of foreign missions. 

236. In 1878 Mr. M. Hopkins, who, in the absence of the 
Hawaiian envoy to Great Britain, desired to be recognised as 
charge d'affaires, was informed that, being a British subject, 
he could not be received in that capacity, and was reminded 
of communications made to him to the same effect as far back 
as 1859. And in 1886 Mr. A. Hoffnung, who was accredited 
as Hawaiian charge d'affaires, was only accepted as such on 
his becoming naturalised in Hawaii and so ceasing to be a 
British subject. His nephew, Mr. S. Hoffnung, divested 
himself of British nationality in like manner, and was thus 
enabled to act as charge d'affaires ad interim in the absence 
of the head of mission. 

237. In Great Britain it has long been a settled principle 
that no British subject attached to a foreign embassy or 
legation, other than a servant, is entitled to the protection 
afforded to the diplomatic body by the statute 7 Anne, c. 12. 
On July 8, 1786, the following notice was published in the 
London Gazette : 

" Whereas divers applications have of late been made by people 
of different descriptions to the foreign ministers resident in England 
to be appointed secretaries to some or other of the said foreign 
ministers in order to avail themselves of the protection due to 
persons in that situation against the ordinary course of legal pro- 
ceedings in various cases. And whereas such indulgence is liable 
to many abuses, it is His Majesty's pleasure that henceforth no 
subject of His Majesty shall be permitted by the Secretary of State 

1 Hall, 355 n. 


to have his name inserted at the Sheriff's office in the list of those 
who are to be deemed under the protection of any foreign minister, 
excepting only such persons as may be employed by the said foreign 
minister in the capacity of menial servants." 


238. The objection to receiving British subjects as members 
of a foreign mission has not, however, applied to the post 
of secretary to certain Oriental missions in England. The 
Chinese, Japanese and Siamese missions have from time to 
time employed British subjects in this capacity, and the custom 
may have extended to some other missions. But the condition 
is made that they shall not be regarded as entitled to diplo- 
matic privilege, and their names are not inserted in the list of 
persons so entitled furnished to the Sheriffs of London and 

239. A state may declare beforehand the terms on which 
it will consent to receive its own national as a foreign diplo- 
matic agent or a member of his staff. But if he be received 
without any such previous stipulation he becomes entitled to 
the jus legationis l : 


When, as an exception, a foreign minister is a subject of the state 
to which he is accredited, and his principal consents to his continu- 
ing to be regarded as such, he remains subject to the law of the 
state in all matters not connected with his diplomatic mission ; 
but though a subject of the court at which he resides, he must, so 
far as his character of public minister is concerned, enjoy the inde- 
pendence and all the other immunities and prerogatives accorded 
to the character with which he is clothed, during the whole period 
of his mission, unless the sovereign has consented to receive him 
only under the express condition that he shall continue to be 
regarded as his subject. 2 

240. In 1890, in the case Macartney v. Garbutt and others, the 
plaintiff, Sir H. Macartney, a British subject, and English Secretary 
to the Chinese Legation at London, sought to recover 1 18, which 
he had paid under protest to avoid distraint upon the furniture in 
his house, for parochial rates levied- by the Vestry of St. Marylebone. 
It was held by the court that his name having been submitted to 
the Foreign Office in the usual way, and his position as a member 
of the Chinese Legation having been recognised without reserva- 
tion or condition of any sort, he was therefore clearly entitled to 
the privileges of the Corps Diplomatique, and it would follow that 
his personal effects were exempt from seizure. His rights in this 
respect appeared to be fully recognised by the local Act (35 Geo. Ill, 
c. 73) under which the rates were levied. An examination of the 
works of writers on international law confirmed the view that the 

1 Phillimore, ii. 179-81. 2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 89. 



only mode of escaping from the doctrine of exemption was to 
impose on an envoy, when received, that he shall be subject to 
the local jurisdiction. Judgment with costs was accordingly 
entered in Sir H. Macartney's favour. 1 

241. Certain instances of the past are : In 1714 Sir Patrick 
Lawless was Spanish envoy in London, and General Wall from 
1748 to 1762 ; both were Irishmen by birth. There is also 
the case of Benjamin Thompson, born in the United States, 
who entered the service of the Elector of Bavaria, by whom 
he was appointed as minister to Great Britain in 1798. He 
was refused by the British Government on the ground of his 
being a British subject, aggravated by the circumstance of his 
having formerly occupied the post of Under-Secretary of State 
in the American or Colonial Department in 1 780. Several of 
the smaller German states were represented at Vienna by 
Austrians, and up to 1855 the charge d'affaires of the Hanse 
Towns in London was a British subject. Wicquefort had been 
resident of the Duke of Liineburg at The Hague, though he 
was a Dutch subject born at Amsterdam. 

242. " The laws of the United States forbid the employment of 
any other than a citizen of the United States in its diplomatic service. 
It is also a rule of the Department of State that no citizen of the 
United States shall be received by it as the diplomatic representa- 
tive of a foreign government, but this rule is of a flexible character 
in its application. Anson Burlingame, who for some years had 
acted as the American minister in China, resigned to accept from 
the Chinese Government the post of special ambassador to the 
United States and certain European governments. He was 
received as such in Washington, and Secretary Fish negotiated 
with him and his colleagues an important treaty." 2 

" Mr. Camacho, a native of Venezuela but a naturalised citizen 
of the United States, was accepted as minister from Venezuela in 
1880, on renewal of relations with that country which had been 
for some time suspended. On the other hand, General O'Beirne, 
a prominent citizen of New York, was accredited as diplomatic 
representative of the Transvaal Republic to the United States at 
the outbreak of hostilities with Great Britain ; and the Secretary 
of State, applying the rule, declined to receive him on the ground 
of his American citizenship, thus avoiding the question of the 
reception of a representative of a country which the British Govern- 
ment claimed was a suzerain state. 3 

" In late years a practice grew up of securing the insertion in 
the Diplomatic List, published monthly by the State Department, 

1 L.R. [1890] 24 Q.B.D. 368. 

2 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1868-9, * 493' 60 1 ; Foster, op. cit., 49. 

3 Should be : state under suzerainty. 


of the names of resident attorneys of Washington as counsellors of 
certain legations of the less important countries. The main object 
of such insertion was to secure thereby invitations for the persons 
named and their wives to the receptions and teas at the White 
House. When the attention of Secretary Root was called to the 
practice he directed it to be discontinued, basing his action on the 
rule above cited, that an American citizen could not be clothed 
with a diplomatic character in a foreign legation in Washington." x 

243. The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, 
signed at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following 
rule : Article 7. " States are free in the selection of their diplomatic 
officers, but they may not invest with such functions the nationals 
of a state in which the mission must function, without its consent." 

1 Foster, op. cit., 49, 50. 


244. IN ordinary circumstances a newly appointed diplo- 
matic agent proceeding to his post will find there an established 
mission, fully provided with archives containing previous corre- 
spondence with his own Foreign Office, with the minister for 
foreign affairs of the state to which he is accredited and with 
miscellaneous persons ; also cyphers, collections of treaties 
and all other helps and appliances which he will require. He 
must carry with him his credentials to the head of the state, 
or if he is a charge d'affaires a letter accrediting him in that 
capacity to the minister for foreign affairs at the capital 
where he is to reside. It will be prudent on his part to ascer- 
tain beforehand that the letter of recall of his predecessor has 
been presented in the proper quarter, or if that formality has 
not yet been complied with, to take the letter of recall with 
him. For in the contrary event it may happen that on 
arriving at his post and applying for an audience to present 
his credentials, he may receive for answer that his predecessor 
is not yet functus qfficio, and so his own recognition may be 
delayed until the necessary document can be procured from 

245. In addition to his credentials it is the custom of the 
Court of St. James to furnish a newly appointed ambassador 
or minister with a commission of appointment in such terms 
as the following : 

(Seal) (Signed) GEORGE R.I. 

George, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the 
British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, 
Emperor of India, etc., etc., etc. 

To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come, 

Whereas it appears to Us expedient to nominate some person 
of approved Wisdom, Loyalty, Diligence and Circumspection to 
represent Us in the character of Our Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary to 


Now Know Ye that We, reposing especial trust and confidence 
in the discretion and faithfulness of Our Right Trusty and Well- 
beloved have nominated, con- 
stituted and appointed, as We do by these Presents nominate, 

constitute and appoint him, the said to be 

Our Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to 

aforesaid. Giving and granting to him in that character all power 
and authority to do and perform all proper acts, matters and 
things which may be desirable or necessary for the promotion of 
relations of friendship, good understanding and harmonious inter- 
course between Our and , and for 

the protection and furtherance of the interests confided to his care ; 
by the diligent and discreet accomplishment of which acts, matters 
and things afore-mentioned he shall gain Our approval and show 
himself worthy of Our high confidence. 

And We therefore request all those whom it may concern to 

receive and acknowledge Our said as such 

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary as aforesaid, and freely 
to communicate with him upon all matters which may appertain 
to the objects of the high mission whereto he is hereby appointed. 

Given at Our Court of St. James, the day of , 

in the year of Our Lord , and in the year 

of Our Reign. 

By His Majesty's Command, 


(Seal) (Signed) GEORGE R.I. 

George, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the 
British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, 
Emperor of India, etc., etc., etc. 

To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting. 

Whereas it appears to Us expedient to nominate some person 
of approved Wisdom, Loyalty, Diligence and Circumspection to 
represent Us in the character of Our Envoy Extraordinary and 

Minister Plenipotentiary for Our Dominion of 


Now Know Ye, that We, reposing especial trust and confidence 
in the discretion and faithfulness of Our Trusty and Well-beloved 

have nominated, constituted and 

appointed, and We do by these Presents nominate, constitute, and 

appoint him the said to be Our Envoy 

Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary for Our Dominion of 

to Giving and granting 

to him in that character all power and authority to do and perform 
all proper acts, matters and things which may be desirable or 
necessary for the promotion of relations of friendship, good under- 
standing and harmonious intercourse between Our Dominion of 


and , and for the protection 

and furtherance of the interests confided to his care ; by the diligent 
and discreet accomplishment of which acts, matters and things, he 
shall gain Our approval and show himself worthy of Our high 

And We therefore request all those whom it may concern to 
receive and acknowledge Our said Trusty and Well-beloved 

as such Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 

Plenipotentiary as aforesaid, and freely to communicate with him 
upon all matters which may appertain to the objects of the high 
mission to which he is hereby appointed. 

Given at Our Court of St. James, the day of , 

in the year of Our Lord , and in the year 

of Our Reign. 

By His Majesty's Command, 

246. Formerly printed instructions for the guidance of 
their conduct were furnished to British ambassadors and 
ministers on taking up their appointments, but these were 
mainly of a formal nature, relating to matters which have 
become stereotyped by usage, and the custom no longer exists. 

247. The case of a negotiator at a congress or conference 
is naturally different. On such occasions special written 
instructions are indispensable. The delegate to such gather- 
ings receives only full powers, not credentials. An ordinary 
permanent diplomatic agent is not provided with full powers, 
unless he is entrusted with the negotiation of a treaty 

248. Before starting for his post the agent should take care 
to let the probable date of his intended arrival be known, in 
order that when he reaches the frontier he may at once enter 
on the enjoyment of all the privileges and immunities attaching 
to his position, especially with regard to the passage of his 
personal effects through the Customs. 

249. A passport, in which his official status is fully detailed, 
should be taken, duly vise where necessary by the representa- 
tive of the foreign state concerned, who should also be asked 
for the favour of a laisser-passer to admit of the free entry 
through the Customs of the agent's baggage and effects. If 
he has to pass through a third country before arriving at his 
destination, similar steps are advisable. 

250. Before proceeding to his post Callieres recommends 
the perusal of the despatches exchanged between his predecessor 
and the Foreign Office, and after having perused them with 


care and reflection, to discuss pending questions with the 
head of the office. He should gain as much information as 
possible from those who have preceded him at the post to 
which he has been appointed, and also make friends with the 
diplomatic representative of that state, who will be able to 
write home a favourable account of his character and disposi- 
tion. He should also be careful in the choice of the servants 
he takes with him. 

251. In the past it was the custom for ambassadors to 
make a formal state entry into the capital of the sovereign to 
whom he was accredited, but this practice is no longer 
observed. A special ambassador is sometimes welcomed at 
the railway station on his arrival by the minister for foreign 
affairs or his representative. But, generally speaking, diplo- 
matic agents travel to their posts with as little outward show 
as private persons. 

With regard to his passage through a third country before 
arriving at his destination, see 428. 

252. On reaching the capital he should at once formally 
notify his arrival to the minister for foreign affairs, and ask 
when it will be convenient to the latter to receive him. At 
some capitals he may also be expected to notify the Master 
of the Ceremonies or the Introducer of Ambassadors. 
This may be done by letter. He also requests the minister 
for foreign affairs to take the orders of the head of the state 
respecting an audience for the purpose of presenting his 
credentials, of which he must furnish a copy beforehand. 

253. Until he has presented his credentials, with the due 
ceremonies which are the outward and visible signs of his 
official character, the agent makes no official calls. But as 
most European Powers at the present day appoint members of 
their regular diplomatic service to represent them at foreign 
capitals, he is likely to find among his future colleagues 
acquaintances or friends with whom he has been previously 
associated in the course of his career, and he can freely make 
private visits to them. It is also advisable to call privately on 
the doyen of the diplomatic body, who will be able to afford 
him useful information as to the ceremonies accompanying 
the presentation of his credentials, the audiences of members 
of the reigning family in a monarchical country, for which he 
may perhaps have to ask, the official calls he must make, and 
other matters of local etiquette. On these points, however, it 
must be understood that court and departmental officials, like 
the Master of the Ceremonies, the Marshal of the Diplomatic 


Corps in Great Britain, or Introducer of Ambassadors, are 
the authoritative exponents of the local etiquette. 

254. On being informed by the minister for foreign 
affairs of the day and hour at which his audience is to take 
place, if it is the customary local usage for the agent to address 
a formal speech to the sovereign or president, he sends to the 
minister for foreign affairs a copy of what he proposes to say, 
but he has no right to expect a copy of the reply which will be 
made to him. Such a speech should be of a general character. 
It might, for instance, begin by expressing the agent's satis- 
faction at having been appointed to represent his country ; 
convey assurances of friendship on the part of his own sovereign 
or president, and his own wishes for the prosperity and welfare 
of the sovereign or president he is addressing ; state that he 
will do all in his power to strengthen the friendly relations 
existing between the two countries ; and bespeak the friendly 
co-operation of the sovereign's or president's ministers in his 
endeavour to fulfil the purpose of his mission. He will 
mention also his credentials (when doing so he takes the latter 
from his senior secretary, and presents it to the sovereign or 
president, who hands it, usually unread, to the minister for 
foreign affairs). If the agent has formerly had diplomatic 
service in the country, e.g. as secretary, a graceful allusion to 
an agreeable sojourn will be in place. 

255. His speech must on no account contain any reference 
to matters of controversy between the two states, nor to any 
current business, but, if an alliance of a definite character 
exists, mention of it may be fitly introduced. 

We remember an occasion in which a diplomatic agent, 
on the occasion of presenting his credentials, committed the 
mistake of urging certain pecuniary claims of his countrymen 
against the government of the country to which he was 
accredited, and thereby gave serious offence at the very outset 
of his mission. 

The object of communicating a copy of the speech before- 
hand is to give the head of the state, to whom it is to be 
addressed, an opportunity of requesting modifications, and it has 
happened on more than one occasion that this has been done. 1 

256. Besides committing his speech to memory as far as 
he is able, the agent would do well to have a copy in his 

The Comte de Segur, in 1 785, on proceeding to the Palace for 
his audience of Catherine the Great, and while waiting in the ante- 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 635. 


room, engaged in a conversation with his Austrian colleague, 
which proved of such an absorbing character that the speech which 
he had prepared faded from his memory. When he entered the 
presence of the Empress, he found that he could not recollect a 
single word of it, but, with great presence of mind, he improvised an 
entirely new speech, to her great surprise, as she had received a copy 
of the original discourse, and had framed a corresponding answer. 
Subsequently when he came to be on intimate terms with the 
Empress, she asked him one day why he had suddenly taken it into 
his head to change his speech at his first audience. He replied 
that he had lost his nerve in the presence of so much glory and 
majesty, and so expressed the sentiments of his sovereign in the 
first phrases that suggested themselves. The Empress answered 
that he had done right. Everyone had his failings, and one of 
hers was easily to conceive prejudices. " I remember that one of 
your predecessors was so perturbed on the occasion of his presenta- 
tion to me that he could only say, ' Le Roi mon maitre, Le Roi 
mon maitre.' The third time he repeated these words I inter- 
rupted him by saying that I had long been aware of his master's 
friendship for me. Everybody assured me that he was an intelligent 
man, but his bashfulness always made me prejudiced against him, 
for which I reproach myself, but, as you see, somewhat late in 
the day." 1 

257. It is not usual for the diplomatic agent to speak again 
in reply to the answer made to him by the sovereign or 

The language of the speech may be that of his own 
nationality, or French. In Oriental countries the former is 
most usual, the speech being translated into the language of 
the country by an official interpreter ; the head of the state 
replies in his own tongue, and the reply is, if necessary, then 

258. The following is an instance of a discourse on such 
occasions : 


J'ai 1'honneur de presenter a Votre Majeste les lettres qui 
m'accreditent aupres de son auguste personne en qualite de . . . 

Permettez-moi, Sire, d'etre en meme temps aupres de Votre 
Majeste 1'interprete des sentiments d'estime et de sympathie que 
mon souverain professe a un si haut degre pour la personne de 
Votre Majeste, et les vceux qu'il fait pour la felicite de votre famille 
et pour la prosperite de vos peuples. 

A 1'expression de ces sentiments, daignez, Sire, me permettre 
d'ajouter 1'hommage de mon profond respect. Pendant le cours 
de la mission que je vais commencer, je ferai tout ce qui dependra 
de moi pour meriter la confiance de Votre Majeste ; je me trouverai 

1 Memoires et Souvenirs de M. le Comte de Sdgur (3rd ed.), ii. 215. 


heureux si j'y reussis et si mes constants efforts contribuent a 
resserrer encore les liens d'amitie et d'interet qui unissent deja si 
etroitement les deux peuples. 1 

259. Speech of a Spanish ambassador to the President of 
the French Republic : 


J'ai 1'honneur de remettre a Votre Excellence les lettres par 
lesquelles S. M. le roi Don . . . m'accredite en qualite d'Ambas- 
sadeur Extraordinaire et Plenipotentiaire aupres du President de la 
Republique Frangaise. 

C'est avec empressement que je saisis cette occasion solennelle 
pour exprimer, au nom de mon auguste Souverain, les voeux tres 
sinceres qu'il forme pour la prosperite de la France et pour le 
bonheur de l'homme d'fitat eleve par ses concitoyens a la premiere 
magistrature du pays. 

Quant a moi, porte vers la France par toutes mes sympathies, 
j'accepte avec joie Phonorable mission de maintenir, de developper 
et de rendre encore plus intimes les bons rapports deja existants 
entre deux nations soeurs par la race et 1'origine, par le voisinage 
et la communaute des interets. 

J'apporterai tout mon zele dans 1'accomplissement d'un 
devoir si conforme a mes sentiments, et j'espere pouvoir compter, 
pour y reussir, sur la haute bienveillance de M. le President 
de la Republique comme sur le puissant et amical concours de son 

260. Reply of the President of the French Republic : 


Je remercie S. M. le roi d'Espagne des voeux que vous m'ap- 
portez en son nom pour la France et pour le President de la Repub- 
lique. J'ai eu recemment 1'honneur de dire a votre illustre pre- 
decesseur, et je saisis avec empressement cette nouvelle occasion 
de repeter, combien je desire ardemment le bonheur de la noble 
nation espagnole et de son auguste Souverain. 

Pour vous, monsieur 1'Ambassadeur, qui connaissez la France, 
et qui en parlez si affectueusement, soyez persuade qu'elle vous 
accueillera avec une vive sympathie et que vous trouverez aupres 
de son gouvernement, dans raccomplissement de votre mission, 
tout le concours et toute la cordialite que vous pouvez souhaiter. 2 

261 . At most capitals there is a marked distinction between 
the reception of ambassadors, on the one hand, and of envoys 
extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary and diplomatic 
agents of lesser rank on the other. 

An ambassador is taken to the palace by a court or state 
official with one or more carriages for himself and his suite, 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 636. 2 de Castro y Casaleiz, ii. 291-2. 


while envoys and other ministers use their own carriages. 
Usually the ambassador enters the presence unaccompanied 
by the members of his mission, and after the conclusion of the 
ceremony of delivery of credentials he asks permission to 
present them. At most capitals he is introduced to the 
presence of the head of the state by the Master of the Cere- 
monies or by a court or state official of equivalent importance. 
He does not always make a set speech ; this is a point regu- 
lated by local custom. The ceremonial in returning to his 
residence is the same as on going to the audience. In most 
countries, after having presented his credentials, the ambas- 
sador makes the first official call on the other ambassadors, 
but he receives the first call from envoys and ministers 
resident. He may also hold one or two official receptions, to 
which are invited the other members of the diplomatic body, 
official persons and other distinguished members of society, 
of whom a list is furnished to him by the proper court or 
state official. If he is married, the ambassadress will at the 
same time receive the wives of the before-mentioned persons. 

262. In general, an ambassador, on retiring from his post, 
goes to the palace in his own carriage, without the members 
of his mission, and presents his letters of recall at a private 
audience. If he is unable to present them himself, they are 
delivered by his successor together with his own credentials. 

263. An envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten- 
tiary, or a minister resident, usually goes to his audience 
without the members of his legation and in his own carriage, 
and makes no set speech when delivering his credentials. At 
some capitals, however, he takes his personnel with him, and 
presents them at the end of his audience. Altogether it is a 
much simpler affair than the audience accorded to an 

264. At Washington an envoy goes in his own carriage to 
the Department of State, whence he is accompanied without 
display to the White House by the Secretary of State, and into 
the Blue Room, where he remains while the Secretary of State 
goes to notify the President of his arrival. The President enters 
with his secretary, the envoy is presented and at once proceeds 
to read his address, which is replied to by the President. The 
letter of credence is received by the President and handed to 
the Secretary of State, and after a brief informal conversation 
the reception ends. Since the establishment of embassies at 
Washington, the practice is to send a member of the President's 
military staff in one of his carriages to bring the ambassador 
to the White House. 


265. Besides the audience for the presentation of credentials 
to a sovereign or president there may be other audiences or 
presentations. To attempt to give details, as they are laid 
down in the Guta Prdctica and in other sources of information, 
would unduly increase the bulk of this chapter, and they can 
be best learnt at each capital by the newly arrived diplomatic 
agent from the proper official. No attempt is therefore made 
to supply them here. 

266. In countries where there are no ambassadors, it 
seems to be the rule that envoys and ministers resident are 
fetched in state carriages to the audience for the presentation 
of credentials. At some of these it is the custom to make a 
speech on delivering credentials, at others not. The minister 
for foreign affairs is usually present on such occasions, but 
not at the audience for taking leave. 

267. Ceremonial of the Court of St. James. 

Ambassadors on arrival in Great Britain notify the fact to 
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the usual manner, 
and ask for an audience of the Sovereign for the purpose of 
presenting their credentials, at the same time furnishing the 
usual copy of the latter. They write also to the Secretary of 
State, asking when he can receive them. 

When the date of the audience is appointed, the ambassador 
is taken to the palace by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps 
in a town coach. The personnel of the embassy follow in other 
town coaches, with attendants in royal scarlet, and two footmen 
standing on the footboard at the back of each carriage. 
Ambassadors never make set speeches. 

The ambassador is received at the grand entrance by the 
Equerry-in-Waiting, and in the Grand Hall by the Master of 
the Household, and is conducted by them to the Bow Room, 
where he meets the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (or 
in his absence the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs), the Lord-in- Waiting and the Groom-in- 
Waiting. The personnel of the embassy are also shown into 
the Bow Room. 

The Secretary of State having taken His Majesty's com- 
mands, the ambassador is conducted to the Presence by the 
Lord-in- Waiting and the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps, 
and is announced to His Majesty by the Marshal of the 
Diplomatic Corps. 

The Lord-in- Waiting and the Marshal of the Diplomatic 
Corps withdraw. 

At the conclusion of the audience the personnel of the 


embassy are introduced into the Presence by the Marshal of 
the Diplomatic Corps, and severally presented to His Majesty 
by the ambassador. 

The reception over, the ambassador is conducted to the 
grand entrance by the Master of the Household and to the 
coach by the Equerry-in-Waiting. He is then accompanied 
to the embassy by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps, the 
personnel following as before. 

Levee dress is worn. 

Arrangements for any subsequent reception by members 
of the Royal Family are made through the Marshal of the 
Diplomatic Corps. 

Ambassadors do not hold receptions after the presenta- 
tion of their credentials, as may be the custom in some 
other countries. With respect to ordinary visits, heads of 
missions generally have recourse to their doyen for help and 

An ambassador desirous of obtaining an audience of the 
Sovereign (other than that for presenting his credentials) 
would apply to the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps. 

268. An Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, or 
a Minister Resident, drives to the palace in his own carriage, 
and attends the audience alone. 

He is met at the grand entrance by the Marshal of the 
Diplomatic Corps and the Equerry-in-Waiting, and conducted 
to the Grand Hall, where he meets the Master of the Household 
and is taken by him to the Bow Room. 

Here he meets the Permanent Under-Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, the Lord-in- Waiting and the Groom-in- 

The Under-Secretary of State having taken His Majesty's 
commands, the minister is conducted to the Presence by the 
Lord-in-Waiting and the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps, 
and is announced by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps. 

The Lord-in-Waiting and the Marshal of the Diplomatic 
Corps withdraw. 

At the conclusion of the audience the minister is conducted 
to the Grand Hall by the Master of the Household, and to his 
carriage by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps and the 

Levee dress is worn. 

The procedure is the same as in the case of an ambassador, 
so far as asking for an audience and calling on the Minister for 
Foreign Affairs are concerned. 


269. Reception of a Special Ambassador or Special Envoy. 

The ceremonial is the same as in the case of a permanent 

270. A titular Charge d'affaires is presented to the Sove- 
reign at a Levee or a Court by the Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs. 

271. A Charge d'affaires ad interim will have been pre- 
sented in his proper rank Counsellor, First Secretary, or 
whatever he may be on his arrival, at the earliest Levee, 
but there is no second presentation as Charge d'affaires ; he 
simply assumes the duties of his chief, and attends Levees, 
Courts, etc., in his absence. When a foreign representative 
goes on leave, he writes to the Foreign Office to announce his 
departure and whom he has left in charge. 

272. Presentation of the Corps Diplomatique on the 
occasion of the Visit of a Foreign Sovereign : The Chefs de 
Mission are presented to the Sovereign by the ambassador or 
minister, assisted by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps. 

273. In former days the reception of an ambassador was 
attended by an elaborate ceremonial. An account of the 
public entry into London of the Venetian ambassador in 1715 
is as follows : 

Leaving his house at nine in the morning of August 27, he drove 
with his suite incogniti in hired carriages to the Tower, whence 
they were conveyed to Greenwich in boats furnished by the Master 
of the Ceremonies. Greenwich was the point from which these 
public entries commenced. There they waited, at a house previously 
hired for the ambassador, for the arrival of the Master of the 
Ceremonies and the Earl of Bristol, who had been deputed by the 
King to accompany the cortege to London. After refreshments 
had been served, the party embarked in royal barges, and were 
rowed to the Tower, where they disembarked. Here two of the 
royal carriages and one of the Prince of Wales were standing ready, 
and three belonging to the ambassador. The moment the procession 
started a salute was fired by the Tower artillery. It was headed 
by the carriage of Lord Bristol, next came twenty of the ambassador's 
footmen, a squire on horseback and six pages on foot, then the two 
royal coaches and the coach of the Prince of Wales, the ambas- 
sador's three carriages, the first of which was drawn by eight 
horses, followed by the coaches and six belonging to a small number 
of peers. In this style the ambassador was conveyed to his residence 
in St. James' by seven o'clock in the evening. The public audience 
of the ambassador took place on September 2, with great pomp and 


ceremony, and he was afterwards presented to the Prince and Princess 
of Wales. The King's reply to the ambassador's speech was read in 
French by the Master of the Ceremonies. 1 

274. Ceremonial on the presentation of Letters of Credence by 
foreign representatives accredited to the Government of the Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics. (Circular of 1923.) 

On the day appointed for the audience the Chef du Protocole 
attends at the house of the foreign representative (ambassador, 
representant plenipotentiaire, or minister), in order to accom- 
pany him to the Kremlin. The official personnel of 
the mission (embassy, representation plenipotentiaire, or lega- 
tion), accompanied by an official attached to the Service du 
Protocole, follow in other carriages. 

At the gate of the Kremlin the foreign representative 
is received by the Director of the political department of 
the foreign administration. The sentinel Red Guards at 
the gate of the Kremlin render him military honours when 

The foreign representative and the official personnel of his 
mission are introduced into the hall, where the President, the 
Secretary and members of the Central Executive Committee 
of the Union, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs and members 
of the College of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs 
are already assembled. The arrival of the foreign representa- 
tive is announced by the Chef du Protocole. 

The foreign representative delivers his speech and hands 
his letters of credence to the President, who passes them to 
the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs. If the speech is 
in a foreign language an interpreter reads a Russian trans- 
lation of it. In this event the speech made in Russian by the 
President is equally followed by a translation. 

After the speech of the President the representative presents 
the personnel of the mission. 

The President then accords a private audience to the 
foreign representative. This takes place in the presence of 
the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs in an adjoining 

The audience over, the foreign representative returns to 
his residence with the same ceremonial. 

275. Ceremonial of the Vatican for Ambassadors, Ministers and 
Charges d'affaires. 

The ambassador is received under the porch in the Cortile 

Busnelli-Ballarin, Bologna, Giacoma. 


di S. Damaso by a Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary of 
Sword and Cape, who escorts him during his visit, taking 
post at first on the ambassador's left. Four pontifical 
chairmen also await the arrival of the ambassador and walk 
in front of him up the papal stairs. The ambassador with 
the staff of the embassy wear diplomatic uniform with 

In the Sala Clementina the ambassador and his staff are 
met by the Monsignor Secretary of the Sacred Congregation 
of Ceremonial who, placing himself on his left, escorts him to 
the Sala degli Arazzi, and the Privy Chamberlain of Sword 
and Cape takes post on the left of the senior member of the 
embassy staff. 

In the throne room six Noble Guards, under the orders 
of the Cadet, are posted beside the papal throne. 

The Holy Father, informed by Monsignor Master of the 
Household of the arrival of the new ambassador, wearing his 
rochet and mozzetta, seats himself on the throne, accom- 
panied by his personal staff, who dispose themselves on both 
sides of the throne in the following order : 

On the right of His Holiness : His Excellency the 
Monsignor Maggiordomo ; the Monsignor Privy Almoner ; 
the Senior Monsignor Privy Chamberlain Partecipante ; the 
Quarter-Master General of the Sacred Apostolic Palaces ; the 
Postmaster-General ; the Exon of the Week, Noble Guard ; 
the Monsignor Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary ; the Privy 
Chamberlain Supernumerary of Sword and Cape. 

On the left of His Holiness : the Monsignor Master of 
the Household ; the Monsignor Sacrist ; the Junior Monsignor 
Privy Chamberlain Partecipante ; the Master of the Horse ; 
the Commandant of the Swiss Guards ; the Monsignor Cham- 
berlain of Honour, in purple dress ; the Chamberlain of 
Honour of Sword and Cape Supernumerary. 

The prelates on service for the ceremony, i.e. the Maggior- 
domo, the Master of the Household, the Almoner, the Sacrist, 
the Secretary of Ceremonial, wear prelatical dress with 
rochet and mantelletta. The Monsignori Privy Chamberlains 
Partecipanti, the Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary, and 
the Chamberlains of Honour wear purple soutane and 

The Civil Privy Chamberlains Partecipanti, i.e. the Quarter- 
Master General, the Master of the Horse, and the Postmaster- 
General, are in full-dress uniform. 

The Privy Chamberlain and the Chamberlain of Honour 
of Sword and Cape Supernumeraries are in full uniform. 


The detachments of the pontifical armed forces wear the 
uniform prescribed by their own regulations. 

As soon as the Holy Father is seated on the throne the 
Monsignor Privy Chamberlain Partecipante, who has taken 
post on the left of the throne, on receiving the order from 
the Master of the Household and having made the usual 
genuflections, proceeds to the Sala degli Arazzi to instruct 
the Monsignor Secretary to introduce the ambassador. He 
then returns to his place repeating the genuflections. 

The Monsignor Secretary of Ceremonial introduces the 
ambassador into the presence of His Holiness, announcing 
him in audible tone. 

The ambassador, with the Secretary of Ceremonial on his 
left and followed by his staff, together with the Privy Chamber- 
lain Supernumerary, approaches the papal throne. The 
ambassador and his staff make the three genuflections, the 
first on entering the room, the second in the middle, and the 
third on the steps of the throne. 

Non-Catholic ambassadors, instead of making three 
genuflections, may make three low bows. 

The Secretary of the Ceremonial remains on the left of 
the ambassador, with the staff of the embassy immediately 
behind. The ambassador, standing, then reads his speech and 
hands his Letter of Credence to the Pope, who passes it to the 
Monsignor Master of the Household. The speech over, the 
Holy Father briefly replies and then, leaving the throne, 
invites the ambassador into the library for a private con- 
versation. At that moment the Monsignor Privy Chamberlain 
Partecipante opens the door of the library, into which His 
Holiness proceeds with the ambassador. The Master of the 
Household accompanies His Holiness into the library to offer 
a chair to the ambassador. The other dignitaries present at 
the ceremony resume their places in the respective rooms. 
The staff of the embassy, during the private conversation 
between His Holiness and the ambassador, wait in the Noble 
Ante-Chamber. The Secretary of Ceremonial presents them 
to the Master of the Household, who, on a signal given by the 
Holy Father, introduces them into the Presence and they are 
presented by the ambassador. 

On leaving the library the ambassador is presented by 
the Secretary of Ceremonial to the Master of the Household. 

The ambassador, with the Master of the Household on his 
left and followed by the staff of the embassy and the Secretary 
of Ceremonial, passes through the room of the Tronetto into 
the Secret Ante-Chamber, where the Master of the Household 


presents to the ambassador His Excellency the Monsignor 
Maggiordomo and the staff of the Secret Ante-Chamber in 
order of precedence. To them is also presented the staff of 
the embassy. 

The presentations over, the Master of the Household 
accompanies the ambassador to the doorway of the Secret 
Ante-Chamber, where he takes leave of His Excellency and of 
his staff. 

The ambassador, with the Secretary of Ceremonial on his 
left, and followed by his staff and by the Privy Chamberlain 
Supernumerary of Sword and Cape, and preceded by four 
ushers, leaves the pontifical apartments to pay a visit to His 
Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State, receiving on his 
way the due military honours from the various detachments 
on duty of the Noble Guard, the Swiss Guard, the Palatine 
Guard and the Gendarmerie, drawn up in their respective 

The ambassador, escorted by four Swiss Guards with 
halberds and preceded by four chairmen, descends the papal 
stairs to the apartment of the Cardinal Secretary of State on 
the first floor. In the first ante-chamber of the Cardinal's 
apartment two gendarmes are posted in full uniform. 

The Secretary of Ceremonial accompanies the ambassador 
across the apartment and His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary 
of State, who has been informed by his own Master of the 
Household, meets him at the doorway of the reception room, 
where the Secretary of the Ceremonial makes the presentation. 
The conversation then takes place. 

On this occasion His Eminence wears his ordinary cardinal- 
itial robes of the colour of the day and is accompanied by his 
Noble Court, i.e. his Auditor, Master of the Household, 
Gentleman-in- Waiting and Chaplain Train-bearer. 

During the visit the picket of the Swiss Guard waits at 
the entrance to the apartment, the chairmen in the first ante- 
chamber, the ushers in the corner room, the Privy Chamber- 
lain Supernumerary of Sword and Cape in the Hall of the 
Congregations, the staff of the embassy in the Throne Room 
with the Secretary of Ceremonial. 

The conversation over, the ambassador presents his staff to 
the Cardinal Secretary of State. 

A non-Catholic ambassador then descends the papal 
stairs to the porch in the Cortile di S. Damaso, where he takes 
leave of the Secretary of Ceremonial and of the Privy Chamber- 
lain Supernumerary of Sword and Cape and, entering his 
motor-car, returns to the embassy. 


A Catholic ambassador, accompanied by the same escort, 
crosses the Sala dei Paramenti, the Sala Ducale, and the Sala 
Regia, and descends the Scala Regia to the Basilica of St. 
Peter's to venerate the Tomb of St. Peter. 

Under the orders of Monsignor the Econome of the Fabric 
of St. Peter's, four vergers join the cortege at the Scala del 
Portico ; two others are on duty at the entry to the Chapel 
of the Blessed Sacrament and two at the outside doorway 
of the Scala Braschi. 

The Canon Secretary of the Vatican Chapter, having been 
warned by the Master of the Household of the day and hour 
of the visit, the ambassador is received at the main door of 
the Basilica by four Canons and the Minor Sacristan. 

The Master of Ceremonies of the Basilica is also on duty 
and the Canons wear choir dress with purple soutane. 

The senior Canon is presented to the ambassador by the 
Secretary of the Ceremonial, and he in turn presents his three 

The senior Canon then takes from the Minor Sacristan 
the sprinkler with Holy Water, presents it to the ambassador, 
who places his finger on it and crosses himself. 

The ambassador, accompanied by the two senior Canons, 
proceeds up the nave towards the Chapel of the Blessed 
Sacrament and there kneels in prayer, on the prie-dieu placed 
within the chapel. The remaining two Canons place them- 
selves by the side of the embassy staff. Those who preceded 
the ambassador place themselves on each side of the prie-dieu 
and the rest of the party remain in their places and kneel. 

The ambassador, accompanied as before, then proceeds 
to pray before the altar of the Blessed Virgin and the altar of 
the Confession at the Tomb of St. Peter. 

The ambassador with his staff leaves the Basilica by the 
Sacristy passage, descends the Scala Braschi, and enters his 
motor-car, taking leave of the Canons, the Secretary of 
Ceremonial, and the Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary of 
Sword and Cape. 

The Cardinal Secretary of State, wearing a ferraiclone of 
the colour of the day, and accompanied by the Master of the 
Household, returns on the same day the ambassador's visit. 

Their Excellencies the Maggiordomo of His Holiness and 
the other prelates " di fiocchetto " all call on the ambassador. 
The dignitaries of the Noble Ante-Chamber, who were on 
duty during the ceremony, all write their names in the 
ambassador's visitors' book. 

After the presentation of credentials the ambassador 


writes to the Dean of the Sacred College, informing him of 
the fact and requesting an audience. 

The Cardinal Dean in response fixes a day and hour for 
the visit, which takes place in official form in the Throne 
Room of the Cardinal Dean. 

On this occasion His Eminence wears cardinalitial dress, 
with ferraiclone of the colour of the day, and is surrounded by 
his noble court, i.e. his Auditor, the Master of the Household, 
the Gentleman-in-Waiting, and Chaplain Train-bearer. 

The ambassador and his staff wear diplomatic uniform 
with decorations. 

The Cardinal and the ambassador seat themselves in two 
chairs by the throne. 

The conversation over, the Cardinal Dean presents his 
court to the ambassador, who in return presents his staff to 
His Eminence. 

The Cardinal Dean, accompanied by his Master of the 
Household, returns on the same day the visit of the 

On the following days the ambassador personally proceeds 
to call upon all the cardinals present in Curia and likewise 
on the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps and on his other 

The reception of ministers plenipotentiary, ministers 
resident and charges d'affaires is on the same lines, but 
with differences as to the number of escorting officials, cate- 
gory of uniform, place of meeting. A non-Catholic Chef de 
Mission is not expected to genuflect to the Pope or to visit 
St. Peter's. 


276. DIPLOMATIC agents are divided into the following 
classes : 

1. Ambassadors. Legates, who are papal ambassadors 

extraordinary, charged with special missions, pri- 
marily representing the Pope as Head of the Church, 
always cardinals, and sent only to states acknow- 
ledging the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Nuncios, 
who are ordinary ambassadors resident, and are never 

2. Envoys and ministers plenipotentiary. 

3. Ministers resident, accredited to the sovereign. 

4. Charges d'affaires, accredited to the minister for foreign 

affairs. 1 

277. This classification is based on the following regulations 
adopted at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and added to at the 
Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. 

Reglement sur le rang entre les agents 2 

Pour prevenir les embarras qui se sont souvent presentes et qui 
pourraient naitre encore des preventions de preseance entre les 
divers agents diplomatiques, les plenipotentiaires des puissances 
signataires du traite de Paris sont convenus des articles qui suivent ; 
et ils croient devoir inviter les representants des autres tetes couron- 
nees a adopter le meme reglement. 

Art. i. Les employes diplomatiques sont partages en trois 
classes : 

Celle des ambassadeurs, legats ou nonces ; 

Celle des envoyes, ministres ou autres, accredites aupres des 
souverains ; 

Celle des charges d'affaires, accredites aupres des ministres 
charges du portefeuille des affaires etrangeres. 

Art. 2. Les ambassadeurs, legats ou nonces, ont seul le carac- 
tere representatif. 

1 Hall, 356. 2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 53. 


Art. 3. Les employes diploma tiques en mission extraordinaire 
n'ont, a ce titre, aucune superiorite de rang. 

Art. 4. Les employes diplomatiques prendront rang entre eux, 
dans chaque classe, d'apres la date de la notification officielle de 
leur arrivee. 

Le present reglement n'apportera aucune innovation relative- 
ment aux representants du pape. 

Art. 5. II sera determine dans chaque fitat, une mode uniforme 
pour la reception des employes diplomatiques de chaque classe. 

Art. 6. Les liens de parente ou d'alliance de famille entre les 
cours ne donnent aucun rang a leurs employes diplomatiques. 

II en est de meme des alliances politiques. 

Art. 7. Dans les actes ou traites entre plusieurs puissances qui 
admettent 1'alternat, le sort decidera, entre les ministres, de 1'ordre 
qui devra etre suivi dans les signatures. 1 

Le present reglement sera insere au protocole des plenipoten- 
tiaires des huit puissances signataires du traite de Paris, dans leur 
seance du 19 mars, 1815. 

(Signed in alphabetical order of the states represented, viz. : 
Autriche, Espagne, France, Grande-Bretagne, Portugal, Prusse, 
Russie, Suede.) 

278. Addition made at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle 
by the plenipotentiaries of the five Great Powers, at their 
meeting of November 21, 1818 : 

" Pour eviter les discussions desagreables qui pourraient avoir 
lieu a 1'avenir sur un point d'etiquette diplomatique que 1'annexe 
du reces de Vienne par laquelle les questions de rang ont etc reglees 
ne parait pas avoir prevu, il est arrete entre les cinq cours que les 
ministres-residents accredites aupres d'elles formeront, par rapport 
a leur rang, une classe intermediaire entre les ministres du second 
ordre et les charges d'affaires." 

(Vide Protocole de la Conference du 21 novembre 1818.) 
It was signed by Metternich, Wellington, Nesselrode, Richelieu, 
Hardenberg, Capo DTstria, Castlereagh, Bernstorff, i.e. or in 
no regular order.) 2 

279. It appears from the foregoing that on neither of these 
two occasions did the plenipotentiaries act in conformity with 
what they had laid down in Article 7 of the Vienna regulations, 
but signed in the alphabetical order, according to the French 
language, of the names of the states they represented, or 
else pele-mele. The former is the modern usage in similar 

1 See footnote to 38. Though the article speaks only of " several " Powers, 
the principle of the alternat is equally followed in bilateral treaties. 

2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 54 ; Calvo, Le Droit international, etc., iii. 183 n. 


280. The classification established by the Congress of 
Vienna in 1815, as amended by the Protocol of Aix-la-Chapelle 
in 1818, constitutes to-day an integral part of diplomatic 
custom admitted throughout the world. 1 The United States, 
e.g., adopted it for reasons of convenience and uniformity 2 ; the 
law of March i, 1893, declared : 

" Whenever the President shall be advised that any foreign 
government is represented, or is about to be represented, in the 
United States by an ambassador, envoy extraordinary, minister 
plenipotentiary, minister resident, special envoy or charge d'affaires, 
he is authorised in his discretion to direct that the representative 
of the United States to such government shall bear the same 
designation." 3 

281. The determination of rank among diplomatic agents 
effected by the regulations adopted in 1815 and 1818 put an 
end to the disputes formerly existing regarding matters of 
precedence. 4 

282. Venice originated the institution of permanent diplo- 
matic missions. In the sixteenth century the Republic had 
ambassadors ordinary at Vienna, Paris, Madrid and Rome, 
while the Emperor and the Kings of France and Spain had 
ambassadors, and the Holy See a nuncio, at Venice. Residents 
were accredited to the courts of Naples, Turin, Milan and 
London, as well as to the Swiss cantons. At Constantinople 
there was a bailo (bajulus) . 5 It was partly the cost of embassies, 
partly the trouble arising from disputes about precedence and 
ceremonial, that led to the appointment of agents or residents, 
who were not entitled to the same ceremonial honours as 
ambassadors. 6 In the sixteenth century the less honour- 
able title of agent began to fall into disuse, and the process 
continued during the seventeenth century. 7 Charge 
d'affaires was another title for these diplomatists of inferior 
rank. Residents are found at various periods till the close of 
the eighteenth century. In 1675 tne Dutch negotiator of the 
preliminary treaty with Sweden respecting contraband of war, 
etc., is described as " Minister Celsorum & Praepotentium 
Dominorum Ordinum Generalium Fcederati Belgii ad Aulam 

1 Deak, Classification, etc. des agents diplomatiques, Rev. de Dr. Int. (1928), 183. 

2 Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States (1897), 18-19. 

3 27 Statutes at Large, 497, c. 182. 4 Deak, op. cit., 185. 

8 Nys, Les Origines du Droit international, 312. There was a Venetian bailo 
there already in 1249, but not till after the conquest by the Turks did he come 
to have a diplomatic character (Holtzendorff, iii. 613). 

6 Schmelzing, ii. 115 ; de Martens-Geffken, i. 59. 

7 Krauske, 160. 


altissime memoratae Regiae Sacrae Majestatis Sueciae Residens," 
and also as " Dominus Residens," both in the preamble. 
Frederick William of Brandenburg (Der Grosse Kurfurst), 
from motives of economy, appointed no ambassadors. In 
1651 he had residents at The Hague, Vienna, Paris, Stock- 
holm, Cologne and Brussels. 1 Bonet was the King of Prussia's 
resident in London in 1710. In 1745, France had a resident 
at Geneva. The Holy Roman Emperor in 1727 had residents at 
London, Lisbon and Constantinople. Vattel, in 1 758, speaks 
of ambassadors, envoys, residents and ministers. 2 

283. The designation envoye, which is a translation of 
ablegatus, seems up to the middle of the seventeenth century 
not to have been more highly esteemed than that of resident. 3 
At that period the general position was as follows : Diplomatic 
agents were still divided into two classes, the first consisting 
of ambassadors or legati, the second comprising agents, 
residents, envoyes and ablegati ; of these agent is the earliest, 
envoye the latest in origin. Just as the title of resident had 
superseded that of agent, so the envoye with the additional 
qualification of extraordinaire pushed the resident ever further 
into the background. 

284. In the second half of the seventeenth century arose 
the practice of designating resident ambassadors as " extra- 
ordinary." Originally this term had been applied only to 
those who were sent on special missions. The disputes about 
precedence between ordinary and extraordinary ambassadors 
furnished the motive to both monarchs and their agents for 
this otherwise unreasonable custom. In imitation of the 
ambassador extraordinary, the addition was conferred upon 
envoys, who thereupon began to claim precedence over 
residents. Such questions of precedence were naturally regu- 
lated by the etiquette of the court to which the diplomatic 
agent happened to be appointed, and in Louis XIV's time 
the French Court refused to make any difference. Still the 
envoys extraordinary went on asserting their pretensions, until 
in the beginning of the eighteenth century the balance began 
to incline in their favour at Paris and Vienna, the two courts 
which were most regarded as having a voice in such matters, 
while lesser courts continued to recognise only the old division 
into two classes. The title of resident was also degraded by 
the smaller German courts giving, or even selling, it to private 
persons who had no diplomatic functions at all 4 (much in 
the same way as in more recent times they had conferred 

1 Krauske, 129. 2 Nys, Droit International, ii. 345. 

3 Krauske, 163. 4 Ibid., 165, 174. 


decorations with a lavish hand). In the eighteenth century, 
between the envoy extraordinary and the resident there are 
found ministers, ministers resident and ministers plenipoten- 
tiary. 1 Plenipotentiarii nomine tales magis in usu sunt, quam vere 
tales, says a writer of 1740 quoted by Krauske. At the nego- 
tiations which preceded the peace of Nijmegen (1678), the 
conjunction of the two titles of envoy extraordinary and minister 
plenipotentiary in one person made its appearance. According 
to the regulations at the French Court the envoy extraordinary 
presented his letters of credence to the King, while the mere 
minister plenipotentiary, like the resident and others of the 
third class, such as the charge d'affaires, delivered theirs to 
the minister for foreign affairs. 


285. The ordinary practice now is to give to a diplomatic 
agent of the first class the title of ambassador extraordinary 
and plentipotentiary. 

Until the close of last century France appears to have used 
the title ambassador alone in letters of credence, but has since 
made the usual addition " extraordinary and plenipotentiary." 
The United States until 1893 did not appoint diplomatic agents 
of ambassadorial rank, and consequently foreign diplomatic 
agents accredited to Washington prior to that date were also 
of lesser rank. And within recent years numerous appoint- 
ments of ambassadors have been made where formerly the 
diplomatic agent accredited held the rank of envoy only. (See 

286. The derivation of ambassador seems to be as follows : 
Fr. ambaxadeur (i5th cent.), OSp. ambaxador, It. ambasciatore, 
from ambaxade, OSp. ambaxada, It. ambasciata ; all these from 
ambactidre, a word not found but inferred to have existed, 
and formed on ambactia, ambaxia in the Salic and Burgundian 
laws, meaning charge, office, employment, name of an office 
formed on ambactus, a servant (? vassal, retainer). (See Oxford 

1 Z,' ' Intermediate des Chercheurs of Aug. 1 3-30, 1 93 1 , notes that the term " ministre 
plenipotentiaire " appears in the first edition of the Dictionnaire de i'Academie 
in 1694, and that Richelet's Dictionary, which omits it from the first edition 
(1680), includes it in that of 1719, with the note "mot ecorche du latin," which is 
taken to signify that grammarians did not approve of it. Quotation is made 
from the Treaty of Miinster (1648) " congressus plenipotentiariorum " and " legati 
plenipotentiarii " ; and of somewhat later seventeenth-century instances of the 
French word thus Cardinal Mazarin is " Plenipotentiaire de S.M. Tres- 
Chretienne " in the Treaty of the Pyrenees. Hatzfeld-Darmesteter gives as the 
first occurrence that in Balzac's address to the Regent in 1615. (Notes and Queries, 
Sept. 12, 1931.) 


Dictionary and note to Rice Holmes' Casar E.G., vi. 15 ; 
adaptation of a Gallic word.) ' Le mot ambaxador etait 
apparu au milieu du XIII 6 siecle ' : (Nys, Origines du droit 
international, p. 317). " Au XI V e siecle, la terminologie am- 
baxiator continuus atteste deja la stabilite de 1'institution." 
Ambaxiator occurs in the treaty between Henry V and 
Charles VI of France, of October 14, 1417 (Dumont, ii, pt. ii, 
92 ; Rymer, IX, 517). " Du VIII 6 au X e siecle, dans les 
actes de la chancellerie, le verbe d'origine germanique ambas- 
ciare designe 1'intervention de quelque grand personnage dans 
le but de faire obtenir une concession du souverain ; 1'inter- 
mediaire s'appelle Vambasciator. Au XIV e siecle, ce dernier 
mot devient usuel et passe dans plusieurs langues " (R. de 
Maulde-la-Claviere, cited by Nys, Le Droit international, ii. 341). 
287. Article 2 of the Vienna Reglement says of ambas- 
sadors, legates and nuncios, that they alone have representative 
character, and by this was meant that agents of the first class 
only were considered as representing the person of their 
sovereign, though they did not receive all the honours due to 
the sovereign himself. Their privileges were originally founded 
on the supposition that they alone were competent to carry 
on negotiations with the sovereign himself. But this has no 
real signification in modern times, for they deal as a rule with 
the minister for foreign affairs, even in countries which preserve 
a monarchical form of government. It is sometimes supposed 
that an ambassador can demand access to the person of the 
head of the state at any time, but this is not the case, as the 
occasions on which the ambassador can speak with the head 
of the state are limited by the etiquette of the court or 
government to which he is accredited. The so-called " repre- 
sentative character ' : of the ambassador extends no farther, 
as Leibniz says, than 

' quantum fert ratio aut consuetudo.' It gives him no right to go 
behind the back of the minister for foreign affairs, and negotiate 
with the sovereign direct. As Prince Bismarck rightly observed, 
no envoy or ambassador has the right of demanding a personal 
interview with the head of the state, nor can the sovereign in any 
state which possesses a parliamentary constitution negotiate apart 
from the advice of his responsible minister. Only in practice, and 
especially in the case of absolute rulers, has the easier access to the 
sovereign which an ambassador enjoys, any political importance, 
as was perceived in 1853 in the personal negotiations of Lord 
Stratford with the Sultan, and of the Prussian ambassador Graf v. d. 
Goltz with Napoleon III in 1866. The same ground is opposed 
to it from the side of the state to which he is accredited. If a 


minister for foreign affairs has to endure that what he has settled 
with an envoy is upset by conversations of the latter with the 
sovereign, no steady (folgerichtige) policy is possible. Frederick 
the Great refused to have any ambassadors, because they were an 
inconvenience. 1 

288. Legates and Nuncios. 

The following may be regarded as an authoritative explana- 
tion of these two designations : 

Legati in jure canonico sunt in triplici differentia, nempe legati 
a latere, legati missi seu nuncii apostolici, et legati nati. . . . Legati 
a latere alii sunt ordinarii et alii extraordinarii. Legati a latere 
ordinarii sunt cardinales qui a Summo Pontifice in alia provincia 
legationis officium cum jurisdictione, seu potestate ordinaria ad 
instar praesidium provinciarum, ut sunt legati Bononiae, Ferrarias, 
Romandiolae, etc. [The so-called Legations.] . . . Legati a latere 
extraordinarii sunt illi qui mittuntur occasione alicujus emergentis 
necessitatis Ecclesiae universalis, ut ad Concilia convocanda, vel 
etiam apud reges pro pace promovenda, sive pro Summi Pontificis 
paterno amore alicui regi in ejus adventu testificando, vel alia 
simili gravi causa. . . . Et quamvis pluries a Sumrnis Pontificibus 
pro similibus causis fuerint missi episcopi, et alii non cardinales ; 
nunc autem constans praxis obtinuit non mitti nisi cardinales 
legates a latere. . . . Et dato quod contingat, ut contingit, mitti 
alios non cardinales, non datur eis titulus legati a latere, sed missus 
nominatur, nuntius cum poteslate legati a latere. . . . Legati missi, 
seu nuntii apostolici dicuntur, et sunt illi prcelati, non cardinales, 
qui a Papa mittuntur ad alios principes pro obeundo apud ipsos 
munere legationis. . . . Et tales sunt nuntii Germanise, Franciae, 
Hispaniae, etc. et olim apocrisarii dicebantur Graeco vocabulo. 
. . . Legati nati dicuntur, et sunt illi, quorum dignitati, quam in 
Ecclesia obtinent, munus legationis est annexum, et dicuntur legati 
nati, non quod a Sede Apostolica non hauriant auctoritatem, sed 
quod hanc ilia dederit fixae cuidam Ecclesiae, et quicumque illi 
merit praefectus, una simul etiam fiat, ac veluti nascatur legatus 
apostolicus, utopte cujus munus suae dignitati de jure annexum 
habet. Sic legatus natus a jure dicitur archiepiscopus Cantuariensis 
in Anglia, archiepiscopus Eboracensis item in Anglia. . . . Archi- 
episcopus Rhemensis in Gallia. ... In Germania plures archi- 
episcopi legatorum natorum nomine insigniuntur, ut archiepiscopus 
Salisburgensis, elector Coloniensis, archiepiscopus Pragensis. 2 

289. So that, strictly speaking, a nuncio is also a legatus, 
of the class called missus, being thus distinguished from the 
legatus a latere, who nowadays is always a cardinal, and from 
the legatus natus, who is not a diplomatic agent at all. In 1914 

1 Holtzendorf, iii. 641. 

2 Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, Canonica, Juridica, etc., iv. 1401. See also 
Schmelzing, ii. 120. 


the Holy See was represented by nonces apostoliques in Bavaria, 
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil and Spain. Representatives 
with that title were accredited to France till 1905, and to 
Portugal till 1911. In 1836 Prussia refused to receive a nuncio, 
as a serious innovation, not only rejecting the proposal in the 
particular instance, but for all future time, and firmly and 
unequivocally. 1 France in 1921 received a nuncio. 

290. In 1931 the Holy See was represented by nonces 
apostoliques in the following countries : Argentine Republic, 
Austria, Bavaria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, 
Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, France, Hayti, Hun- 
gary, the Irish Free State, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Paraguay, 
Peru, Poland, Portugal, Prussia, Roumania, Spain, Switzerland, 
Venezuela and Yugoslavia. 2 

291. Under Article 4 of the Vienna Reglement of 1815, 
the nuncio was regarded as the doyen of the resident diplomatic 
body. This might apparently be construed as making a 
nuncio the doyen in every country to which he may be accredited, 
or only in such countries as those to which a nuncio was in 1815 
accredited, and to whom a privileged position was by the 
Reglement accorded. The British official interpretation of the 
article was in 1856 as follows : ' It is intended that if by 
the invariable custom of any court the representative of the 
Pope had at the time of the Congress been allowed to take 
precedence of all other diplomatic agents of the same class, 
without reference to the date of his arrival, that custom should 
not be affected by the new regulation " ; and this view has 
since been maintained. But in certain countries to which a 
nuncio has since been accredited the point has, in the local 
circumstances and as an act of courtesy, been conceded, with 
the practical unanimity of the resident diplomatic body. (For 
the functions of doyen see 443). 


292. The ordinary custom now is to give to an agent of 
the second class the double title of envoy extraordinary and 
minister plenipotentiary. These constitute by far the largest 
class of diplomatic agents. 


293. The Holy See employs for its ministers of the second 
class the title of internonce apostolique. From the Middle Ages 
onwards internuntius was in use to denote the diplomatic agent 

1 Holtzendorf, iii. 630. 2 Annuario Pontificio (1931), 559. 


of a lay sovereign, but was not so common as ambasciator and 
orator. It first occurs in the literature of the subject in 1595. 
Its signification was gradually restricted until from the seven- 
teenth century onwards it became the technical term for the 
Austrian agent at Constantinople from 1678 to I856. 1 Its 
use by Austria is thought to have been adopted in order to 
avoid conflicts of precedence with the French ambassador, to 
whom Soliman the Magnificent (1520-1566) had undertaken 
by treaty to accord precedence over the representatives of all 
other potentates, and it was continued down to the time of the 
Crimean War. The internonce always belonged to the second 
class of diplomatic agents, when there were only two. 2 It 
seems possible that the English ambassador at Constantinople 
ranked after the French, and unless there were also Spanish 
and Dutch diplomatic agents of the first class the Austrian 
internuntius had the third place. In any case he ranked before 
agents of the second class. 3 But Rivier says, " Ils n'ont aucune 
preseance sur les autres ministres de la meme classe." 4 

294. In 1931 the Holy See was represented by internonces 
apostoliques in Central America (Costa Rica, Honduras, 
Nicaragua, Panama and Salvador), Luxemburg and the 
Netherlands. 5 

Ministers Plenipotentiary 

295. These, being accredited to the head of the state, 
rank with envoys, according to Article i of the Vienna Regle- 
ment. There appears, therefore, to be no substantial difference 
in status between a minister plenipotentiary en titre and one 
who has the title of envoy extraordinary. 

Ministers Resident 

296. These, being accredited to the head of the state, 
form the third class of diplomatic agents, and rank, according 
to the rule adopted at the Conference of Aix-la-Chapelle in 
1818, after ministers of the second class and before charges 

Charges d'affaires 

297. These are accredited to the minister for foreign 
affairs, in accordance with Article I of the Vienna Reglement 
and not to the head of the state (though instances have 

1 Heffter, Das europdische Volkenecht der Gegenwart, 7te Ausg., 428. 

2 Krauske, s.v. 3 C. O. L. v. Arnim, cited by Miruss, 1 15. 
4 Principes du Droit des Gens, i. 450. 5 Annuario Pontificio (1931), 559- 


occurred in which their credentials have been addressed to 
the latter). 

A distinction is drawn between such as present letters of 
credence from their government formally appointing them on 
a permanent footing as charges d'affaires and such as are 
only appointed temporarily, or are notified by the head of a 
mission as being left in charge of the mission during his 
absence or pending the appointment of his successor. The 
latter are styled charges d'affaires ad interim, and rank after 
those accredited in a permanent capacity. In British practice, 
it is customary also to rank charges d'affaires ad interim of 
embassies before charges d'affaires ad interim of legations. 

Questions of Precedence 

298. By Article 4 of the Vienna Reglement diplomatic 
agents take rank in each class according to the date of the 
official notification of their arrival. 

By Article 3, those entrusted with an extraordinary mission 
have no special claim to precedence on this ground. See, 
however, 79 as regards ceremonial missions. 

299. In case of disagreement among members of the 
diplomatic body as to precedence, the rules adopted by the 
court or government to which they are accredited will be 
decisive ( 447), and especially as to whether the question is 
governed by the date of official notification of arrival or by 
that of presentation of credentials. 

300. A question has occasionally arisen which was not 
decided by the regulations of 1815 or 1818, viz., what is to be 
the order of seniority when the death of the sovereign or a 
change in the form of government necessitates the presentation 
of new credentials by diplomatic agents formerly accredited. 
On this point see 446. 

301. In Great Britain, besides the annual list of foreign 
diplomatic agents and their suites, furnished to the Sheriffs of 
London and Middlesex for the purpose of ensuring the enjoy- 
ment of diplomatic immunities (341), monthly lists are pre- 
pared the social list and the precedence list. In the latter 
the relative precedence of heads of missions is given. 

302. Formerly it was the practice of some governments 
to accredit representatives with the title of" agent and consul- 
general 5: ' or " commissioner and consul-general," and these 
might be regarded as forming a fifth class. Thus, Great 
Britain was represented by an agent and consul-general in 


Serbia till 1879, Roumania till 1880, Tunis till 1881, Siam till 
1885, Bulgaria till 1908, and Zanzibar till 1913. In all these 
cases, except that of Siam, the country concerned was a 
vassal-state. In Egypt, a vassal-state of Turkey till 1914, 
the representatives of the Powers were " agent and consul- 
general." x Legally they were consul-general with a her at from 
the Porte. But for a long time the title of agent (or diplomatic 
agent) had been recognised. Most of the Great Powers gave 
local diplomatic rank to their agents. Thus the Russian was 
envoy extraordinary and consul-general. Many of the others 
had also the honorary rank of envoy and minister, minister- 
resident or charge d'affaires. But these titles did not affect 
precedence, which was regulated by seniority only, according 
to the date of arrival in Egypt. In Morocco the position was 
much the same, and the agents ranked according to seniority, 
no matter whether they were charge d'affaires in the absence 
of a minister or not. Formerly Holland was represented in 
Japan by a consul-general and political agent. It may, how- 
ever, be concluded that this class of diplomatic agent was, as 
a rule, appointed only to states which were not fully sovereign. 

303. Ullmann says 2 : " In 1875 a dispute about relative 
rank arose at Belgrade between the French consul-general 
and diplomatic agent Debains and the German consul-general 
v. Rosen, which was decided by the Servian Government in 
favour of the former. 3 The German Government recognised 
in the designation ' diplomatic agent ' only an honorary title ; 
the right of receiving diplomatic representatives belonged only 
to the suzerain. Eventually the affair was decided in the 
latter sense ; the consuls appointed to semi-sovereign states 
with the title ' diplomatic agent ' possess merely the character 
of consuls." But elsewhere he states that " to the fourth 
class of diplomatic agents belong generally all remaining 
diplomatic agents without regard to their further title, such 
as ministers resident, simple residents and consuls, accredited 
to Foreign Offices, if, as is the case in the East, they function 
as diplomatic agents." 4 

304. In 1914, on the outbreak of war with Turkey and the 
establishment of a British protectorate over Egypt, His Britannic 
Majesty's representative at Cairo was given the rank of high 
commissioner, and this title is still borne by him, the counsellor 
of the mission having usually the personal rank of minister 

1 Almanack de Gotha. 2 Ullmann, 166 n. 

3 Holtzendorf states that the German Government thereupon recalled Dr. Rosen 
and induced the Powers to agree that consuls-general in semi-sovereign states, 
irrespective of their title, have no diplomatic character at all (iii. 621). 

4 Ibid., 172. 


plenipotentiary. Other countries are now largely represented 
at Cairo by envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary. 

305. In 1927 the Committee of Experts for the Progressive 
Codification of International Law, which was set up at 
Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations, requested 
that they might be furnished with the replies of the various 
governments to certain questions, among which were the 
following : 

"Is it desirable to revise the classification of diplomatic 
agents made by the Congresses of Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle ? 
In the affirmative case, to what extent should the existing 
classes of diplomatic agents be amalgamated, and should each 
state be recognised to have the right, in so far as differences of 
class remain, to determine at its discretion in what class its 
agents are to be ranked ? ' 

In the analysis made by the Committee of the answers 
received from the various governments to these questions it 
was shown that eleven governments replied to the questions in 
the negative, viz. Belgium, British Empire, France, Germany, 
India, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain 
and the United States. Four replied neither affirmatively nor 
negatively, viz. Australia, Brazil, Egypt and Roumania ; while 
twelve replied affirmatively, if briefly and sometimes with 
qualification, viz. Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, 
Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Salvador, 
Sweden and Switzerland. Italy does not appear to have 

The report made to the Council of the League, as adopted 
by the Committee at its fourth session held in June 1928, 
states : " While noting that the majority of the replies received 
recommend that the third question above mentioned (i.e. the 
question of revising the classification of diplomatic agents) 
should be placed on the agenda, the Committee has found the 
contrary opinion to be so strongly represented that, for the 
moment, it does not feel it can declare an international 
regulation of this subject matter to be realisable." 1 

306. The Pan-American Convention, signed at Havana 
on February 20, 1928, classifies diplomatic officers as ordinary 
and extraordinary, those permanently accredited being 
ordinary, and those entrusted with a special mission or 
those accredited to represent the government in international 
conferences and congresses or other international bodies being 
extraordinary. (See 365.) 

1 Report of the Committee (A. 15, 1928, V). 


307. THE immunities of diplomatic agents form an excep- 
tion to the rule that all persons and things within a sovereign 
state are subject to its jurisdiction. Grotius says 1 : 

"The common rule, that he who is in a foreign territory is subject 
to that territory, does, by the common consent of nations, suffer 
an exception in the case of ambassadors ; as being, by a certain 
fiction, in the place of those who send them (senatus faciem secum 
attulerat, auctoritatem reipublica, ait de legato quodam M. Tullius), 
and by a similar fiction they are, as it were, extra territorium ; and 
thus, are not bound by the Civil Law (civili jure) of the People 
among whom they live." 

308. The obligation to exempt diplomatic agents from 
the local jurisdiction is a necessary consequence of the con- 
ditions on which they are sent and received, viz. that as 
representing sovereign states they owe no allegiance to the 
state to which they are accredited. Should they offend 
against its laws, complaint will justly be made to their govern- 
ment. But, without the consent of the latter, proceedings 
cannot be taken against them before the local tribunals. 

" Le meme droit des gens qui oblige les nations a admettre les 
ministres etrangers les oblige done aussi manifestement a recevoir 
ces ministres avec tous les droits qui leur sont necessaires, tous 
les privileges qui assurent 1'exercice de leurs fonctions. II est 
aise de comprendre que 1'independance doit etre 1'un de ces 
privileges. ... II importe qu'il n'ait point de pieges a redouter, 
qu'il ne puisse etre distrait de ses fonctions par aucune chicane." 
(Vattel.) 2 

" Le droit des gens a voulu que les princes s'envoyassent des 
ambassadeurs, et la raison, tiree de la nature de la chose, n'a pas 
permis que ces ambassadeurs dependissent du souverain chez qui 
ils sont envoyes, ni de ses tribunaux. Us sont la parole du prince 
qui les envoie, et cette parole doit etre libre." (Montesquieu.) 3 

1 WhewelPs edition, ii. 209 (Book II, chap. 18, 4, no. 5) ; see also Nys, 
Droit International, ii. 368. 

2 Droit des Gens, iv. ch. 7, 92. 3 Esprit des Lois, xxvi. ch. 21. 



" The privilege of a public minister is to have his person sacred 
and free from arrests, not on his own account, but on the account 
of those he represents, and this arises from the necessity of the thing, 
that nations may have intercourse with one another in the same 
manner as private persons, by agents when they cannot meet 
themselves." (Lord Chancellor Talbot in Barbuit's case.) 1 

" A sovereign committing the interests of his nation with a foreign 
Power to the care of a person whom he has selected for that purpose, 
cannot intend to subject his minister in any degree to that Power ; 
and therefore a consent to receive him implies a consent that he 
shall possess those privileges which his principal intended he should 
retain, privileges which are essential to the dignity of his sovereign, 
and to the duties he is bound to perform." (Chief Justice Marshall 
in Exchange v. Macf addon, Supreme Court of the United States.) 2 

309. These immunities are founded on common usage and 
tacit consent ; they are essential to the conduct of the relations 
between independent sovereign states ; they are given on the 
understanding that they will be reciprocally accorded, and 
their infringement by a state would lead to protest by the 
diplomatic body resident therein, and would prejudicially 
affect its own representation abroad. 3 

310. The term exterritoriality (or extraterritoriality) is 
that used to denote the immunities accorded to foreign 
sovereigns, and to diplomatic agents, their families and staffs, 
as well as to foreign residents in certain non-Christian countries 
in virtue of special treaty provisions. The use of the term, 
like that of" diplomacy," is more modern than the application 
of the principle. The word " extraterritorialitas " was used 
by Wolff in 1749, and G. F. de Martens, writing towards the 
end of the eighteenth century, converted it into exterritorialite 
and Exterritorialitdt in French and German respectively. 4 
Though used of the agent in his wholly representative capacity, 
it is more in accordance with the actual position to interpret 
it as denoting that he is not subject to the authority or juris- 
diction of the state to which he is accredited. 

" C'est done tres convenablement aux devoirs de nations, et con- 
formement aux grands principes du droit des gens, que par 1'usage 
et le consentement de tous les peuples, 1'ambassadeur ou ministre 
public est aujourd'hui absolument independant de toute juridiction 
de 1'Etat ou il reside." (Vattel.) 5 

" L'Exterritorialite a sa base juridique, d'une part dans la 
renonciation a 1'exercice du pouvoir territorial (exemption du 

1 Gas t. Talbot, 281 ; Hudson, Cases on International Law, 875. 

2 7 Cranch, 116 ; Hudson, op. cit., 546. 

3 Hurst, Les Immunit&s Diplomatiques, Cours de La Haye (1926), ii. 123. 

4 Nys, Droit International, ii. 371. 6 Op. cit., iv. ch. 8, 1 10. 


ministre public) ; d'autre part dans 1'assurance de 1'exercice du 
pouvoir exterritorial (sujetion du ministre public). Le consente- 
ment des Etats est formel ou tacite. La reception de 1'ambassadeur, 
si aucune volonte n'a ete exprimee de part ou d'autre, est en meme 
temps, pour 1'Etat qui le regoit une renonciation tacite, pour 1'fitat 
qui 1'envoie une acceptation t^ite, de 1'exercice de son pouvoir 
sur le ministre public. Cette presomption de 1'exterritorialite est 
basee sur la reconnaissance que 1'ambassadeur ne peut, sans son 
appui, remplir la tache qui lui incombe ; c'est pour lui conditio 
sine qua non." 1 

311. The immunities and privileges of diplomatic agents 
extend to exemptions from criminal, civil, police, fiscal and 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They are, however, best con- 
sidered under their various heads, and of these the foremost 
are Inviolability, Freedom of Communication, and Exemption 
from the Local Jurisdiction. Others will be referred to later, 
in this and the following chapters. 


312. This term implies a higher degree of protection to 
the person of the diplomatic agent and his belongings than is 
accorded to a private person. It extends to his family, suite, 
servants, houses, carriages, goods, archives, documents of 
whatever sort, and to his official correspondence carried by 
his couriers or messengers. 

313. It is the duty of the government to which they are 
accredited to take all necessary measures to safeguard the 
inviolability of diplomatic agents and to protect them from 
any act of violence or insult. Should such an act be committed 
by a public official adequate reparation is due, and in extreme 
cases serious consequences have sometimes followed. One of 
the most noted is that of the arrest of the Russian ambassador 
in London in 1708, which led to the passing of the Act 7 Anne, 
cap. 12, " to prevent the like insolences for the future." 2 

In 1708 M. de Mathveof (Matveev), the Russian ambassador, 
who was about to present his letters of recall, was arrested, with 
some degree of violence, in the streets of London, at the instiga- 
tion of certain merchants, to enforce payment of debts. He was 
shortly afterwards released, on bail being offered by his friends. 
On hearing of the incident, the Queen commanded the Secretary 
of State to express regret to the ambassador, who was informed that 
the offenders would be brought to trial, and punished with the 
utmost rigour of the law. He was, however, in no way satisfied 

1 Heyking, L'Exterritorialite, Cours de La Haye (1925), ii. 265. 

2 Br. and For. State Papers, i. 993. 


with this apology, and hurriedly left the country, without presenting 
his letters of recall, or availing himself of any of the courtesies placed 
at his disposal. To make amends, Lord Whitworth, the British 
envoy at St. Petersburg, was accredited as special ambassador, for 
the purpose of conveying to Peter the Great at a public audience 
the expression of the Queen's regret for the insult offered to his 
ambassador, and it is recorded that the Czar's carver and cupbearer 
proceeded to his residence in a court carriage to fetch him to the 
audience, followed by twenty other coaches conveying court 
personages and gentlemen of the embassy. 1 

In 1915, at a time when public feeling ran high, the Greek 
naval attache at Constantinople was openly insulted by a Turkish 
police agent. For this offence official apologies were rendered in 
person by the Turkish prefect of police, the police agent was dis- 
missed and punished, and a public announcement was made by 
the Turkish Government of the steps taken to give satisfaction to 
the Greek Government. 2 

314. More serious instances are the Boxer rising in China in 
1899, when the German minister and the Japanese chancellor 
were killed by Chinese troops and the foreign legations besieged ; 
and the assassination at Moscow and Petrograd in 1918 of 
the German ambassador and the British naval attache ; while 
an instance in which it was alleged that neglect to afford proper 
protection had been shown was the assassination in Poland 
in 1927 of M. Voikov, Soviet minister at Warsaw, though he had 
been offered police protection. While of a different class, the 
case of M. Vorowski, Soviet observer to the Lausanne Confer- 
ence, who was murdered in Switzerland in 1923, may also be 
mentioned, since it formed the subj ect of serious complaint by the 
Soviet Government to the Swiss Government, though the latter 
had not been officially informed of his presence in Switzerland. 

315. A government should ensure that proper means 
exist for the punishment of offences committed by individuals 
against diplomatic agents. In most countries special laws 
have been enacted for the purpose. 

" Every person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons, or in 
any other manner offers violence to the person of a public minister, 
in violation of the law of nations, shall be imprisoned for not more 
than three years, and fined at the discretion of the court." (Revised 
Statutes of the United States, 4062.) 

316. But if no such special law exists, the ordinary pro- 
cedure of the penal law should be employed. 3 

1 Ch. de Martens, Causes ctlebres, etc., i. 68, etc. 

2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 126. 3 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 130. 


The punishment of a crime or offence depends upon the rules 
of the penal law and the criminal procedure in force in the country. 
The executive power of that country cannot as a rule intervene 
in the administration of justice. If, therefore, there is no other 
procedure for dealing with offences against international law, the 
judgment of those offences must be remitted to the ordinary 
tribunals. The offended state has no ground for reclaiming a 
departure from the ordinary process of justice, and should be 
satisfied even if the accused might be acquitted or punished by the 
infliction of a lesser penalty than that state might deem just. 
(Bluntschli.) 1 

3 1 7. The above may, however, be open to the qualification 
that the law provides a proper means of punishment, and that 
the trial is properly conducted. 

"Le moyen ordinaire qu'on emploie pour la reparation d'une 
injustice causee a 1'ambassadeur, c'est de lui rendre satisfaction par 
des excuses faites soit a sa personne, soit a 1'Etat qu'il represente, 
par 1'envoi d'une deputation solennelle, par le paiement d'une 
indemnite, par la punition du coupable (bien entendu d'apres les 
lois locales)." 2 

318. In 1912 the United States Charge d'affaires in Cuba was 
assaulted by the reporter of a Cuban journal, who was arrested, 
but was released on bail by the Cuban court, with the remark that 
it was indifferent whether the person attacked was the American 
minister or a Cuban of the lowest class. The United States Govern- 
ment protested against this interpretation of international law, and 
the offender was ultimately sentenced to two and a half years 3 
imprisonment. 3 

319. Inviolability, in common with other immunities, 
attaches from the moment "that the diplomatic agent has set 
foot in the country to which he is sent, if previous notice of 
his mission has been imparted to the government of the 
receiving state and accepted, or at any rate as soon as he has 
made his public character known by the production either of 
his passports or his credentials. It extends, as far as the state 
to which he is accredited is concerned, over the period occupied 
by him in his arrival, his sojourn, and his departure within 
a reasonable time after the termination of his mission. Should 
his letters of credence expire, owing to the death of his own 
sovereign or the sovereign to whom he is accredited, he is 
nevertheless accorded all the usual immunities during the 
interval before he receives fresh credentials. 

1 Das Moderne Volkerrecht, etc. (1872), 467. 2 Heyking, op. cit., ii. 272. 

3 Dedk, Classification, etc., des Agents diplomatique i s, Revue de Droit International 
(1928), 201. 


The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed at 
Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following rules : 
" Article 22. Diplomatic officers enter upon the enjoyment of 
their immunity from the moment they pass the frontier of the 
state where they are going to serve and make known their position. 
The immunities shall continue during the period that the mission 
may be suspended, and even after it shall be terminated, for the 
time necessary for the officer to be able to withdraw with the 


320. It is not affected by the breaking out of war between, 
his own country and that to which he is accredited. 1 In such 
an event, it is the duty of the government to which he is 
accredited to take every precaution against insult or violence 
directed against him or any of the persons, whether belonging 
to his family or suite, covered by the right of inviolability, or 
against his residence or baggage, and to allow him to withdraw 
with his suite in all security. In case of need, special facilities 
should be afforded him, free of expense, 2 and after his departure 
the embassy house and its contents should be respected. 

321. It is, of course, expected that, on his part, a diplomatic 
agent will pay due regard to the laws and regulations for the 
maintenance of public order and safety in the state where he 
is appointed to reside, and abstain from any act which might 
call for the imposition of restraint to prevent injury or detriment 
to others or give rise to reasonable ground for complaint. 
The correctness of his own conduct will afford the best 
guarantee of the inviolability claimed by him. While in 
general exempted from police jurisdiction, this does not imply 
a right to disregard measures necessary for the well-being of 
the community. 

" Les reglements de police sont pour 1'ambassadeur lex, sed 
lex imperfecta, car toute punition et toute contrainte a son egard 
doivent etre exclues. Si 1'ambassadeur se croit affranchi de toute 
mesure de police, par exemple s'il trouble la tranquillite et la 
securite publique, ourdit des conspirations ou commet enfin des 
crimes, 1' Etat qui regoit ne peut rester indifferent a ces agissements 
et la police doit employer des mesures de prevention et de securite. 
Le gouvernement local adresse dans ce cas une plainte au gouverne- 
ment de 1'Etat qui envoie." 3 

In 1927, in a case before the Cour de Cassation of Costa Rica, 
regarding an assault committed on the Peruvian charge d'affaires by 
one Araya, it was held that this being the natural and logical conse- 
quence brought about by the offended person himself who had 

1 Phillimore, ii. 183. 2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 231. 

3 Heyking, op. cit., ii. 275. 


previously insulted and threatened to strike the accused could not 
be regarded as a violation of diplomatic immunity. 1 

322. If, on the other hand, an offence should be com- 
mitted against him, his proper course is to lodge complaint 
with the government to which he is accredited, and, failing 
satisfaction, to turn to his own government for the means of 

Freedom of Communication 

323. As it is essential for the fulfilment of his mission that 
a diplomatic agent should be able to communicate freely and 
in all security on matters in which he is engaged, it is in 
general recognised that couriers who bear official despatches 
to and from the mission are exempt from the local jurisdiction, 
even in third countries which they may have to traverse while 
engaged in the performance of their duties. They should, 
of course, carry official passports clearly defining their status. 

" For the discharge and expedition of his business and negotia- 
tions, an uninterrupted exchange of correspondence with his own 
court or government is necessary to the envoy. He employs 
messengers, whom he despatches to convey information to his 
sovereign, or to his colleagues at other courts with the least possible 
delay. The correspondence of an envoy sent through the ordinary 
post comes under the special protection of international law, the 
messengers despatched by him to his court and vice versa enjoy, 
in times of peace, inviolability for their person and the despatches 
they carry complete inviolability, even in the territory of a third 
state. They must . . . carry proper passports. To such mes- 
sengers must be accorded every possible facility for pursuing their 
journey." 2 

" To ensure the safety and secrecy of the diplomatic despatches 
they bear, couriers must be granted exemption from civil and 
criminal jurisdiction, and afforded special protection during the 
exercise of their office. It is therefore usual to provide them with 
special passports. It is particularly important to observe that they 
must have the right of innocent passage through third states, and 
that, according to general usage, those parts of their luggage which 
contain diplomatic despatches, and are sealed with the official seal, 
must not be opened and searched." 3 

324. Within recent years special arrangements have been 
made between several countries under which bags, officially 
sealed, are transmitted through the ordinary post to and from 
their diplomatic missions abroad, and are exempted from all 

1 Annual Digest (1927-28), Case No. 243. 2 Schmelzing, ii. 224. 

3 Oppenheim, i. 405. 


Immunity from Local Criminal Jurisdiction 

325. If a diplomatic agent commits an ordinary crime 
in the country to which he is accredited he cannot be tried or 
punished by the local courts. No case can be cited where, 
without his consent or that of his government, such a course 
has been followed. 1 But in such a case his government would 
doubtless be asked to recall and punish him. 

" Deja le droit des gens universel offre des arguments plus 
decisifs pour exempter le ministre etranger de la juridiction 
criminelle de 1'fitat aupres duquel il reside que pour 1'exempter 
de la juridiction civile ; la nature des actes inseparables d'une 
procedure criminelle, et toutes les suites qu'on en pourrait craindre 
pour le sort des negotiations semblent s'opposer a 1'exercice d'une 
telle juridiction." 2 

326. But an offence of a flagrant character might justify 
the state to which he is accredited in seizing his person and 
expelling him. Certain incidents of this kind have happened 
in the past, though now of little more than historical interest. 

In 1716 Count Gyllenborg, Swedish minister in London, entered 
into communication with the leading Jacobites, in furtherance of 
a plot which aimed, amongst other things, at the deposition of 
George I from the throne. Gortz, a secret agent of Charles XII 
of Sweden, at the same time pursued negotiations in Holland and 
elsewhere for funds to prosecute these designs. The plot was dis- 
covered, Gyllenborg was arrested, and his papers seized. The 
diplomatic body protested, but are said to have withdrawn their 
protest. Gortz was also arrested in Holland at the request of the 
British Government. As a reprisal Jackson, the British minister at 
Stockholm, was arrested there, and the Dutch minister forbidden to 
appear at the Swedish court. Eventually Gyllenborg was exchanged 
for Jackson, and Gortz set at liberty in Holland. 3 

In 1718 Prince de Cellamare, Spanish ambassador at Paris, conspired 
to deprive the Due d'Orleans of the Regency and transfer it to his 
master the King of Spain. The conspiracy was discovered, and 
Cellamare was placed under arrest. The resident diplomatic body 
declined to take up the case. Meanwhile in Spain orders had 
been given for the arrest of the French ambassador, but he managed 
to reach the frontier in safety. Cellamare was thereupon con- 
ducted to the Spanish frontier and expelled from France. 4 

327. Other cases in which the offence, though flagrant, 
was not followed by arrest are mentioned in Chapter XXI 
(Termination of Mission) . A notable case of the past is also 

1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 164. 2 G. F. de Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, ii. go. 
8 Ch. de Martens, op. cit., i. 83. * Ibid., i. 139. 


that of Dom Pantaleon de Sa, who in 1653 was accused of 
murder in London, and his surrender forcibly compelled from 
the Portuguese ambassador's house. He was placed on trial, 
and being found guilty was executed. But in this case the 
claim to privilege could not be maintained as he had only a 
dormant commission, and his plea of relationship to the 
ambassador did not suffice. 

328. A decree of the Soviet Union of January 14, 1927, framed 
on a basis of reciprocity, declares that diplomatic representatives 
and members of their missions (counsellors, first, second, and third 
secretaries and attaches including commercial, financial, military, 
and naval) enjoy personal immunity in virtue of which they cannot 
be subjected to arrest or to detention of an administrative or judicial 
character ; and are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial 
institutions of the U.S.S.R. and of the Allied Republics on a 
criminal charge, except with the consent of the foreign state 

Immunity from Local Civil Jurisdiction 

329. It is likewise generally recognised that a diplomatic 
agent is exempt from the jurisdiction of the local civil tribunals, 
though some writers have been inclined to place limitations 
on this exemption. In Holland and England their immunity 
was recognised as far back as the seventeenth century, and both 
there and in France and Prussia special enactments were 
passed to safeguard the right. 

330. The Statute of 7 Anne, c. 12, declares that : 

" all writs and processes that shall at any time hereafter be sued forth 
or prosecuted, whereby the person of any ambassador, or other 
publick minister of any foreign Prince or state, authorised and 
received as such by Her Majesty, Her Heirs or Successors, or the 
domestick, or domestick servant of any such ambassador, or other 
publick minister, may be arrested or imprisoned, or his or their 
goods or chattels may be distrained, seized or attached, shall be 
deemed and adjudged to be utterly null and void, to all intents, 
constructions, and purposes whatsoever." 

331. In 1823, m tne case Novello v. Toogood, 1 Lord Chief 
Justice Abbott, in speaking of this Act, said that it was only^ 
declaratory of the common law, 2 and that it must therefore be 
construed according to the common law, of which the law of 
nations must be deemed a part. 

1 i B. & c. 554. 

2 This is now the subject of controversy : see Adair, The Exterritoriality of 
Ambassadors in the i6th and ijth Centuries (1929), 88, 237 et seq., and in Cambridge 
Historical Journal, ii. no. 3, 2907 ; and Berriedale Keith and Adair in Journal of 
Comparative Legislation, xii. (1930), 126-8, and xiii. (1931), 133-7. 


" Les agents diplomatiques sont les representants des fitats. 
C'est en raison de cette qualite que ces privileges leur sont accordes, 
et c'est en raison de cette qualite que des privileges leur sont 
reconnus par les fitats sur le territoire desquels ils resident. Cette 
matiere releve done exclusivement des relations entre les fitats, et 
fait partie par consequent du droit international public." L 

332. The corresponding United States statute is 4063 
of the Revised Statutes of the United States : 

" Whenever any writ or process is sued out or prosecuted by 
any person in any court of the United States, or of a state, or by 
any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassador or 
public minister of a foreign prince or state, authorised and received 
as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant 
of any such minister, is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or 
chattels are distrained, seized or attached, such writ or process 
shall be deemed void." 

333. In France the law and practice are the same, and 
under the decree 13 ventose, an II, a diplomatic agent who 
was about to quit his post on presenting his letters of recall, 
would not now be subjected to the treatment accorded in 
1772 to the Baron von Wrech, minister of Hesse-Cassel, who 
was refused his passports until his creditors had been satisfied. 2 
In Austria the civil code confers on a diplomatic agent what- 
ever immunities are established by international law. The 
German code exempts from local jurisdiction diplomatic 
agents and their suites. In the Soviet Union a decree of 
January 14, 1927, declares that diplomatic representatives 
and the members of their missions (counsellors, first, second 
and third secretaries, and attaches, including commercial, 
financial, military and naval) are amenable to the jurisdiction 
of the judicial institutions of the U.S.S.R. and of the Allied 
Republics, for civil offences only within the limits laid down 
by international law or by agreements with the states 

The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed at 
Havana, which says in its preamble that it incorporates the prin- 
ciples generally accepted by all nations, lays down for the signatory 
states the following rules : " Article 19. Diplomatic officers are 
exempt from all civil or criminal jurisdiction of the state to which 
they are accredited ; they may not, except in the case when duly 
authorised by their government, waive immunity, be prosecuted 
or tried unless it be by the courts of their own country." 

1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 141. 2 Gh. de Martens, op. cit., ii. 1 10. 


334. Certain noteworthy cases in the English, French 
and Belgian courts are given below : 

(1) In 1854, in the case Taylor v. Best, Drouet, Sperling and 
Clarke, in which M. Drouet, First Secretary of the Belgian Legation 
in London, and one of the directors of a mining company, was one 
of the defendants, his attorney, upon his instructions, accepted 
service on his behalf of a writ issued against the directors to recover 
deposits on shares, and entered an appearance thereto. After- 
wards M. Drouet claimed privilege. It was held by the court that, 
having charge of the executive of the legation, and acting in the 
absence of the minister as charge d'affaires, he was a public minister 
to whom the privilege of ambassador applied ; that his exemption 
(being one at common law) was not lost by his trading in England 
(as that of a servant would be under the Act of Anne) ; but that 
having submitted to the jurisdiction, he could not succeed in his 
application for the action to be stayed or his name to be struck out 
of the proceedings. 1 The court indicated that if the question of 
executing a judgment against M. Drouet had been in question his 
privilege would have protected him. 

(In the case of In re the Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate, 2 
1913, Astbury, J., referred to the above case, and said of it: 
' Having appeared and taken steps and allowed the action to go 
through several stages, he was not allowed subsequently to insist on 
his privilege so as to cause the action to abate to the prejudice of the 
plaintiff and his co-defendants, who had incurred expense in reliance 
on his apparent waiver." See also 334 (6) and 347 (2) (6)). 

(2) In 1859, m tne case of the Magdalena Steam Navigation Com- 
pany v. Martin, the Guatemalan minister in London claimed 
immunity against answering an action for debt, being a call on 
shares on the winding-up of the company. The court held that 

' the writs and processes described in the 3rd section (of the 
Statute of 1708) are not to be confined to such as directly touch 
the person or goods of an ambassador, but extend to such as, in 
their usual consequences, would have this effect. ... It certainly 
has not hitherto been expressly decided that a public minister duly 
accredited to the Queen of a foreign state is privileged from all 
liability to be sued here in civil actions ; but we think that this 
follows from well-established principles, and we give judgment for 
the defendant." 3 

(3) 1868. Case of Tchitcherine, before the Court of Appeal at Paris. 
A certain Leonce Dupont, manager of a newspaper, La Nation, 

having become bankrupt, it was discovered in the course of the pro- 
ceedings that he had lent his name to Tchitcherine, counsellor of 
the Russian embassy at Paris, who in the interests of his govern- 
ment had furnished funds to start the journal, and had undertaken 
to support it, on various conditions, of which proof was furnished. 

1 14 G. B. 487. 2 L.R. [1914] i Ch. 139. 3 2 El. & El. 94. 


By its judgment of January 15, 1867, the commercial court at Paris 
decided that it had jurisdiction in the matter, holding that if the 
diplomatic immunities to which Tchitcherine appealed belonged 
to the representatives of foreign governments in order that they 
should not be molested in the discharge of their functions, these 
immunities could not be extended to them when they entered into 
commercial transactions in their private interest. 

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision on the following 
grounds : Seeing that it is an established fact, and not disputed, 
that Tchitcherine is attached as counsellor to the embassy of H.M. 
the Emperor of Russia to H.M. the Emperor of the French, and that 
thus he had in France the character of a foreign diplomatic, agent ; 
seeing that it is an established principle of the Law of Nations that 
the diplomatic agents of a foreign Government are not subject to 
the jurisdiction of the courts of the country to which they are sent ; 
that this principle is based on the nature of things which in the 
respective interest of the two nations does not allow these agents 
to be exposed in their person or property to legal proceedings, which 
would not leave to them complete liberty of action, and would 
embarrass the international relations of which they serve as inter- 
mediaries ; that in France this principle has been specially 
recognised by the decree of the I3th ventose, an II, from which it 
follows that claims which may be put forward against the envoys 
of foreign governments must be stated and pursued through diplo- 
matic channels ; seeing that supposing an exception could be 
made to this principle in the case of diplomatic agents who devote 
their attention to commercial operations and by reason of such 
commercial operations, the contract by which Tchitcherine secured 
the right of directing the publication of the newspaper La Nation 
would be of a character quite other than that of a commercial 
speculation entered into in private interest ; it was erroneously 
therefore that the court maintained cognisance in the claim made 
by the trustee of the bankruptcy of Dupont and by Dupont himself, 
and ruling upon the appeal of Tchitcherine says that the com- 
mercial court of the Seine was not competent to take cognizance 
of the claim put forward by him and Dupont. 

(4) 1891. Case of Count Errembault de Dudzeele before the Cour de 
Cassation at Paris. 

In July 1 889 the Civil Court of the Seine condemned in default 
Count Errembault de Dudzeele, counsellor of the Belgian legation, 
to payment of a sum of fr. 377.05. As he did not appeal within the 
legal period against this decision, an appeal was entered against 
it, at the instance of the French Ministry of Justice, in the interest 
of the law. The decision of the lower court was reversed by a 
judgment of January 10, 1891, from which the following passages 
may be quoted : 

" La Cour, vu le decret de la Convention nationale du 1 3 ventose, 
an II, defendant a toute autorite constitute d'attenter en aucune 
maniere a la personne des envoyes des gouvernements etrangers. 


Attendu qu'une des consequences du principe rappele dans le 
decret susvise est que les agents diplomatiques des puissances 
etrangeres ne sont pas soumis en regie generate a la juridiction des 
tribunaux francais ; attendu que cette immunite doit s'etendre a 
toutes les personnes faisant officiellement partie de la legation. 
Attendu que Pincompetence des tribunaux francais en cette matiere 
etant fondee sur le besoin d'independance reciproque des differents 
fitats et des personnes chargees de les representer, ne peut flechir 
que devant 1'acceptation certaine et reguliere que feraient les dites 
personnes de la juridiction de cesmemes tribunaux. . . . 

; ' Les immunites ont etc reconnues de meme aux attaches 
d'ambassade par le tribunal de la Seine par jugement du 10 aout, 
1855. 'Attendu, dit ce jugement, qu'Aurelio Pinto justifie qu'il 
est attache a la legation imperiale du Bresil en France ; que con- 
formement aux regies du droit des gens, le caractere dont il est 
revetu ne permet pas qu'il soit traduit devant la juridiction francaise 
pour une affaire purement personnelle, . . . se declare incom- 
petent. . . .' En Allemagne la loi nous dit : 'Les tribunaux natio- 
naux n'ont pas juridiction sur les chefs et les membres des missions 
diplomatiques accreditees aupres de 1'empire Allemand ' (Code 
d'organisation judiciaire de 1'empire Allemand, art. 18). En 
Autriche nous trouvons la disposition suivante : ' Les ambassadeurs, 
les charges d'affaires, et les personnes qui sont a leur service jouissent 
des franchises etablies par le droit des gens et par les traites pub- 
lics ' (Code civil autrichien, art. 38). " l 

(5) In 1897 the Cour de Cassation at Brussels, at the instance 
of the Belgian Ministry of Justice, and after examination of the 
authorities and precedents, quashed the decision of the lower court, 
which had condemned the military attache of the Turkish legation., in 
default, to payment of an amount claimed by a veterinary surgeon 
for services rendered. 2 

(6) 1913. In re Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate, Ltd. 
This was an action in the Chancery Division of the High Court 

of Justice at London. The liquidator of the above company having 
issued a summons against the directors, among whom was M. R. E. 
Lembcke, 2nd Secretary of the Peruvian Legation, and the audi- 
tors claiming damages for various acts of misfeasance, M. Lembcke, 
on the hearing of the summons, asserted diplomatic privilege, with 
the sanction and at the wish of the Peruvian Legation, although 
he had previously entered an unconditional appearance to the 

In this case a number of previous cases bearing on the point 
came under review, and amongst others that of Taylor v. Best, and 
the Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin. (See above.) 

Held : Both under the common law and under the Diplo- 
matic Privileges Act, 1708, a diplomatic agent accredited to the 
Crown by a foreign state is absolutely privileged from being sued 

1 Clunet (1891), 137. 2 Clunet (1897), 839. 


in the English courts and any writ issued against him is absolutely 
null and void. 

The diplomatic privilege can be waived, if at all, only with full 
knowledge of the party's rights, and only with the sanction of his 
sovereign or legation. 

Except in cases like Taylor v. Best, where the agent is merely 
joined as a formal defendant, it is doubtful if such waiver is possible. 

" Whatever the true view of M. Lembcke's conduct in entering 
appearance and taking the subsequent steps, it is clear that the 
summons must prove abortive against him. No judgment or 
execution can be enforced or levied against him, and the authorities 
show the impropriety of allowing the action to go on merely for 
the purpose of defining his liability." l 

335- The immunity of the diplomatic agent extends in 
general to events which may have occurred prior to his 
reception, and on the termination of his mission it is generally 
recognised that it continues for such reasonable time as may 
be necessary for him to complete the work of his mission 
before departing from the country. 

Spanish law appears to prescribe that an envoy, while 
exempt from being sued in respect of obligations contracted 
before the commencement of the mission, is not so for those 
incurred during its continuance. Portuguese law seems 
to be to the opposite effect. And in France the immunity 
apparently now ceases, at any rate in the case of a member of 
the staff, as soon as his appointment terminates, if the action 
is begun after that date. 

(1) In 1859, in the case of the Magdalena Steam Navigation Com- 
pany v. Martin, in the English courts, Lord Chief Justice Campbell 
observed : ' There can be no execution while the ambassador is 
accredited, nor even when he is recalled, if he only remains a 
reasonable time in this country after his recall." 2 

(2) In 1894, in the case Musurus Bey v. Gadban, in the English 
courts, the question of freedom from suit of ambassadors was raised 
in connection with a liability incurred. The plaintiff was the 
executof of Musurus Pacha, who had been Turkish ambassador 
at London, and had presented his letters of recall on December 7, 
1885, but had continued to reside in England until February 1886. 
In an action by the plaintiff, as such executor, against the defendants 
to recover moneys collected by them, they counterclaimed in respect 
of a debt alleged to be due to them by Musurus Pacha, and the 
question arose whether their claim was not barred by the lapse of 
six years from the date of its accrual. Accordingly it became 
necessary to determine whether the defendants had an effective 
cause of action against the ambassador during the period between 

1 L. R. [1914] i Gh. 139. 2 El. & El. 94. (See 334 (2) above.) 


December 7, 1885, and February 1886, and it was held by the 
Court of Appeal that the point was decided in the case of Magdalena 
Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin. (See 334 (2).) " It was there held 
that there could be no execution against an ambassador while he is 
accredited, nor even when he is recalled, if he only remains a 
reasonable time in this country after his recall, and that is precisely 
what Musurus Pacha did in the present case. During these two 
months Musurus Pacha was in the same position as he was in before 
his recall as to immunity from being sued." Accordingly the 
plaintiff could not set up the Statute of Limitations against the 
defendants' counter claim. 1 

(3) In 1906, the French Government having broken off diplo- 
matic relations with Venezuela, and entrusted their interests to 
the United States, the Venezuelan Government contended that 
the French Minister became subject to the local law immediately 
his representation ceased. The resident diplomatic body entered 
a protest against this view. 2 (See 511.) 

(4) In 1929 the Netherlands tribunal at The Hague, in the 
case Banco de Portugal v. Marang, etc., held that the immunity from 
civil jurisdiction enjoyed by a foreign diplomatic representative 
ceases on the termination of his mission, except for the time required 
by him to liquidate his affairs. 3 

336. The following are recent French judgments on the 
liability of members, or ex-members, of the staff of a diplo- 
matic agent. 

(1) In 1921 the French Cour de Cassation, at the instance of 
the Procureur-General, reversed a judgment pronounced against 
the Secretary of the Persian legation, observing : " Attendu qu'il 
importe peu que 1'obligation contractee par 1'agent diplomatique 
1'ait etc a une date anterieure ou posterieure a son entree en fonc- 
tions ; qu'il suffit qu'il soit investi de son caractere officiel au 
moment ou des poursuites sont dirigees contre lui." 4 

(2) In 1925 the Cour d'Appel at Paris condemned Mr. Belin, 
ex-Secretary of the United States Embassy (in an action begun after 
he had ceased to be a member of that mission) , to payment of damages 
in respect of an accident caused by his motor car, though this 
occurred while he was still a member of the mission, observing : 
" Attendu que 1'immunite diplomatique erigee dans 1'interet des 
gouvernements et non dans celui des diplomates, ne s'etend pas au 
dela de la mission ; que la these contraire aboutirait a creer au 
profit de 1'agent diplomatique une sorte de prescription et une 
irresponsabilite indefinie ; rejette comme mal fondee 1'exception 
soulevee par Belin, et le declare civilement responsable." 5 

1 L.R. [1894] 2 Q.. B. 352. 

2 Foreign Relations of the United States (1906), 1448 ; de Boeck, I' Expulsion et les 
difficultly Internationales qu'en souleve la pratique, Cours de La Haye (1927), iii. 509. 

3 Hill, American Journal of International Law (1931), 259. 

4 Clunet (1921), 922. 6 Glunet (1926), 64. 


The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed 
at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following rules : 
" Article 20. The immunity from jurisdiction survives the tenure 
of office of diplomatic officers in so far as regards actions pertaining 
thereto ; it may not, however, be invoked in respect to other 
actions except while discharging their diplomatic functions " (sic). 

337. A distinction drawn by some writers between acts 
performed by the agent in an official capacity and those 
performed in a private capacity, and, again, the opinion that 
the immunity should not go beyond cases where submission 
to the jurisdiction would impair the free exercise of his func- 
tions, do not find any general acceptance, though certain 
much criticised decisions of the Italian tribunals in 1915 and 
1922 may be mentioned. 

(1) In 1883 the French Cour d'Appel at Lyons gave the follow- 
ing decision in an action brought against the Comte de Bruc, diplo- 
matic agent of San Marino at Paris, concerning alterations effected 
in his private property situated at Ste. Foy-les-Lyon : 

" La Cour, considerant que la position des representants etrangers 
en France est reglee par le decret du 13 ventose, an II, qui interdit 
a toute autorite d'attenter en aucune maniere a la personne d'un 
envoye d'un gouvernement etranger ; considerant que les auteurs 
ayant ecrit sur le droit international ont eu quelques divergences 
entre eux ; que 1'on a cherche a faire une distinction entre la 
personne officielle et la personne privee, de meme qu'entre les 
actes accomplis en qualite de representant et pour le compte 
d'un gouvernement etranger, et les actes accomplis par le meme 
representant dans son interet personnel et prive ; que dans ce 
dernier cas, certains auteurs accordent une action en justice ; que 
d'autres auteurs, au contraire, la refusent absolument dans quelque 
cas et pour quelque cause que ce soit ; considerant que cette 
opinion est celle qui a prevalu, et que la jurisprudence n'a jamais 
varie sur ce point d'accord en ceci avec les principes du droit des 
gens : qu'ainsi il faut reconnaitre que 1'immunite complete de la 
juridiction en matiere civile existe en faveur de toute personne 
investie d'un caractere officiel, comme representant a un titre 
quelconque d'un gouvernement etranger ; que le Comte de Bruc 
est done fonde a se retrancher derriere cette immunite." x 

(2) In 1888 the Federal Court of Buenos Ayres, in an action 
concerning the goods of the Paraguayan minister, rejected the opinion 
expressed by certain writers that the immunity accorded to foreign 
representatives should be confined to cases where submission to the 
jurisdiction hindered the free exercise of their functions, and declared 
that the more generally accepted rule was that foreign repre- 
sentatives should not be subjected to the local jurisdiction unless they 
renounced privilege with the authorisation of their government. 2 

1 Clunet (1884), 57 ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 182. 2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 179. 


(3) In 1915 the Court of Cassation at Rome, in the case of one 
Rinaldi, who had seized a motor car belonging to the Secretary of 
the Prussian legation to the Vatican, reversed the judgment of the 
lower courts, and held that private acts accomplished by a diplo- 
matic agent are subject to the local jurisdiction ; further, the 
secretary was not head of the mission but a subordinate, and the 
act of seizure was in a courtyard and not in his abode. 1 

(4) In 1922 the Italian Court of Cassation, in the case of Cominat 
v. Kite, pronounced against the doctrine of absolute immunity, 
declaring that this was born of theories long rejected and contrary 
to justice and law ; it was inadmissible that a diplomatic agent 
should contract a debt, or conclude a contract, without means exist- 
ing of making him pay, or obliging him to fulfil his engagements. 2 

Of these latter decisions M. Deak writes : 

" Neanmoins, cette interpretation radicale de Pimmunite de 
juridiction est unique dans la pratique des tribunaux, et semble 
etre la consequence d'une trop grande importance attachee au 
caractere territorial du droit." 3 

It appears also that the judgment in the last mentioned 
case gave rise to a representation made by the doyen of the 
Diplomatic Corps at Rome to the Italian Ministry for Foreign 
Affairs. 4 

But by a subsequent judgment in 1927 the Court of Rome 
reversed the rule adopted by the Court of Cassation in these 
cases : 

(5) In 1927, in the case Lurie v. Steinmann, before the Court of 
Rome, an action was brought against the ecclesiastical counsellor 
of the German Embassy accredited to the Holy See, in respect of 
a commission for having purchased certain property on his behalf, 
on the ground that Article 1 1 of the Law of Guarantees, on which 
the defendant relied, covered only acts of diplomatic agents 
executed in the exercise of their diplomatic functions, but not 
acts relating to their private affairs ; and that immunity protected 
only the head of the diplomatic mission. The Court held that it 
had no jurisdiction ; that it was obvious that when questions of 
immunities of diplomatic agents arise, such immunity could only 
refer to the persons of diplomatic agents with regard to their private 
affairs, since one could hardly speak of immunity in cases where 
they act as agents of states ; that the principle of immunity or 
exterritoriality of diplomatic agents plainly implies the fact that 
diplomatic agents are to be considered outside the jurisdiction of 
the country in which they are officially recognised with regard also 
to their private affairs ; and that it is similarly recognised by 

1 Dedk, op. cit., 205. a Ibid., 205. 3 Ibid., 206. 

4 Genet, Traiti de Diplomatic, etc., i. 586 n. 



international custom that the immunity comprises the whole of 
the official staff of the embassy or legation. 1 

338. The view that real property privately owned by the 
diplomatic agent is subject to the local jurisdiction on the 
principle of the lex loci rei sitae, with the exception of the legation 
house if owned by him, does not escape criticism. 2 

In 1925, in the case Montwid-Biallozor v. Ivaldi, before the 
Supreme Court of Poland, regarding a contract of lease entered 
into by the military attache to the Italian legation, it was held that 
municipal courts have jurisdiction in regard to the private im- 
movable property of a public minister, except where it is devoted 
to the official use of the legation ; and that though it is doubtful 
whether immunity from suits covers actions in rem relating to 
immovable property, it covers action in personam, and that actions 
arising out of a contract of lease are personal actions. 3 

339. A diplomatic agent will do well to inform himself 
of all local legislation respecting diplomatic immunities. But 
as he ought carefully to avoid giving rise to any questions 
touching the extent of his immunities between his own govern- 
ment and that to which he is accredited, the obvious recom- 
mendation to make is that he should not acquire any kind of 
personal interest, or accept any obligations, likely to give rise 
to such questions. It will be better, for more reasons than 
one, to eschew all speculation and commercial transactions 
of whatever nature in the country where he is accredited, and 
to pay his local tradesmen's bills with regularity and despatch. 

Suite, etc. 

340. The jurisdictional immunities of the diplomatic 
agent extend to the personnel of his mission, viz. the official 
suite, i.e. counsellors, secretaries and attaches, including naval, 
military, air and commercial attaches, appointed to assist him 
in his duties ; those engaged in the office work of the mission, 
archivists, clerks, etc., and, in the East, dragomans and inter- 
preters ; doctor and chaplain where these are bond fide 
members of the mission. Also to the wives 4 and families of 
the above. And further to such persons as are in his employ- 
ment for his personal convenience or that of his family tutors, 
governesses, private secretaries, cooks, chauffeurs, gardeners, etc. 

1 Annual Digest (1927-8), Case No. 246. 

2 See on this point Hurst, op. cit., ii. 180-4. 

3 Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 246. 

4 Even if living apart, according to French and English decisions : Cottenet 
c. Rafalovitch, Clunet (1908), 153 ; Macnaghten v. Coveridias, Annual Practice, etc. 
( J 923)> vol. i. ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 158. 


" II y a lieu de remarquer que les agents diploma tiques autres 
que les chefs de mission (les conseillers, secretaires et attaches) sont 
considered comme des ministres publics, jouissant des privileges 
dans la meme mesure que les envoyes eux-memes. Bien qu'il 
n'existe aucun document international exprimant cette opinion, 
des dispositions inscrites dans les legislations nationales rangent ces 
agents dans la hierarchic diplomatique. On verra par les exemples 
ci-apres qui les tribunaux partagent unanimement 1'avis que les 
privileges des agents diplomatiques existent quels que soient le 
grade ou le titre de ces agents." l 

" La prerogative de ces agents s'etend a tous les fonctionnaires 
que les accompagnent et qui leur sont adjoints pour les assister et 
les suppleer, soit dans la mission generale qu'ils ont a remplir, soit 
dans les branches speciales ressortissant a cette mission ; elle appar- 
tient a leurs secretaires, a leurs attaches, au personnel de leur suite, 
a leur famille, a tous les gens, en un mot, dont la presence est 
necessaire pour leur permettre de representer dignement leur pays, 
et d'accomplir completement et utilement leur mission." 2 

The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed 
at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following rules : 
" Article 14. Diplomatic officers shall be inviolate as to their 
persons, their residence, private or official, and their property. 
This inviolability covers : (a) all classes of diplomatic officers ; 
(b) the entire official personnel of the diplomatic mission ; (c) the 
members of the respective families living under the same roof; 
(d) the papers, archives, and correspondence of the mission." 

341. In most countries it is usual for the diplomatic agent 
to furnish to the ministry for foreign affairs a full list of the 
persons composing his mission for whom immunity is claimed. 
In Great Britain this is done annually at the commencement 
of each year, and the list is revised from time to time as changes 
are notified. By the Act 7 Anne, c. 12, every servant must 
be registered in the office of one of the Principal Secretaries 
of State, i.e. the Foreign Office. 

In 1923, in the case Assurantie Compagnie Excelsior v. Smith, 
at London, Mr. Smith, clerk in the United States embassy, whose 
name was recorded in the embassy list, was sued for calls on shares. 
He held a confidential position in the embassy, outgoing despatches 
were handed to him, he had charge of the embassy seal, and con- 
trolled the formal clerical work. It was held that, being on the 
official staff of the embassy, and carrying out official duties, he was 
entitled to the immunity claimed by him. 3 

1 Dedk, op. cit., 198. 

2 Aff. Dientz c. de la Jara (Paris), Clunet (1878), 501 ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 153. 

3 40 T. L. R. (1923), 105. 


342. As regards the method of claiming immunity in the 
event of an action arising before the local tribunals, practice 
may vary. The claim may be made direct to the tribunal, or 
the diplomatic agent may address himself to the government 
to which he is accredited, with the request that the necessary 
action may be taken. As is shown in the cases mentioned in 
334 (4)5 (5)> m both France and Belgium the ministry of 
justice intervened to safeguard the immunity, and in Great 
Britain similar action has been taken. 

1928. Engelke v. Musmann. In this case the House of Lords 
gave judgment on appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal. 
An action having been brought against Herr Engelke in the King's 
Bench Division of the High Court for arrears of rent alleged to be 
due under the lease of a dwelling-house, he entered a conditional 
appearance, but claimed immunity on the ground that he had 
been consular secretary on the staff of the German embassy in 
London since 1920, had been notified as such to the Foreign Office, 
and that his name appeared in the diplomatic list issued by the 
Foreign Office. The plaintiff asked for leave to cross-examine the 
deponent on the facts asserted in his affidavit. This the court 
refused ; the Judge in Chambers reversed this decision ; the Court 
of Appeal concurred ; and the matter was then carried to the 
House of Lords. 

The questions were (i) whether a statement by the Attorney- 
General, at the instance of the Foreign Office, as to the status 
of a person claiming diplomatic privilege, was conclusive, and 
(2) whether the appellant should be ordered to be cross-examined 
in the courts on the affidavits in which his claim was preferred. 

The contentions of the Attorney-General were submitted in a 
written case, and were to the effect that if a statement made on 
behalf of the Crown as to the position of a member of the diplomatic 
staff was not conclusive, and if the court by seeking to investigate 
the facts, compelled the person for whom immunity was claimed 
to submit to legal process, it would be impossible for the Crown to 
fulfil the obligations imposed by international law and the comity 
of nations, since the steps taken would themselves involve a breach 
of diplomatic immunity. 

Held : that the statement of the Attorney-General, made at the 
instance of the Foreign Office, as to the status of a person claiming 
diplomatic privilege, was conclusive. 1 Per Viscount Dunedin : 
Apart from that statement the cross-examination of the defendant 
would have been justified. 

In the United States various instances show that a certifi- 
cate from the Secretary of State is accepted by the courts as 
sufficing to establish the diplomatic status of the person 

1 L. R. [ 1 928] A. C. 433 ; Hurst, British Tear Book of International Law ( 1 929) , 1 1 . 


343. Inasmuch as a diplomatic agent is the representative 
of the state which has accredited him, it is through the govern- 
ment of that state that an aggrieved person can in the last 
resort obtain satisfaction. If the matter is a civil one, and 
a direct request for a settlement proves inefficacious or, in 
the case of a member of the staff, a representation to the 
head of the mission the aggrieved person may lay the facts 
before his own government, with a view to all proper measures 
being taken to obtain redress, a course which is often successful 1 ; 
or he may carry the matter to the tribunals of the country 
which has accredited the agent. 

" Quoique le centre des affaires de 1'ambassadeur se trouve a 
1'endroit de sa mission, dans 1'Etat qui recoit, il n'y acquiert pas un 
domicile legal. Toutes les pretentions civiles qui naissent pendant 
1'exercice de ses fonctions, et celles qui se sont produites avant, sont 
justiciable des tribunaux de 1'Etat qui envoie." 2 

In the case of a Belgian diplomatic agent who endorsed letters 
of exchange to the profit of an Austrian creditor, and payable in 
Austria, the Cour d'Appel at Brussels held that he could only be 
sued in Belgium, unless he had accepted the jurisdiction of the 
foreign tribunal, and declared that the Belgian law of prescription 
applied. 3 In Roumania, the High Court of Cassation and Justice 
held that the Roumanian commercial attache in Italy could be 
proceeded against in Roumania for trqfic d' influence when the latter 
was punishable both by Roumanian and Italian law. 4 (See also 
the case of Dickenson v. Del Solar in the English courts, 347 (6).) 

344. In a criminal matter the recall of the offender would 
doubtless be demanded by the state offended. 

In 1 88 1 the German ambassador at London claimed privilege 
in respect of a secretary of the embassy accused of a criminal 
offence. Assurances were given that he would not be retained in 
the service of the embassy, and no further proceedings were taken 
in England. 

In 1915 the United States Government notified the German 
ambassador at Washington that the continued presence of Captains 
Boy-Ed and Von Papen, German naval and military attaches, would 
no longer serve the purpose of their mission, and would be unac- 
ceptable, owing to their connection with the illegal acts of certain 
persons within the United States. They were recalled, and returned 
to Germany under safe-conducts granted by the Allied Powers at 
the request of the United States Government. 5 

1 See Hurst, op. cit., ii. 209. 2 Heyking, op. tit., 272. 

3 Hill, American Journal of International Law (1931), 255. 

4 Hill, op. cit., 255. 

5 Diplomatic Correspondence between the United States and Belligerent Govts., x. 363. 


In 1916 Von Igel, former secretary of Von Papen (see above), 
was arrested in New York, and his papers seized and copies taken. 
They were said to contain evidence of complicity in conspiracies 
against the neutrality of the United States ; and it is said that Von 
Papen and Von Igel directed and financed an office for procuring 
fraudulent passports for German reservists. The German ambas- 
sador protested, claiming Von Igel as an attache, and his papers 
as embassy papers ; the United States Government replied that the 
acts complained of were prior to his connection with the embassy, 
and asked the ambassador to identify which papers belonged to 
the embassy, but he declined. (The action taken in this case 
appears to have met with criticism in the United States.) * 

345. In the case of servants it is essential that they should 
be actually and bond fide employed, and in Great Britain they 
have no immunity if engaged in trade. Often they may be 
nationals of the state in which the diplomatic agent resides, 
and in some countries distinctions are drawn in Germany 
German nationals so employed are subject to the local juris- 
diction ; in the United States, no citizen or inhabitant of 
that country has immunity in respect of debts contracted before 
entering such service. But the immunity of servants, being 
purely derivative, lapses with the termination of their employ- 
ment, 2 and it would be appropriate, should they come into 
conflict with the local law, either that privilege should be 
waived, or that they should be dismissed, in order that justice 
may be done. As Hall says, 3 " No minister wishes to shield 
a criminal, and there is no reason to believe that permission 
to exercise jurisdiction is refused upon sufficient cause being 

The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, concern- 
ing diplomatic officers, makes no mention of servants. 

346. Abuses such as existed in the past, as mentioned in 
the following extract from a letter written in 1818 by the United 
States Attorney-General, are of course highly improbable at 
the present day : 

" English books abound with instances of attempts on the part 
of foreign ministers to screen debtors from their creditors by the 
abuse of this privilege, and some of these cases are marked with an 
audacity only equalled by their absurdity. Thus in one case an 
attempt was made to protect a debtor on the ground of his being 
ostler to a foreign minister, who it was proven never kept horses ; 
in another, on the ground of the defendant's being coachman to a 

1 Hershey, Diplomatic Agents, etc., 149. 

2 See, e.g., decision of Supreme Court, Berlin (1899) ; Clunet (1902), 146. 

3 Hall, 230. 


foreign minister who kept no coach ; in a third, of his being cook 
to one who kept no kitchen nor culinary instruments ; in a fourth, 
of his being gardener to one who had no garden ; in a fifth, of his 
being a physician, although there was no proof that he had ever 
prescribed in his life ; and in a sixth, on the ground of his being 
English chaplain to the ambassador from Morocco, who was a 
Mohammedan." l 

In 1823, in the case Novella v. Toogood, in the English courts, the 
plaintiff, a British subject, was first chorister in the chapel of the 
Portuguese ambassador at London, and had also other occupations 
prompter at a theatre, teacher of music and languages. He 
rented a house, letting part in lodgings, and was subjected by a 
rate-collector, the defendant Toogood, to a distress for rates. In 
an action brought by the plaintiff for trespass, a verdict was found 
for him, subject to the opinion of the Court of King's Bench. 

Abbott, C.J., in giving judgment against the plaintiff, said that 
his opinion was " founded upon one point only, that the action is 
for taking the plaintiff's goods and not for arresting his person ; 
as to which I give no opinion. ... I am of the opinion that what- 
ever is necessary to the convenience of an ambassador, as connected 
with his rank, his duties and his religion, ought to be protected ; 
but an exemption from the burthens borne by other British sub- 
jects ought not to be granted in a case to which the reason of the 
exemption does not apply." 2 

Renunciation of Privilege 

347. The right of a diplomatic agent to waive privilege 
and submit to the local jurisdiction is recognised and supported 
by various instances. Such renunciation, where given, should 
be expressed in regular and definite form. 3 It may be a 
question whether the consent of his government should not 
also be shown. The instructions to United States diplomatic 
officers are that immunity from criminal and civil process 
cannot be waived except by the consent of the government ; 
but doubtless in most cases a diplomatic agent waiving 
privilege would only do so on obtaining the consent of his 

(i) In 1906, M. C. Waddington, son of the Chilean charge 
d'affaires at Brussels, being accused of murder, took refuge in the 
legation, which was surrounded by police. Later, the charge 
d'affaires informed the Public Prosecutor that he renounced 
immunity from the jurisdiction for his son. The Belgian authori- 
ties, however, decided that the consent of the Chilean Government 
must be awaited, and this having been given, the accused was 

1 Moore, iv. 655. 2 i B. & C. 554. 3 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 194. 


brought before the Cour d'Assises of Brabant, where, after trial, 
he was acquitted. 1 

(2) 1917. Case of Suarez, v. Suarez,- The Bolivian Minister in 
London, in an action brought against him in 1914, concerning the 
estate of Francisco Suarez, deceased, of which he was administrator, 
waived his privilege and submitted to the jurisdiction, but failed to 
comply with an order of the court to pay a certain sum of money 
into court, and the question arose whether, notwithstanding 
such submission, any writ of execution could be sued out or 
issued, whereby his goods, etc., could be seized. It was held by 
Eve, J., that a minister accredited to Great Britain by a foreign 
state, who has submitted to the jurisdiction, and against whom 
judgment has been pronounced, is nevertheless under the Act of 

1 708 entitled, when leave to issue execution is applied for, to assert 
and obtain immunity from process by way of execution. 2 

A few months later the Bolivian Government terminated the 
defendant's appointment as minister in London, and the plaintiff's 
application for leave to proceed to execution and for liberty to issue 
a writ of sequestration of the defendant's property was restored to 
the list. Eve, J., granted the plaintiff's application, and held 
further that, as the defendant had departed secretly from the 
country knowing that an order for payment had been made against 
him, the sequestration could issue against him, notwithstanding that 
service of the order requiring payment had not actually been made 
upon him. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. 3 

(3) In 1925, in the case Drtilek v. Barbier, before the Cour 
d'Appel at Paris, the chancellor of the Czechoslovak legation 
claimed immunity from distraint. Having rented a flat, he was 
two years later given notice to quit ; relying on French legislation 
concerning rents, he thereupon applied to the courts for reduction 
of rent, and then declined to pay more than the reduced amount 
which he alleged to be due as the result of this legislation. It was 
held by the court that even had his name appeared in the official 
diplomatic list (which it did not) he had waived immunity from 
jurisdiction by invoking against his landlord the benefit of French 
legislation as to rents ; he could not thereafter shelter himself 
against his landlord behind diplomatic privilege. 4 

(4) In 1925, in the case Montwid-Biallozor v. Ivaldi, before the 
Supreme Court of Poland, concerning a contract of lease of a flat 
entered into by the military attache of the Italian legation, which 
provided that " the diplomatic clause shall not be invoked," the 
court held that the courts below should have considered, and that 
the Supreme Court must begin with considering, the question of 
exterritoriality, which is a question of public law. The immunity 
of diplomatic agents from the civil jurisdiction of the receiving 
state being a recognised principle of international law, flowing 

1 Revue Generate du Droit International Public, xiv. 159. 

2 L. R. [1917] 2 Ch. 131. 3 L. R. [1918] i Ch. 176. 
4 Clunet (1926), 638 ; Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 242. 


from the idea of sovereignty and the necessities of international 
intercourse, the privilege accorded by it was not a personal privilege 
of the diplomatic agent, but of the state itself, and that it could 
not therefore be waived in a private contract at the discretion of 
the diplomatic agent and without the approval of his government. 1 

(5) In 1927, in the case Herman v. Apetz, before the Supreme 
Court of New York, the wife of the Costa Rican secretary of legation 
entered appearance, but afterwards pleaded immunity from 
process. The Court observed that there was no doubt that an 
envoy might not waive his diplomatic immunity without consent of 
the sending state ; whether this inability to waive also applied to 
his wife, family and domestic servants, was a matter of conflict 
among text writers ; the better view seemed to be that waiver on 
the part of such persons did not require the consent of the home 
state and was therefore effective. 2 

(6) 1930. Dickenson v. Del Solar-Mobile and General Insurance Co., 
Ltd., third parties. 

This was an action in the King's Bench Division of the High 
Court of Justice against the First Secretary of the Peruvian legation 
in London for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been 
caused by his negligent driving of a motor-car. The defendant was 
forbidden by the Peruvian minister to claim diplomatic immunity, 
and an unconditional appearance was entered on his behalf. But, 
being insured against third party claims, he had called upon the 
company to indemnify him in respect of the plaintiff's claim and 
his own costs. 

A verdict for damages having been given, the insurance company 
disputed their liability to indemnify him, alleging that as he 
possessed diplomatic privilege, there was no legal liability to the 
plaintiff, and so no claim under the policy ; also that by refusing 
to claim diplomatic privilege he had acted in breach of the condi- 
tions of the policy. 

Held : that a person covered by diplomatic immunity is not 
immune from legal liability, but only from proceedings in the local 
jurisdiction (unless he submits thereto) so long as he possesses 
diplomatic status. The defendant was therefore under a legal 
liability to the plaintiff, and there was a claim arising under the 
policy ; 

The privilege of immunity attaching to a person having diplo- 
matic status is the privilege not of himself, but of the sovereign 
by whom he is accredited, and the right of waiver of such privilege 
belongs to such sovereign. The claiming and waiver of the privilege 
was not a matter within the volition of the defendant, who, being 
forbidden by his official superior to claim immunity, could not do 
so, and so his failure to do so could not be said to be a breach of the 
conditions of the policy ; 

The entry of an unconditional appearance to the proceedings, 

1 Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 245. 

2 130 Misc. (N.T.), 618 ; Annual Digest (1927-8), Case No. 244. 


which had been done on the defendant's behalf by the solicitor 
of the third parties, was itself a waiver of the privilege and a sub- 
mission to the jurisdiction, and privilege could not therefore be 
pleaded thereafter by way of defence, and the action must proceed 
to judgment. 

The court refrained from deciding whether, after a submission 
to the jurisdiction, diplomatic immunity could be asserted as a bar 
to the execution of the judgment, since, even if it were so, execution 
might issue as soon as the defendant ceased to be a privileged 
person, and the judgment might be the foundation of proceedings 
against him at any time in Peru. 1 

Proceedings by a Diplomatic Agent 

348. If, on the other hand, the diplomatic agent himself 
chooses to bring an action before the local tribunals, he obliges 
himself, like a sovereign in similar circumstances, to comply 
with the rules of the court. He is liable therefore to defences 
by way of counterclaim to the action (i.e. relating to the same 
matter), 2 and to condemnation in costs (concerning which 
security may perhaps be required) if the suit fails. If the suit 
succeeds, and the defendant prosecutes an appeal, which is 
also a mode of defence, the diplomatic agent cannot decline 
the jurisdiction of the superior court. 

In 1925 a secretary of the Chinese embassy at Berlin, having bought 
a motor car and paid part of the price, brought an action to claim 
possession, offering to pay the balance ; and a provisional order was 
issued decreeing delivery of the car. The defendant, who claimed 
that the contract had lapsed, owing to delay in payment, brought 
a cross-suit, claiming restitution of the car ; and this was decreed, 
the provisional order being revoked. The plaintiff appealed, 
objecting to the counter-claim on the ground of exterritoriality, and 
the appeal was allowed. 

An appeal to the Reichsgericht followed, and it was held that 
as the plaintiff was wrongly in possession, and merely availing 
himself of his exterritoriality to render perpetual the provisional 
decree, thus depriving the defendant of his legal remedies incidental 
to the plaintiff's suit, the plea of exterritoriality could not be 
recognised. Whether a diplomatic agent by bringing an action 

1 L. R. [1930] I K. B. 376 ; British Tear Book of International Law (1930), 

2 See Dicey, Conflict of Laws (4th Ed.), 214: "A sovereign or ambassador 
who brings an action in the High Court undoubtedly submits himself to its juris- 
diction in regard to that action, but no further. This principle decides the extent 
to which the court has jurisdiction to entertain a counterclaim against, e.g., an 
ambassador who is plaintiff in an action. If the counterclaim is really a defence 
to the action, i.e. is a set-off, or something in the nature of a set-off, the court 
has a right to entertain it. If the counterclaim is really a cross-action, the 
court has no jurisdiction to entertain it." See also Hurst, op. cit., ii. 190. 


impliedly accepts the jurisdiction of the court in a cross-suit arising 
out of that action depends upon the merits of each particular case. 1 

Evidence of a Diplomatic Agent 

349. A diplomatic agent cannot be required to attend in 
court to give evidence of facts within his knowledge, nor can 
a member of his family or suite be so compelled. Sometimes 
his evidence has been taken down in writing by a secretary of 
the mission, or by an official whom the diplomatic agent may 
have consented to receive for the purpose, and the evidence 
has been communicated to the court in that form. But in 
some countries evidence, particularly in a criminal case, may 
have to be taken orally and in presence of the accused. 

In 1856 the Netherlands minister at Washington was requested 
by the Secretary of State to appear in court, to give evidence 
regarding a homicide committed in his presence. By the unanimous 
advice of his colleagues he refused. Representations were made to 
the Netherlands Government by that of the United States, which, 
while admitting that in virtue of international usage and of the 
law of the United States, the minister had the right of refusal, 
appealed to the general sense of justice of the Netherlands Govern- 
ment. The latter, however, declined to give the desired instruc- 
tions, but authorised the minister to give his evidence in writing, 
and he accordingly offered to do so, adding that he could not 
submit to cross-examination. The offer was declined, as the district 
Attorney-General reported that such a written statement would 
not be receivable as evidence. 2 

In 1 88 1, at the trial of Guiteau in the United States for the 
assassination of President Garfield, the Venezuelan minister was 
called as a witness for the prosecution, and was authorised by his 
government to waive his rights and appear as a witness.? 

The instructions to United States diplomatic representatives 
are that they cannot be compelled to testify in the country of 
their sojourn before any tribunal whatsoever ; the right being 
regarded as appertaining to their office, and not to their person, 
and one of which they cannot divest themselves except by 
consent of their government. 

35- Writers express different views on this subject. 
Hall 4 considers that where by the laws of the country evidence 
must be given orally before the court, and in the presence of 
the accused, it is proper for the minister, or the member of the 
mission whose evidence is needed, to submit himself for 

1 Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 243. 

2 Calvo, Le Droit international, etc., 1520 n. 

3 Moore, iv. 644-5. * Hall, 235. 


examination in the usual manner ; Calvo, that the principles 
of the law of nations did not allow him to refuse to appear in 
court and give evidence in the presence of the accused where 
the laws of the country absolutely require this to be done ; 
Oppenheim, 1 that no envoy can be obliged, or even 
requested, to appear as a witness in a civil, or criminal, or 
administrative court, or to give evidence before a commis- 
sioner sent to his house ; and Ullmann, 2 that the envoy may, 
if he is so disposed, authorise the appearance of a member 
of his suite or of his household. The Spanish code formerly 
contained provisions to the effect that local magistrates might 
compel the evidence of foreign diplomats ; the entire diplo- 
matic body protested with success to the Spanish Government 
against these provisions. 3 

The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, concern- 
ing diplomatic officers, lays down for signatory states the following 
rule : "Article 21. Persons enjoying immunity from jurisdiction 
may refuse to appear as witnesses before the territorial courts." 

A decree of the Soviet Union of January 14, 1927, declares that 
diplomatic representatives and the members of their missions are 
not obliged to give evidence in court, and in the event of an agree- 
ment to give such evidence they are not obliged to appear in court 
for that purpose. 


351. In the event of members of the diplomatic corps 
dying in England, whether within or without the legation, in 
circumstances which would normally necessitate the holding 
of a coroner's inquest, it appears to have been the practice, 
where immunity has been claimed, to waive the proceedings, 
or, where consent has been given subject to reservations, to 
comply with the latter. 

352. On the suicide of the butler of the British embassy at 
Madrid in 1921, the ambassador waved exterritorial rights to 
the extent of receiving the examining magistrate of the district 
at the embassy, the evidence given by him and some of the 
servants being embodied in a proces-verbal, which stated that 
he had waived those rights for the occasion. 


353- A topic upon which writers, more especially those 
of earlier times, have dwelt largely is that of the independence 
of the diplomatic agent. 

1 Oppenheim, i. 392. 2 Ullmann, 188 n. i. 

3 Foreign Relations of the United States (1877), 492 ; Dedk, op. cit., 206. 


We have seen that international law regards the inviolability 
of the head of a mission as the chief attribute of the diplomatic 
character ; absolute independence is, in principle, its corollary, as 
being in itself the consequence of the independence of the nation 
of which the public minister is the mandatory. 1 

And from this it is deduced that the diplomatic agent 
should abstain from any act likely in any way to prejudice 
that independence. 

" II importe qu'il n'ait rien a esperer, ni rien a craindre du 
souverain auquel il est envoye." 2 

354. A diplomatic agent should be careful to abstain 
from all interference in the domestic affairs of the state to 
which he is accredited. Instances in which such interference 
has led to requests for his recall, or to his dismissal by the state 
concerned, are set out in Chapter XXI. 

In 1925 M. Volhine, secretary to the Soviet embassy at Paris, 
was relieved of his functions in consequence of representations made 
by the French Government regarding a speech made by him at a 
public meeting in France to commemorate Sun Yat-Sen. 3 

The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed 
at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following rule : 
"Article 12. Foreign diplomatic officers may not participate in 
the domestic or foreign politics of the state in which they exercise 
their functions." 

355- O n J une : 5> I 93 I m tne House of Commons, London, 
questions were asked of the Prime Minister regarding certain addresses 
given by members of the Soviet embassy and the Finnish legation 
within the precincts of the House, and it was suggested in reply 
that Members might consider whether in using the committee 
rooms for addresses by members of the diplomatic body upon con- 
troversial questions they were not adopting a practice open to grave 
objection. In reply to further questions by Sir A. Chamberlain 
whether such addresses by foreign diplomats were not contrary to 
diplomatic usage, whether the interference of diplomats in the 
internal affairs of other countries had not led to their being handed 
their passports, and whether it was not right that members of 
embassies and legations should refrain in future from delivering 
addresses of that kind, the Prime Minister said that that was the 
character and nature of the statement he had made, and that he 
hoped its complete significance would not be lost. 4 

Attacks in the Local Press 

356. As regards such attacks directed against diplomatic 
agents in countries to which they are accredited, in cases 

1 de Martens-Geffken, i. 88. 2 Vattel, Droit des Gens, iv., c. 7, 92. 

3 Times, May 12, 1925. * Parliamentary Debates, June 15, 1931. 


where the publications are under the control of the govern- 
ment it is the duty of the latter to prevent this. In 1856 the 
Peruvian Government dismissed the editor of a journal under 
their control which had published an article offensive to the 
resident diplomatic body, and caused their disapproval of his 
action to be published. The codes of many European countries 
punish with severity such offences defamatory to the reputation 
of diplomatic agents. 1 But where, as is often the case, the 
Press is free from government control, and if the articles do 
not transcend the limits fixed by law, the government can 
usually only act indirectly in the matter. 2 During the war of 
1914-18 the Swiss Government found it necessary to prohibit 
by decree propaganda directed against the German minister 
and military attache. 

Jurisdiction over Members of Suite 
357- O n this point Oppenheim says : 

" As the members of an envoy's retinue are considered exterri- 
torial, the receiving state has no jurisdiction over them, and the 
home state may therefore delegate civil and criminal jurisdiction 
to the envoy. But no receiving state is required to grant self- 
jurisdiction to an ambassador beyond a certain reasonable limit. 
Thus, an envoy must have jurisdiction over his retinue in matters 
of discipline, he must be able to order the arrest of a member of his 
retinue who has committed a crime and is to be sent home for his 
trial, and the like. But no civilised state would nowadays allow 
an envoy himself to try a member of his retinue, though in former 
centuries this used to happen." 3 

358. Recently Baron Heyking observes : 

" L'ambassadeur est le chef de tout le personnel de 1'ambassade 
et possede en cette qualite une juridiction disciplinaire. Mais 
a-t-il encore d'autres droits judiciaires ? Grotius etait de 1'opinion 
que 1'fitat qui recoit avait a decider sur 1'admissibilite de la 
juridiction personnelle des ambassadeurs. Par centre Bynkershoek 
soutenait que 1'Etat qui envoie avait seul le pouvoir d'accorder ce 
droit. Une combinaison des deux opinions donne le vrai principe ; 
la juridiction personnelle exige un double titre legal et ne peut se 
produire que lorsque 1'fitat qui envoie et celui qui re$oit consentent 
des deux cotes. Elle se borne aujourd'hui, dans la plupart des 
fitats europeens, a la juridiction volontaire en matiere civile et a 
ce qu'on appelle ' premier precede ' (erster AngrifT) en matiere 
criminelle. C'est-a-dire que Ton precede apres 1'arrestation a la 
constatation des faits et le delinquant est renvoye ensuite dans sa 

1 Dedk, op. cit., 538. 2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 132. 

3 Oppenheim, i. 396. 


patrie, ou il est 1'objet d'une instruction formelle. L'ambassadeur 
est, a cette occasion, en droit de requerir les autorites et les tribunaux 
locaux. Pour les delits ou contraventions de police, 1'ambassadeur 
ne doit jamais depasser la mesure d'une punition correctionnelle." * 

359- But in times gone by diplomatic agents claimed a 
more extensive jurisdiction over the members of their suites. 

According to early writers, a distinction was to be drawn 
between (i) an offence against his own country, or a fellow subject, 
committed within the embassy, in which case the agent claimed 
the right to send home the accused in fetters to the courts of his 
own country for punishment ; and (2) an offence committed outside 
the embassy against a subject of the state, or against public order, 
in which case, in order to avoid disputes, the envoy either dismissed 
the offender from his service, or handed him over to the local 
authorities on their requisition. But the latter did not apply to 
members of the diplomatic personnel, whom he had no power to 
dismiss, and he had either to arrange for their dismissal with his 
own government, with a view to the surrender of the culprit to the 
authorities, or for an order to send him home for punishment. 2 

A famous case is that of the Due de Sully, who in 1603 was sent 
on a special mission from France to James I. Combault, a 
member of his mission, having killed an Englishman, Sully sent a 
message to the Mayor of London, saying that he had condemned 
the offender to be decapitated, and asking for the services of an 
executioner on the following morning. The Mayor having 
counselled moderation, Sully replied that he saw no way of satisfy- 
ing his own people and the Mayor, but to ask the latter to take 
charge of the prisoner, and to inflict on him whatever penalty the 
law of England might prescribe. Combault was accordingly 
handed over, but was pardoned by James I at the solicitation of 
the French ambassador-in-ordinary. 3 

Civil Jurisdiction 
360. Oppenheim says : 

'' Negotiation, observation and protection are tasks common to 
all diplomatic envoys of every state. But a state may order its 
permanent envoys to perform other tasks, such as the registration 
of deaths, births, and marriages of subjects of the home state, 
legalisation of their signatures, issue of passports for them, and the 
like. But, in doing this, a state must be careful not to order its 
envoys to perform tasks which are by the law of the receiving 
state exclusively reserved to its own officials. Thus, for instance, 
a state whose laws compel persons who intend marriage to conclude 

1 Heyking, op. cit., ii. 268. 

2 Schmelzing, ii. 241 ; Schmalz, Europaisches Vb'lkerrecht, 118. 

3 Michaud and Poujoulat, Nouvelle Collection de Memoires, etc., ii. 444. 


it in the presence of its registrars, need not allow a foreign envoy 
to legalise a marriage of compatriots before its registration by the 
official registrar. So, too, a state need not allow a foreign envoy 
to perform an act which is reserved for its jurisdiction, as, for 
instance, the examination of witnesses on oath." * 

At the present day, however, most of these matters fall 
within the province of consular officers, who are often em- 
powered, under rules issued for their guidance, to perform 
notarial and other acts in respect of their compatriots, within 
the limits allowable by the laws of the state wherein they 

361. As regards marriages at foreign embassies and 
legations, where such are possible, these, even if valid under 
the law of the state which the ambassador or minister repre- 
sents, are not necessarily so in the law of the state in which 
they are celebrated, and in many instances it is known they 
are not. 

362. While statements are to be found in text-books of 
repute that marriages at foreign embassies and legations in 
England would be valid in English law, no decided case 
appears to be mentioned in which this has been laid down by 
a court of law, and in the circumstances it would be difficult 
to say definitely that any such marriages are valid in English 
law. In the case of such marriages between persons who are 
not both nationals of the country in whose embassy or legation 
the marriage was celebrated, the best opinion appears to be 
that they are invalid in English law. 

Domicile and Nationality 

363. Diplomatic agents 2 and their staffs maintain their 
domicile in their own country, and children born to them in 
the country where they are temporarily residing in the per- 
formance of their official duties have as a general rule the 
nationality of their parents, and are not claimed as nationals 
by the latter country. In English law the children born in 
Great Britain of members of foreign missions having diplo- 
matic immunity are not deemed to be British subjects, though 
their births should be registered in order to comply with the 
local law ; while children born abroad of British subjects 
who are members of British diplomatic missions are deemed to 
be British subjects under statute law, or, in certain cases, the 
common law. 

1 Oppenheim, i. 382. 2 Hall, 236. 



364. While the foregoing paragraphs of this chapter relate 
to permanent missions accredited to foreign countries, missions 
of a temporary character are sometimes sent, as, for instance, 
when a special agent is accredited to represent his sovereign 
or country at a coronation or other royal ceremony, to invest 
a sovereign with a high decoration, or on the occasion of some 
important national celebration. Such representatives also 
enjoy diplomatic immunities and privileges both as regards 
themselves and their suites. (See 78-9.) 

365. As regards delegates to the numerous conferences 
now held on a great variety of matters, some doubt might 
perhaps be felt, in the absence of cases arising for settlement, 
as to the extent of the immunities to which they and the 
members of their suites are entitled. Formerly international 
congresses and conferences were for the most part attended by 
personages of high ministerial rank, or by resident diplomatic 
agents who already possessed diplomatic privilege ; now the 
plenipotentiaries appointed are often officials or persons 
chosen for their special knowledge of the subject to be discussed, 
who with their retinues constitute the delegations to the con- 
ference. In the view of most writers such representatives are 
entitled to full diplomatic privilege. 

" Ces personnes n'occupant pas un rang determine dans la 
hierarchic diplomatique, leur qualite se trouve essentiellement 
attachee a la nature de leur mission, qui est de representer les 
interets d'un fitat non point aupres d'un tat etranger, mais 
aupres de tous les fitats participant au congres. Or, la doctrine 
moderne admet que la qualite diplomatique est attachee a la 
fonction et a la nature de la mission plus qu'au titre. Elle recon- 
nait 1'utilite des distinctions de classes et de rangs, mais se refuse 
a les considerer comrne substantielles, toutes les personnes qui 
representent regulierement leur souverain ou leur pays ayant 
egalement un caractere officiel qui leur assure des prerogatives et 
immunites analogues. II semble done que Ton ne soit pas fonde a 
refuser aux delegues aux congres et conferences la qualite de 
ministres publics. . . ." l 

" Among the envoys political, again, two kinds are to be dis- 
tinguished namely, (i) such as are permanently or temporarily 
accredited to a state for the purpose of negotiating with such state, 
and (2) such as are sent to represent the sending state at a congress 
or conference. The latter are not, or need not be, accredited to 
the state on whose territory the congress or conference takes 

1 Secretan, Les Immunitis Diplomatique; des Representants des iZtats Membres et des 
Agents de la Socilte des Nations, 8. 



place, but they are nevertheless diplomatic envoys, and enjoy all 
the privileges of such envoys as regards exterritoriality and the 
like which concern the inviolability and safety of their persons 
and the members of their suites." 1 

" The case of negotiators at a congress or conference is exceptional. 
Though they are not accredited to the government of the state in 
which it is held, they are entitled to complete diplomatic privileges, 
they being as a matter of fact representatives of their state and 
engaged in the exercise of diplomatic functions." 2 

" At a Peace congress or conference, or at such an assembly for 
any other purpose, each Power represented may appoint as many 
plenipotentiaries as it may consider convenient to itself, who 
may be assisted by technical delegates, naval, military, economic 
and legal, and by secretaries. The members of the delegation will 
enjoy all the ordinary privileges and immunities usually accorded 
to diplomatists." 3 

The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed 
at Havana, concerning diplomatic officers, contains the following 
articles : 

" Art. i. States have the right of being represented before each 
other through diplomatic officers. 

Art. 2. Diplomatic officers are classed as ordinary and extra- 
ordinary. Those who permanently represent the government of 
one state before that of another are ordinary. Those entrusted 
with a special mission or those who are accredited to represent the 
government in international conferences and congresses or other 
international bodies are extraordinary. 

Art. 3. Except as concerns precedence and etiquette, diplo- 
matic officers, whatever their category, have the same rights, pre- 
rogatives and immunities. Etiquette depends upon diplomatic 
usages in general as well as upon the laws and regulations of the 
country to which the officers are accredited. 

Art. 4. In addition to the functions indicated in their creden- 
tials, ordinary officers possess the attributes which the laws and 
decrees of the respective countries may confer upon them. They 
should exercise their attributes without coming into conflict with 
the laws of the country to which they are accredited." 

" Art. 9. Extraordinary diplomatic officers enjoy the same pre- 
rogatives and immunities as ordinary ones." 

366. Within recent times diplomatic privileges and im- 
munities have been extended by treaty provisions to certain 
officials and persons. Under Article 24 and Article 46 of 
the Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of Inter- 
national Disputes, of 1899 and 1907 respectively, the members 
of arbitration tribunals constituted thereunder enjoy such 

1 Oppenheim, i. 363. 2 Hall, 365. 

3 Satow, International Congresses, 13. 


privileges and immunities. Under Article 7 of the Covenant 
of the League of Nations representatives of the members of 
the League and officials of the League when engaged on the 
business of the League enjoy them. (See 830.) Under 
Article 19 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of Inter- 
national Justice the members of that court, when engaged on 
the business of the court, are guaranteed similar rights. (See 
837.) The international commissions set up in the case of 
certain European rivers also enjoy them. And the repara- 
tion articles of the treaties of peace provided for such rights 
being enjoyed by members of the reparation commissions set 
up thereunder. 

367. In a recent article on ' Diplomatic Immunities, 
Modern Developments," * Sir C. Hurst, in commenting on 
such extensions, refers to the cases mentioned above in 
334 (4)> (5) an d 342, where the French, Belgian and British 
Governments successively intervened to safeguard the diplo- 
matic privilege of the persons concerned, and observes : 

" Developments are taking place as regards the tasks imposed 
upon diplomatic missions, and as regards the categories of persons 
engaged upon international work, who should be free from sub- 
jection to the local jurisdiction. The final decision rests with the 
executive government, not with the courts, as to what individuals 
are entitled to the privilege, and this enables the adjustments in 
the application of the fundamental principles, which are necessary 
for meeting the new developments, to be made satisfactorily." 2 

368. A recent case in the German courts may, however, 
be mentioned : 

In 1926, in a case before the Oberlandesgericht at Darmstadt, 
concerning a person whom the German Foreign Office refused to 
recognise as a member of a foreign legation entitled to diplomatic 
privilege, the court held that according to German constitutional 
and administrative law, German courts are only in certain specific 
cases bound by the opinions of government authorities ; the 
declaration of the Foreign Office on a question of exterritoriality 
does not formally bind the courts, and the Foreign Office has itself 
expressed the opinion that a declaration made by it was not binding 
on a German court. 3 

369. But persons charged with particular functions of one 
kind or another, and not forming part of the personnel of a 
diplomatic mission, such as representatives at exhibitions, or 

1 British Year Book of International Law (1929), i. 

2 Ibid., 13. 3 Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 244. 


who may be deputed to facilitate the application of tariffs in 
matters of trade, and in general non-official persons, cannot 
claim immunity as of right. 1 Such special facilities as may be 
accorded to them rest rather on a basis of courtesy, and this 
seems also the case where commissioners are appointed for the 
regulation of particular matters requiring adjustment which 
are outside the scope of the ordinary duties of the diplomatic 
representative. Of these Hall says 2 : 

" Commissioners for special objects are not considered so to 
represent their government, or to be employed in such functions, 
as to acquire diplomatic immunities. They are, however, held to 
have a right to special protection, and courtesy may sometimes 
demand something more. It would probably not be incorrect to 
say that no very distinct practice has been formed as to their treat- 
ment, contentious cases not having sufficiently arisen." 

370. Under the former Trade Agreement of March 16, 
1921, between Great Britain and the Russian Soviet Republic, 
immunity from search and arrest was provided for in the case 
of the official agents appointed thereunder, but not immunity 
from civil process. In the civil action Fenton Textile Association 
v. Krassin and Others (1921), it was held by the Court of Appeal 
in London that as the defendant had not been recognised by 
any competent authority in England in any other capacity 
than that of official agent under the Trade Agreement, his 
status was insufficient to carry with it the immunity accorded 
to accredited and recognised representatives of foreign states. 
In the course of his judgment Lord Justice Scrutton observed : 

" The question of the exact limits of diplomatic privilege is so 
important as to justify me in declining to lay down any general 
principle unless the facts of the case require it. It is sufficient to 
say that so long as our government negotiates with a person as 
representing a recognised foreign state about matters of concern as 
between nation and nation, without further definition of his posi- 
tion, I am inclined to think that such representative may be entitled 
to immunity though not accredited or received by the King. If the 
question in the present case had been the position of M. Krassin when 
he was as representing the Russian Soviet Government negotiating 
the Trade Agreement with His Majesty's Government, I should 
have been inclined to think that the view expressed by Lord Curzon 
in his letter of July 26, 1920, that M. Krassin should be exempted 
from the process of the court was correct. But as such representa- 
tive he negotiated a Trade Agreement which authorised the appoint- 
ment of official trade agents in this country by the Russian Govern- 

1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 155. 2 Hall, 371. 


merit who should have certain specified and carefully defined 
privileges and immunities. These privileges and immunities do 
not include immunity from civil process." x 

371. The temporary Commercial Agreement between 
Great Britain and the Soviet Union, signed at London, 
April 1 6, 1930,2 contains the following provisions : 

"Art. 2. (i) In view of the fact that, by virtue of the laws 
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the foreign trade of the 
Union is a state monopoly, His Majesty's Government in the 
United Kingdom agree to accord to the Government of the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics the right to establish in London a 
Trade Delegation, consisting of the Trade Representative of the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and his two deputies, forming 
part of the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 

(2) The head of the Trade Delegation shall be the Trade 
Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the 
United Kingdom. He and his two deputies shall, by virtue of 
paragraph i of the present Article, be accorded all diplomatic 
privileges and immunities, and immunity shall attach to the offices 
occupied by the Trade Delegation (5th Floor, East Wing, Bush 
House, Aldwych, London) and used exclusively for the purpose 
defined in paragraph 3 of the present Article. No member of the 
staff of the Trade Delegation, other than the Trade Representative 
and his two deputies, shall enjoy any privileges or immunities other 
than those which are, or may be, enjoyed in the United Kingdom 
by officials of the state-controlled trading organisations of other 

'' (6) Any questions which may arise in respect of commercial 
transactions entered into in the United Kingdom by the Trade 
Delegation shall be determined by the Courts of the United 
Kingdom in accordance with the laws thereof." 

Additional Protocol. " With reference to paragraph 6 of 
Article 2, it is understood that the privileges and immunities con- 
ferred on the head of the Trade Delegation and his two deputies by 
paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the present Agreement shall not be 
claimed in connection with any proceedings before the Courts of the 
United Kingdom arising out of commercial transactions entered 
into in the United Kingdom by the Trade Delegation of the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics." 

1 38 T. L. R. (1921), 259. 2 Treaty Series, No. 19 (1930). 



372. IMMUNITY attaches to the house of the diplomatic agent 
and other premises devoted to diplomatic purposes, and to 
any building occupied by him with a view to the execution of 
his functions, whether the property of his government, or his 
own, or merely rented by him. 1 No officer of state, and in 
particular no police officer, tax-collector or officer of a court 
of law, can enter his residence, nor without consent discharge 
any function therein. The immunity extends to carriages 
(though not, of course, as regards compliance with the ordinary 
regulations governing control of traffic), and also to boats, 
and it may yet be to aeroplanes. 

The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed 
at Havana, which in its preamble says that it incorporates the 
principles generally accepted by all nations, lays down for the 
signatory states the following rule : " Art. 16. No judicial or 
administrative functionary or official of the state to which the 
diplomatic officer is accredited may enter the domicile of the latter, 
or of the mission, without his consent." 

373- The immunity of the agent's residence is so generally 
recognised that it is only necessary to mention briefly certain 
incidents of the past in which it was called in question. 

In 1 808 a servant of Admiral Apodaca, diplomatic agent of the 
Supreme Junta of Seville at London, being charged with a criminal 
offence, was arrested in the legation. Apodaca said that he had 
no objection to the servant being tried, and convicted if he were 
found guilty, but he protested against the violation of his diplomatic 
privilege in arresting a servant within his house without previous 
notice. In his subsequent report to his Government he stated that 
the servant had been released, and that he had declared himself 
satisfied. 2 It seems probable, therefore, that verbal explanations 
were made to him and some apology offered. 

1 Hurst, Les ImmuniUs Diplomatique*, Cours de La Haye (1926), ii. 131, 162. 
3 Villa-Urrutia, i. 304. 


In 1827 the coachman of Mr. Gallatin, United States minister 
at London, was arrested in the stable of the legation, charged with 
assault. The correspondence shows that the British Government 
upheld the action taken, and that Mr. Gallatin, who had in the 
meantime dismissed the servant, dissented from the views expressed. 
As the outcome of this case, steps were taken by the British Govern- 
ment to ensure that no similar arrest of the servant of a foreign 
minister should in future take place without a previous communica- 
tion being made to the minister, in order that his convenience 
might be consulted as to the method of putting the warrant into 
execution. 1 

374. But the immunity affords no justification for giving 
shelter to criminals, and, in such a case, a government would 
be justified in taking measures to compel the surrender of 
the criminal. They might surround the house by police, to 
prevent the escape of the fugitive, and complain to the govern- 
ment which had accredited the agent, and demand his recall. 
Neither can the carriage of the agent serve as a refuge. 

375. Hall 2 says that in Europe it has been completely 
established that the house of a diplomatic agent gives no 
protection either to ordinary criminals or to persons accused of 
crimes against the state. 

" It is agreed that the house of a diplomatic agent is so far ex- 
empted from the operation of the territorial jurisdiction as is 
necessary to secure the free exercise of his functions. It is equally 
agreed that this immunity ceases to hold in those cases in which a 
government is justified in arresting an ambassador and in searching 
his papers : an immunity which exists for the purpose of securing the 
enjoyment of a privilege comes naturally to an end when a right of dis- 
regarding the privilege has arisen. Whether, except in this extreme 
case, the possibility of embarrassment to the minister is so jealously 
guarded against as to deprive the local authorities of all right of 
entry irrespective of his leave, or whether the right of entry exists 
whenever the occasion of it is so remote from diplomatic interests 
as to render it unlikely that they will be endangered, can hardly 
be looked upon as settled." 3 

376. Oppenheim goes further : 

" If an envoy abuses this immunity, the receiving government 
need not bear it passively. There is, therefore, no obligation on the 
part of the receiving state to grant an envoy the right of affording an 
asylum to criminals, or to other individuals not belonging to his 
suite. Of course an envoy need not deny entrance to criminals 
who want to take refuge in the embassy. But he must surrender 
them to the prosecuting government at its request ; and, if he 
refuses, any measures may be taken to induce him to do so, apart 

1 For the correspondence in the case see the and edition of this work, i. 295. 

2 Hall, 233. 3 Hall, 231. 


from such as would involve attack on his person. Thus, the embassy 
may be surrounded by soldiers, and eventually the criminal may 
even forcibly be taken out of the embassy. But such measures of 
force are justifiable only if the case is an urgent one, and after the 
envoy has in vain been required to surrender the criminal." l 

377. Against this may be set the view of Dr. Hannis Taylor, 
who, after stating that an envoy must not harbour criminals 
not of his suite, and discussing the right of asylum for political 
refugees in certain countries, proceeded thus to define the 
immunity of the agent's residence : 

" Subject to the foregoing exceptions, the general statement may 
be made that, while the exact limits of the inviolability of the hotel 
are not perfectly defined, a fair result of reasoning on principle and 
of a comparison of authorities is that the residence of the minister 
should enjoy absolute immunity from the execution of all compul- 
sory process within its limits, and from all forcible intrusions. ' If 
it can be rightfully entered at all without the consent of its occupant 
it can only be so entered in consequence of an order emanating 
from the supreme authority of the country in which the minister 
resides, and for which it will be held responsible by his government ' 
(Mr. Buchanan, U.S. Secretary of State, to Mr. Shields, March 22, 
i8 4 8). 2 

378. Vattel says : " C'est done au souverain de decider, 
dans 1'occasion, jusqu'a quel point on doit respecter le droit 
d'asile qu'un ambassadeur attribue a son hotel " 3 ; and it 
seems clear that, in any such eventuality, the action should 
only betaken with the express authorisation of the government, 
and on its direct responsibility. 4 

379. In 1929 a serious dispute occurred between Nepal and 
Tibet, owing to the act of the Tibetan police at Lhasa in entering the 
Nepalese legation and forcibly removing a man, claiming to be a 
Nepalese, who, having been arrested for an offence against Tibetan 
laws, had escaped from gaol, and had taken refuge at the legation. 
The matter was eventually terminated by a letter of apology 
addressed by the Tibetan Government to the Nepalese Government, 
which was accepted by the latter. 

380. The immunity of the agent's dwelling extends to 
those of his official staff. 5 

" Pour donner a 1'ambassadeur une complete liberte d'action 
dans l'tat qui le recoit, 1'exterritorialite de sa personne seule ne 
suffit pas. Sa charge et ses devoirs representatifs le mettent en 
rapport direct avec son entourage, ensemble par le canal duquel 
le pouvoir etranger peut agir indirectement sur lui. G'est pourquoi 

1 Oppenheim, i. 390. 2 A Treatise on Public International Law, 313. 

3 Droit des Gens, iv., c. 9, 1 18. 

4 Hurst, op. tit., ii. 214. 5 Nys, Le Droit International, ii. 387. 


I'exterritorialite de 1'ambassadeur a etc etendue a certaines per- 
sonnes et a certaines choses, ayant toutes une relation intime avec 
1'exercice de ses fonctions. Pour cette cause les personnes qui 
jouissent de 1'exterritorialite sont : 1'epouse, les enfants, ainsi que 
les autres membres de la famille de 1'ambassadeur ; son personnel 
de service, savoir les secretaires et les attaches d'ambassade, et le 
personnel de sa maison." l 

The Pan- American Convention of February 20, 1928, referred 

to above in 372, lays down for the signatory states the following 
rules : "Article 14. Diplomatic officers shall be inviolate as to their 
persons, their residence, private or official, and their property. 
This inviolability covers : (a) all classes of diplomatic officers ; 
(b) the entire official personnel of the diplomatic mission ; (c) the 
members of the respective families living under the same roof ; 
(d) the papers, archives, and correspondence of the mission." 

381. Article 4 of a decree of the Soviet Union of January 14, 
1927, framed on a basis of reciprocity, declares that the premises 
occupied by diplomatic missions, and also the premises in which the 
following persons and their families are living, viz. : counsellors 
(including commercial), first, second and third secretaries and 
attaches (including commercial, financial, military and naval), enjoy 
immunity. In these premises domiciliary search or seizure can 
only take place at the request of, or by agreement with, the diplo- 
matic representative, provided that when the search or seizure is 
carried out, it takes place in the presence of a representative of the 
Procurator's department and of a representative of the People's 
Commissariat for Foreign Affairs if there should be one in the 
given locality. Such premises may not be sealed up. Entry into 
them may not take place otherwise than with the consent of the 
diplomatic representative. Nevertheless the immunity of these 
premises does not confer the right forcibly to detain any person 
whatsoever therein, nor does it confer the right to afford asylum 
to persons in regard to whom decisions have been taken by the 
organs of the Soviet Union and Allied Republics authorised thereto 
in regard to the arrest. 

382. If a crime is committed within the embassy or 
legation by a person from without, the offender should be 
handed over to the local authorities. 

'' Lorsque les sujets du pays, dans le sens restreint ou etendu, 
subditi temporarii ou perpetui, commettent un mefait dans un hotel 
d'ambassade, la competence des tribunaux locaux doit etre 
absolument reconnue ; ce qui n'empeche pas que 1'hotel de 1'ambas- 
sade soit exterritorial, dans le sens d'une exemption du pouvoir 
territorial de 1'fitat, autant que cela paraitrait necessaire pour 
le libre exercice des fonctions de 1'ambassadeur." 2 

1 Heyking, L' Exterritoriality Cours de La Haye (1925), ii. 267. 
" Ibid., 269. 


The Pan- American Convention of February 20, 1928, referred 
to above, lays down for the signatory states the following rule : 
"Article 17. Diplomatic officers are obliged to deliver to the com- 
petent local authority that requests it any person accused or con- 
demned for ordinary crimes, who may have taken refuge in the 
mission." (See also 396.) 

In 1865 a Russian subject named Mickilchenkoff (or Nikits- 
chenkow), having obtained admission into the Russian embassy at 
Paris, assaulted and wounded an attache, and the police being 
applied to, entered the house and arrested him. The ambassador 
demanded that the man should be given up to him, to be sent to 
Russia for trial. The French Government refused, saying that the 
principle did not cover the case of a stranger entering the embassy 
and there committing a crime, but that, even if it did, the privilege 
had been waived by calling in the police. The Russian Govern- 
ment admitted the jurisdiction of the French court, and the 
prisoner was tried by the local law. 1 

In 1880 the tribunal at Berlin gave a decision in the same 
sense in the case of an offence committed in a foreign embassy at 
Berlin by a foreigner who formed no part of the personnel of the 

mission. 2 

In 1909 a similar attempt was made in the Bulgarian legation 
at Paris, against a member of the personnel, by a Bulgarian named 
Trochanqff, and the minister himself initiated criminal proceedings 
against the offender before the tribunal of the Seine. The court 
rejected the theory put forward in defence that the offence having 
been committed in the legation should be considered as having 
been committed in foreign territory ; so far as regards Trochanoff 
the legation formed part of the territory of France. 3 

Certain other cases in Germany, France and Italy, involv- 
ing the exercise of the local criminal or civil jurisdiction in 
respect of events which had happened within a foreign embassy 
or legation, are referred to by Sir C. Hurst. 4 On the other 
hand : 

In 1928, in a case before the Supreme Court of Hungary, con- 
cerning one Zoltan Sz., who had induced the passport authorities 
in the Hungarian legation at Vienna to issue a passport by fraudu- 
lent means, it was held that the premises, which enjoyed the 
privileges of exterritoriality, must be regarded as Hungarian 
territory, and that accordingly all acts committed therein must be 
judged according to the rules of Hungarian law. 5 

383. The enforced detention of a private person within 
a foreign embassy or legation would call for the intervention 
of the government concerned. 

1 Wheaton, International Law, 339. 2 Clunet (1882), 326. 

3 Clunet (1910), 551. * Op. cit., ii. 147-9. 

6 Annual Digest (1927-8), Case No. 252. 


In 1896 Sun Tat-Sen, a Chinese national, and political refugee, 
was detained as a prisoner in the Chinese legation at London, with 
the apparent intention of transporting him to China. On the 
matter coming to light, his friends applied to the court for the issue 
of a writ of habeas corpus, but the court declined, 1 doubting the 
propriety of such action where a foreign legation was concerned, 
and considering the matter rather one for diplomatic proceedings. 
The Chinese minister was thereupon formally requested to release 
the man, whose detention was contrary to law, and an abuse of 
diplomatic privilege. He was released on the following day. 

384. A curious incident, reported in the Press of October 
1929,2 related to the counsellor of the Soviet embassy at Paris, 
who, having been ordered to return to Russia, escaped from 
the embassy, and complained to the police that his wife and 
child were detained within it. But, in the absence of the 
ambassador, he became temporarily the head of the mission, 
and in this capacity, with the assistance of the police, the release 
of the family was effected. 

385. The immunity of the residence extends also to all 
goods requisite for the fulfilment of the mission. 

Toutes les choses qui appartiennent a la personne du ministre, 
tout ce qui sert a son entretien et a celui de sa maison, tout cela a 
1'independance du ministre, et est absolument exempt de toute 
juridiction dans le pays. (Vattel.) 3 

386. A case to the contrary, which is often mentioned, is 
that of Mr. Wheaton, United States minister at Berlin in 1839. 

Under the Prussian civil law then in force, the proprietor of the 
house in which Mr. Wheaton resided claimed the right of detaining 
his goods found on the premises at the expiration of the lease, in 
order to secure payment of damages alleged to be due for injuries 
to the house during the contract. The Prussian Government 
decided that the general exemption, under the law of nations, of the 
personal property of foreign ministers from the local jurisdiction 
did not extend to the case where, it was contended, the right of 
detention was created by the contract itself, and by the legal effect 
given to it by the local law. The matter was argued between the 
Prussian and the United States governments without their being 
able to come to an agreement on the point of law. 4 

387. The view of the United States Government in such 
a matter was shown in the case of an attache to the French 
legation at Washington, whose landlord sought to prevent his 

1 Mew's Digest of English Law Cases, ii. 306 ; Shortt and Mellor's Practice of the 
Crown Office (and ed.), 318. 

a Times, Oct. 4, 1929. 3 Droit dts Gens, iv. c. 8, 1 13. 4 Wheaton, op. cit., 347. 


departure. The United States attorney-general said it was 
impossible to have recourse to force to seize the property of 
a public minister, whether personal or official, against his 
will, by process or otherwise ; neither international law nor 
American law recognised any difference. 1 

388. The inviolability of the agent's residence extends to 
goods therein, though not the property of a person having 
claim to diplomatic immunity ; execution cannot therefore be 
levied on such goods without the agent's consent. 2 

389. While it is generally recognised that a diplomatic 
agent preserves his immunity on the termination of his 
mission for such reasonable time as may be necessary to enable 
him to complete and dispose of the affairs of his mission, yet 
on his departure goods left by him become, in the event arising, 
subject to the local jurisdiction. 3 

390. As regards inquests, in the case of deaths which may 
occur within an embassy or legation, see 351-2. 

Right of Asylum 

391. It is now an established doctrine in Europe that no 
right to give asylum to political refugees in the house of a 
diplomatic agent exists. 4 But formerly the practice was 
extensively exercised, and in Spain during the civil war 
between Christines and Carlists, and in 1848, and between 
1865 and 1875. And at Constantinople in 1895 a former 
Turkish grand vizier took shelter at the British embassy there 
until an assurance was received that his life was in no danger. 

392. Among notable cases of the past are the following : 

In 1726 the Duke de Ripperda, a Dutch officer, and minister of 
the States-General at Madrid, who afterwards became Spanish 
minister of finance and foreign affairs, fell into discredit, and, 
alarmed at the readiness with which his resignation was accepted, 
fled to the British embassy. The ambassador gave an assurance 
that he would not allow Ripperda to leave until he had given up 
certain important papers of state said to be in his possession. 
Nevertheless, soldiers were posted in the vicinity of the embassy, 
with orders to examine all persons and carriages issuing from it, 
and the Spanish Council of Castile having been invoked, held that 
the Duke had been guilty of lese-majeste, and that he could be taken 
by force from the embassy without infringing the privileges awarded 
to ambassadors or violating the law of nations. Ripperda was 
thereupon arrested within the embassy by armed force and his 

1 5 Op. of Alt. -Gen., 69 ; Dedk, Classification, etc., des Agents diplomatiques, Revue 
de Droit International (1928), 536. 

2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 192. 3 Ibid., 240. * Hall, 233. 


papers seized. In the correspondence which followed, the British 
Government protested that only an extreme necessity could justify 
the violation of the immunity of an ambassador's house, and 
expressed the hope that the Spanish King would see that it was to 
his own interest to make the necessary reparation. But on receiving 
the reply that the Spanish King saw no reason to concern himself 
further about the affair, the correspondence assumed a bitter tone. 
Hostilities having broken out in the following year, peace was not 
restored till the signature of the Treaty of Seville in 1729, in 
Article I of which it was stipulated that there should be " an 
oblivion of all that is past." x 


In 1747 one Springer, a Russian subject, domiciled at Stockholm, 
being accused of high treason against the King of Sweden, took 
refuge in the hotel of the British minister at Stockholm. Under 
threats of compulsion, the minister consented to surrender the man, 
but protested against the violation of the law of nations and the 
privileges of diplomatists. On receiving his report, the British 
Government instructed him to address to the King of Sweden 
a memorial, in which it was laid down as an incontrovertible 
maxim that the residence of a foreign minister ought to enjoy 
the right of asylum, so long as the right was not abolished by 
mutual consent. In reply, the Swedish Government denied the 
assertions of the minister as to the treatment he had received, and 
sought to lay the whole blame on him for what had occurred. As 
a result, the minister was instructed to leave Stockholm as soon as 
possible, without taking leave of the King, and the Swedish minister 
in London received similar orders in consequence. 2 

394. In Latin-American countries asylum has often been 
sought at foreign legations by political refugees on the occasion 
of revolutionary outbreaks, and the custom exists up to the 
present day. A report from the Times correspondent at 
Rio de Janeiro of November 15, IQ3O, 3 after the recent civil 
disturbances in Brazil, says : 

" The Secretary of the Cattete Palace 4 announces that political 
refugees in foreign embassies and legations will, in accordance with 
international law, be granted permission to leave for some place 
abroad, so long as they do not go to neighbouring countries. The 
Provisional Government is working with the embassies and lega- 
tions concerned to settle the date of departure. When this has 
been accomplished, the refugees will leave by the first available 
steamers, without prejudice to the actions and trial which some of 
them will have to answer later for alleged offences committed 
against federal and state treasuries." 

1 C. de Martens, Causes celebres, etc., i. 1 74 ; Jenkinson, ii. 307. 

2 C. de Martens, op. cit., i. 326. 3 Times, Nov. 16, 1930. 
4 The official residence of the Federal President. 


395. In 1889 a convention regarding international 
criminal law was concluded between the Argentine Republic, 
Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, by Article 1 7 of which 
it was provided that asylum in a legation should be respected 
in the case of persons prosecuted for political offences, with 
the obligation for the head of the legation immediately to 
acquaint the government of the state to which he was accredited 
with the fact, which government could demand that the refugee 
should be sent out of the national territory with as little delay as 
possible. The head of the mission could, in his turn, demand 
the necessary guarantees for the fugitive being allowed to leave 
the territory without interference. The same principle was 
to be observed with respect to refugees who found asylum on 
board vessels of war lying within territorial waters. But this 
Article only applied as between the contracting parties. 

Nevertheless, non-signatory Powers, such as the United 
States, Great Britain and France, besides others, have on 
various occasions granted diplomatic asylum to political 
refugees. During the civil war in Chile in 1891 as many as 
eighty were received in the United States legation, as many 
more in that of Spain, five in the French, two in the German 
and eight in the Brazilian legations. 1 

396. At the Pan-American conference at Havana in 1928 
a convention was signed between the American republics repre- 
sented, with a view of fixing the rules to be observed in their 
mutual relations for the grant of asylum. This convention of 
February 20, 1928, provides : 

" Art. i. It is not permissible for states to grant asylum in 
legations, warships, military camps or military aircraft, to persons 
accused or condemned for common crimes, or to deserters from the 
army or navy. 

Persons accused of or condemned for common crimes taking 
refuge in any of the places mentioned in the preceding paragraph 
shall be surrendered upon request of the local government. . . . 

Art. 2. Asylum granted to political offenders in legations, war- 
ships, military camps or military aircraft, shall be respected to 
the extent to which allowed, as a right, or through humanitarian 
toleration, by the usages, the conventions, or the laws of the 
country in which granted, and in accordance with the following 
provisions : 

(i) Asylum may not be granted except in urgent cases and for 
the period of time strictly indispensable for the person 
who has sought asylum to ensure in some other way his 
safety ; 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1891. 


(2) Immediately upon granting asylum, the diplomatic agent, 

commander of a warship or military camp or aircraft, 
shall report the fact to the minister of foreign relations 
of the state of the person who has secured asylum, or to 
the local administrative authority, if the act occurred 
outside the capital ; 

(3) The government of the state may require that the refugee 

be sent out of the national territory within the shortest 
time possible ; and the diplomatic agent of the country 
who has granted asylum may in turn require the guaran- 
tees necessary for the departure of the refugee, with due 
regard to the inviolability of his person, from the country ; 

(4) Refugees shall not be landed in any point of the national 

territory nor in any place too near thereto ; 

(5) While enjoying asylum, refugees shall not be allowed to 

perform acts contrary to the public peace ; 

(6) States are under no obligation to defray expenses incurred 

by one granting asylum." 

" The delegation of the United States of America in signing the 
present convention establishes an explicit reservation, placing on 
record that the United States does not recognise or subscribe to, as 
part of international law, the so-called doctrine of asylum." 

397. In matters of the kind the general recommendation 
would seem to be that the practice of affording asylum to 
political refugees in countries where this custom still exists 
should be confined within the narrowest limits, and that the 
persons concerned should not be allowed to communicate 
with partisans outside the legation, while their departure 
should be insisted on as soon as possible, or as soon as their 
departure from the country can be arranged with the consent 
of the local authorities. If compelled to receive persons of 
his own nationality exposed to acts of violence, the same 
principles should as far as possible be followed by the diplo- 
matic agent. 1 

Franchise du Quaftier 

398. This was an ancient custom in Europe which has but 
a historical interest. The expression covered two privileges 
formerly claimed by ambassadors in several countries, namely 
the right to prevent the arrest of persons dwelling in the 
vicinity of their embassy, and the exemption from octroi tax of 
supplies brought in nominally for their use. Sismondi says : 

1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 2 1 7. 


" Les ambassadeurs ne voulaient permettre 1'entree de ces 
quartiers a aucun officier des tribunaux et des finances du Pape. 
En consequence, ils etaient devenus 1'asile de tous les gens de 
mauvaise vie, de tous les scelerats du pays ; non seulement ils 
venaient s'y derober aux recherches de la justice, ils en sortaient 
encore pour commettre des crimes dans le voisinage ; en meme 
temps ils en faisaient un depot de contrebande pour toutes les 
marchandises sujettes a quelques taxes." 1 

399. A case of the sort in which France was involved 
during the pontificate of Alexander VII may serve as an 
example : 

In 1660 two or three constables went to arrest for debt a trader 
lodged near the palace of the Cardinal d'Este, who was cardinal- 
comprotecteur des affaires de France. In that character he claimed 
the franchises du quartier, together with the right of fixing its 
limits. Several of His Eminence's people tried to prevent the 
police from executing the warrant on the pretext of the franchises, 
and, on their persisting, the Cardinal's servants drew their swords 
and forced the officers to withdraw. Don Mario Chigi, brother of 
the Pope, and commander of the Papal troops, alleging that the 
principle of the Cardinal's palace did not extend so far as was 
asserted, ordered the Chief of Police to proceed to the trader's 
house with sufficient men to effect the arrest. On this becoming 
known to the Cardinal's people, they hastened to the spot in great 
force, attacked the Chief of Police, killed three of his men, wounded 
several others, and rescued the prisoner. The Cardinal, appre- 
hensive of the consequences to himself, sent his chamberlain to 
Don Mario to offer an apology, alleging that he had had no share 
in what had passed. The apology was received very coldly, but 
the affair was hushed up, the Pope consenting to grant absolution 
for the offence. 

Other incidents of a similar kind are set out in the second 
edition of this work. 

400. Pope Innocent XI induced the Emperor, the Kings of 
Spain (in 1683), Poland (in 1680), England (in 1686), and the 
Republic of Venice to agree to the abolition of the privileges 
claimed, but it was not till 1693 that the King of France 
formally consented to abandon them, when the question was 
finally laid to rest. 2 

401. But in China, after the Boxer outrages of 1899, the 
final protocol of September 7, 1901, between the foreign 
Powers and that country, for the resumption of friendly 
relations, provided 3 : 

1 Histoire des Franfais, xxv. 552. 

2 Flassan, iv. 97 ; Gerin, Revue des questions historiques, xvi. 3, 8. 

3 Treaty Series, No. 17 (1902). 


" Art. 7. Le Gouvernement Chinois a accepte que le quartier 
occupe par les legations fut considere comme un quartier speciale- 
ment reserve a leur usage et place sous leur police exclusive, ou 
les Chinois n'auraient pas le droit de resider, et qui pourrait etre 
mis en etat de defense. 

Les limites de ce quartier ont etc ainsi fixees sur le plan ci-joint 
(Annexe No. 14). . . . 

Par le Protocole annexe a la lettre du 16 Janvier, 1901, la Chine 
a reconnu a chaque Puissance le droit d'entretenir une garde 
permanente dans le dit quartier pour la defense de sa legation." 

402. In 1927, when the Chinese Government sought to 
search certain premises of the Soviet embassy at Pekin, they 
asked and obtained permission of the diplomatic corps to 
enter the reserved quarter for the purpose ; but the troops 
employed having exceeded the terms of the permission, the 
Powers demanded that the offenders should be brought to 
trial, and the prefect of police gave an assurance to the doyen 
of the diplomatic corps that this would be done. 1 


403. Within modern times a custom existed in Persia of 
taking " bast," or shelter, in a foreign legation as a means of 
asserting grievances, and the principles of courtesy prevailing 
in that country precluded the denial of hospitality in this way, 
whatever inconvenience might be caused. 2 The following 
account of an incident of the kind is quoted from " The 
Biography of Sir Mortimer Durand," formerly British minister 
at Tehran 3 : 

" One day a royal eunuch came galloping into the legation In 
great haste to see me on most important business. The message 
was that the Shah's wives had taken umbrage at his decision to 
marry a girl who was sister of one of his wives. The new favourite 
was a daughter of a gardener whom the uxorious monarch had seen 
in one of his many gardens and loved, to the great indignation of 
her sister, and against Persian custom. 

The other wives took up the matter hotly, and issued an ulti- 
matum that if the Shah would not forgo his purpose they would 
all leave the Palace, and take bast at the legation, which was, they 
declared, a place of refuge for slaves like themselves, and a sanctuary 
for the oppressed. 

I expressed myself as being highly honoured at this proof of 
their confidence, and declared that the legation was at the service 
of the ladies. Upon enquiring the size of the party, I was somewhat 

1 Yoshitomi, Revue Genlrale de Droit International Public (1928), 184. 

2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 218. 3 By Brig.-Genl. Sir P. Sykes, 233. 


staggered to learn that there would be about three hundred in all. 
I said that the legation would hardly hold so many, but with a sweep 
of his hand towards the lawn, the eunuch replied that a tent was all 
that was required, and, as for food, a few sheep and some bread 
would suffice. 

The eunuch then galloped off, and returned two hours later, 
by which time tents had been pitched on the lawn, sheep had also 
been purchased, together with the entire contents of a baker's shop. 
He declared that the arrangements were excellent, that the Shah 
was furious, and that the ladies were getting into their carriages. 
He again galloped off, and we awaited the arrival of the refugees 
with keen interest, when the eunuch reappeared like a whirlwind, 
and shouted out, wild with excitement, ' The Shah has yielded, 
the ladies are getting out of their carriages, and send you their 
grateful thanks ! ' " 

404. On another occasion, in 1906, no fewer than fourteen 
thousand merchants and others took " bast ' :i at the British 
legation, and remained there for over a week, as a method of 
asserting their demands for constitutional reforms on the part 
of the Persian Government. 1 

Right of Chapel 

405. It is universally recognised that a diplomatic agent 
is entitled to have a chapel within his residence, wherein the 
rites of the religion which he professes may be celebrated by 
a priest or minister. Usually bells were not permitted, 2 and 
formerly, in Spain, it was required that the exterior of the 
building should not indicate the purpose to which it was 
devoted. The spread of religious toleration in modern times 
has rendered possible the erection of public places of worship 
other than that professed by the state, and in general the 
right of the agent to the free exercise of his religion is now 
unquestioned. But formerly it was hedged with certain 
restrictions, and is the subject of examination by writers on 
international law. 

' Tous les Ambassadeurs, les Envoyez & les Residens ont droit 
de faire librement dans leurs maisons 1'exercice de la Religion du 
Prince ou de 1'fitat qu'ils servent, & d'y admettre tous les sujets 
du meme Prince qui se trouvent dans le pais ou ils resident. " 3 

406. Phillimore deduces this right of the agent as a corol- 
lary from the right to enjoy the most perfect and uncontrolled 
liberty of action within the precincts of his hotel (which 

1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 220. 

2 Calvo, Le Droit international, etc., ii. 326 ; Ullmann, 189. 

3 Callieres, 160. 


excluded the keeping of a gambling table in countries where 
gambling is prohibited, or of any kind of shop) : 

" Strictly speaking, however, this privilege is confined to himself, 
his suite, his fellow-countrymen commorant in the foreign land ; 
for, although he cannot be prevented from receiving native subjects 
who come to his hotel, yet it is competent to the state to prohibit 
them from going to the hotel for this or any other purpose." 1 

407. According to Wicquefort, 2 the state might require 
that the religious service be performed in the native language 
of the ambassador. But this does not seem tenable, for the 
sanctity of the hotel must be violated in order to ascertain 
the language, and there never could have been any reason 
for preventing the ambassador or his chaplain from the use of 
the universal or Latin language in their devotions. The 
restraint must be placed by the state, if at all, on its own 

" Since the period of the Reformation, general international usage 
has sanctioned the right of private domestic devotion by a chaplain 
in the hotel, which, so long as it is strictly private, seems to claim 
the protection of natural as well as conventional international law. 
Two conditions, however, have formerly accompanied the per- 
mission to exercise this right ; one, that it should be permitted to 
only one minister at a time from one and the same court ; another, 
that there should not be already a public or private exercise of the 
religion existing and sanctioned without the limits of the hotel. 

Having regard to this latter condition, the Emperor Joseph II, 
in 1781, having permitted to the Protestants of Vienna the liberty 
of meeting for the private exercise of their devotion, insisted on the 
chapels of the Protestant ambassadors being closed. The right to 
have places of worship was subject to certain restrictions, e.g. the 
ringing of a bell was prohibited. 

There does not, however, seem to be any foundation in principle 
for this very arbitrary act ; more especially as Protestant is a mere 
term of negation, under which are included worshippers of very 
different tenets. 

The only sound principle of law on this subject is that already 
mentioned, viz. : Religious rites privately exercised within the 
ambassadorial precincts, and for his suite and countrymen, ought 
not to be interfered with. 

The erection of a chapel or church, the use of bells, and of any 
national symbol, is a matter entirely of permission and courtesy." 3 

The Papal Government informed the Prussian envoy, in 
1846, that services in the Italian language in the chapel of the 
legation would not be tolerated. 4 

1 Phillimore, ii. 244. i. 417. 

3 Phillimore, ii. 244 ; Holtzendorff, iii. 659. 4 Holtzendorff, iii. 659. 

408. HALL says l : 

" The person of a diplomatic agent, his personal effects, and 
the property belonging to him as representative of his sovereign, 
are not subject to taxation. Otherwise he enjoys no exemption 
from taxes or duties as of right. By courtesy, however, most, if not 
all, nations permit the entry free of duty of goods intended for his 
private use." 

409. And Oppenheim 2 : 

" The fifth privilege of envoys in reference to their exterritoriality 
is exemption from taxes and the like. As an envoy, through his 
exterritoriality, is considered not to be subjected to the territorial 
supremacy of the receiving state, he must be exempt from all direct 
personal taxation, and therefore need not pay either income tax 
or other direct taxes. As regards rates it is necessary to draw a 
distinction. Payment of rates imposed for local objects for which 
an envoy himself derives benefit, such as sewerage, lighting, water, 
night-watch and the like, can be required from the envoy, although 
often this is not done. Other rates, however, such as poor-rates 
and the like, he cannot be requested to pay. As regards customs 
duties international law does not claim the exemption of envoys 
therefrom. In practice, and by courtesy, however, the municipal 
laws of many states allow diplomatic envoys, within certain limits, 
to receive free of duty goods intended for their own private use. 
If the house of an envoy is the property of his home state, or his 
own property, the house need not be exempt from property tax, 
although it is often so by the courtesy of the receiving state. Such 
property tax is not a personal and direct, but an indirect, tax." 

410. Rivier observes 3 : 

" En vertu d'une coutume qui varie, et qui est, en certains pays, 
consacree par la loi, et a moins de suspicion motivee de fraude, 
on ne visite pas leurs efTets a la douane. 

1 Hall, 235. 2 Oppenheim, i. 394. 

3 Principes du Droit des Gens, i. 503. 


" En revanche et sauf dispenses conventionnelles speciales, ils 
payent comme tout le monde les impots fonciers et autres charges 
reelles pour les immeubles qu'ils possedent dans le pays ; les contri- 
butions municipales imposees a 1'habitant comme tel ; les impots in- 
directs frappant les objets de consommation qu'ils achetent dans le 
pays ; les droits qui ont le caractere d'une remuneration due a l'tat 
ou a la commune, ou a des particuliers, pour des objets a 1'usage des- 
quels 1'agent participe ; peages de chaussees et de ponts, taxes tele- 
graphiques, taxes de chemin de fer, port de lettres, etc. ; enfin, les 
droits qui sont exiges a 1'occasion de certains actes ou transmissions, 
droit de mutation, d'enregistrernent." 

41 1. Recently M. Deak writes : 

" L'exemption fiscale, bien qu'elle soit generalement admise en 
theorie, rencontre des difficultes dans la pratique et dans son applica- 
tion. Les opinions sont divergentes sur le point de savoir si la 
propriete privee d'un agent diplomatique doit etre exempte 
d'impots. Une autre difficulte surgit lorsque 1'agent est un res- 
sortissant du pays ou il reside ; la discussion entre le Secretariat 
de la Societe des Nations et le Gouvernement suisse portait princi- 
palement sur ce point." 1 

The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, lays 
down for the signatory states the following rules : "Article 18. 
Diplomatic officers shall be exempt in the state to which they 
are accredited : (i) from all personal taxes, either national or 
local ; (2) from all land taxes on the building of the mission, 
when it belongs to the respective government ; (3) from customs 
duties on articles intended for the official use of the mission, or for 
the personal use of the diplomatic officer or of his family." 

412. That the privilege of free entry of goods, intended for 
the use of the envoy, was formerly much abused can well be 
believed. Callieres said : 

" II y aplusieurs ministresqui abusentdu droit de franchise qu'ils 
ont en divers pays touchant I'exemption des imposts sur les denrees 
& sur les marchandises necessaires a 1'usage de leur maison, & qui 
sous ce pretexte en font passer quantite d'autres pour des Marchands 
dont ils tirent des tributs en leur pretant leur nom pour frauder les 
droits du Souverain. Ces sortes de profits sont indignes d'un 
Ministre public, & le rendent odieux a 1'Etat qui en souffre du 
prejudice, ainsi que le Prince qui les autorise. Un sage Ministre 
doit se contenter de jouir des franchises qu'il trouve etablies dans 
le pais ou il est envoye, sans jamais en abuser pour son profit 
particulier par des extensions injustes, ou en participant a des 
fraudes qui se font sous son nom. 

Le Conseil d'Espagne a ete oblige depuis quelques annees de 

1 Classification, etc., des Agents diplomatique*, Revue de Droit International (1928), 


regler ces droits de franchise pour tous les Ministres Strangers qui 
resident a Madrid, moyennant une somme par an qu'on y donne a 
chacun d'eux a proportion de leur caractere, pour empecher ces 
abus ; & la Republique de Genes en use de meme a 1'egard des 
Ministres des Couronnes qui resident chez elle." l 

413. Bismarck said one day, a propos of Morny : 

When he was appointed ambassador at Petersburg, he arrived 
with a whole string of fine, elegant carriages, and a host of trunks, 
boxes and chests, full of laces, silk-stuffs and ladies' dresses, for which 
as ambassador he had no duties to pay. Each servant had his own 
coach, each attache or secretary two at least, and he himself quite 
five or six ; and, as he was there for a few days, he auctioned the 
lot carriages and laces and wearing apparel. He must have made 
eight hundred thousand roubles. He was unscrupulous but amiable, 
he could really be most amiable. 2 

Let us hope this story is at least an exaggeration. 

414. Exemptions accorded in Great Britain to diplomatic 
agents are : 

Customs Duties 

The privilege granted to heads of missions to receive free of duty 
articles imported for their private use is not held to be in the nature 
of a right, but is conceded as a matter of international courtesy. 
The ordinary scale is : 

(a) On first arrival. Exemption from examination of their 
baggage and that of their wives and families. 

(b) On subsequent arrivals. Exemption from examination on 
production of a baggage pass, which may be obtained by the head 
of the mission, on application to the Foreign Office, for his personal 
use on occasions when returning to Great Britain from abroad. 

(c) Delivery duty free of imported packages for their personal 
use and that of their families. 

An extension of (a) and (c) to counsellors, secretaries and 
attaches is permissible, but only on condition of reciprocity. While 
no restriction is placed on the amount of dutiable goods imported, 
it is expected that the privilege will not be abused. Articles such 
as official furniture, stationery, office supplies, etc., for use in the 
mission are at present admitted without examination. 

Foreign Ministers of State, or members of special diplomatic 
missions, visiting or passing through Great Britain, are accorded 
every consideration and facility consistent with the Customs 

In all the above cases except (b), where the exhibition of the 
baggage pass suffices, application must, in each instance, be ad- 

1 Callieres, 163. 2 Busch, Bismarck, Some Secret Pages, etc., i. 503. 


dressed to the Foreign Office in a note bearing the personal signature 
of the head of the mission, giving all necessary details for identifica- 
tion of the goods, such as place and date of importation, name of 
ship, name of agents entrusted with clearance, etc. Arrangements 
for handling and removing the goods must be made by and at the 
expense of the importer. Packages arriving by post are handed to 
the postal officers for delivery as soon as the relevant application is 

Packages addressed to heads of missions, bearing the seal of 
their Foreign Office, and claimed as despatches, are ordinarily 
passed without examination or other formality. 

Motor Cars 

Cars for the personal use of heads of missions and their families 
are admitted free of duty. Cars for the personal or family use of 
counsellors, secretaries or attaches, are also admitted free of duty, 
either as a result of reciprocal arrangement or on undertakings 
signed by them that if the cars are sold in the United Kingdom, or 
retained there after their appointment in the mission terminates, 
the duty chargeable on importation will be paid. Cars which are 
the property of a foreign government, and intended for the official 
use of members of the mission, are admitted free of duty, provided 
reciprocal treatment is accorded, but subject to an undertaking, 
signed by the head of the mission, that if sold in the United Kingdom 
any duty chargeable will be paid. In such cases this is calculated 
on the sale value of the vehicle. 

Income Tax 

Diplomatic emoluments, salary or wages paid to any member 
of the official or domestic staff of a foreign mission except a British 
subject on the official staff in respect of his duties in connection 
therewith, are exempt from income tax. But no exemption is 
recognised in respect of other earnings in the United Kingdom. 

Income from investments outside the United Kingdom, even 
if payable therein, is exempt, and repayment made if taxed before 
receipt of income. Income derived from investments in the United 
Kingdom is not exempt, except in the case of the head of the 
mission if the interest or dividends arise out of any British Govern- 
ment security. 

In the case of houses or land, occupied by an individual for 
diplomatic purposes, he is exempted from any charge to income 
tax in respect of his occupation, and also, if he owns the property, 
from income tax in respect of his ownership. 

No title to exemption is recognised in any other circumstances, 
but where there is income liable to assessment, the usual reliefs are 
given to the same extent as in other cases. 


Motor Car Licence Duty 

Exemption from payment is accorded, on condition of reci- 
procity, to the cars of all heads of missions, as well as to the cars 
used for official purposes of senior counsellors, or (if there is no 
senior counsellor) the senior secretary, and also to the cars so 
used of naval, military, and air attaches, whether the cars be owned 
by them or their government, provided the head of the mission 
personally certifies that the cars for which exemption is claimed are 
used by diplomatists of the specified ranks, and are necessary for 
the discharge of their official duties. Members of the diplomatic 
body not so entitled are at present allowed one-third rebate of the 
duty, viz. : the proportion normally accruing to the Exchequer for 
national purposes. 

Local Taxation Licences 

Members of the diplomatic body are accorded as an act of 
courtesy exemption from payment of duty on firearms, and also on 
the following licences : 

To employ male servants ; to keep carriages ; to use armorial 
bearings ; to keep dogs ; to kill game ; to employ a gamekeeper to 
kill game. 

Municipal Rates 

Under a reciprocal arrangement proposed to heads of foreign 
missions in 1892, heads of missions and the members of their diplo- 
matic and official staffs are exempted from payment of municipal 
rates leviable on the premises occupied by them, in respect of 
services not of direct benefit to them. Where this arrangement is 
accepted, the British Government undertakes (except in the case 
of honorary attaches and consular officers holding diplomatic rank) 
to bear the charges for : 

Guardians of the poor, i.e. poor relief proper ; 

Police rate ; 

Baths and washhouses ; 

Public libraries and museums ; 

Burial board ; 

Miscellaneous expenses, salaries, printing, etc. ; 

Education ; 

the following charges being recoverable from members of the 
mission, on application through the Foreign Office : 

London County Council, i.e. main drainage, street improvements, 

fire brigade, etc. 
Street lighting. 
General rate for cleansing, maintaining and repairing the public 

streets, and general expenses under the Metropolitan Local 

Management Act. 
Public sewers rate. 


415. Exemptions accorded to diplomatic agents in certain 
other countries, so far as ascertained, are as follows : 


Exemption is granted from the greater part of state taxation, 
on a basis of reciprocity, and if the persons concerned are bond fide 
members of the mission ; but not if, being resident in Belgium, 
their functions are merely auxiliary or provisional. The exemption 
extends to heads of missions, counsellors, secretaries, attaches, 
chancellors and chancery clerks, interpreters and dragomans, 
plenipotentiaries, military and commercial attaches, legal coun- 
sellors and attaches, chaplains and doctors. 

Customs duties. Heads of missions, on their entry into Belgium, 
and on making themselves known to the customs, are exempted 
from visit and payment of duty in respect of baggage and other 
articles accompanying them, belonging to and claimed by them ; 
and also, on a basis of reciprocity, from payment of duties on goods 
addressed to them. The privilege extends to charges d'affaires. 
Counsellors, secretaries and attaches enjoy exemption only when 
acting ad interim as head of the mission ; but on first arrival their 
goods and effects are admitted free. 

Property tax. Exemption is accorded in respect of the tax on 
revenue from real property occupied by diplomatic agents, where 
such property belongs to the state represented and forms the seat of 
the mission ; but not as regards revenue derived from other real 
property in Belgium. 

Income Tax. Exemption is accorded in respect of income 
derived from abroad. In the case of income derived from invest- 
ments in Belgium rebate may be accorded in certain instances if 
the investments are on the account of and to the profit of the 
government concerned. Exemption from supertax is accorded. 

Exemption is also accorded from Taxe de Luxe and Taxe de 
Transmission (conditionally), and from taxes on motor-cars, servants, 
horses and carriages, dogs and bicycles, sporting guns and furni- 
ture ; also from death duties in respect of diplomats dying in 
Belgium, except as regards real property situated in Belgium. On 
the other hand, " taxes de salubrite publique," " adresses telegra- 
phiques ' : and " droits d'enregistrement et de transcription de 
mutation " are payable. 

4l6. FRANCE 

Customs duties. On a reciprocal basis heads of missions are 
accorded exemption from visit and payment of duty on goods 
accompanying them on their arrival in France, or imported within 
a period of six months thereafter ; subsequent importations require 
special application to the ministry for foreign affairs. 

Exemptions are also accorded in respect of income tax, billeting, 
and the following : contribution personnelle et mobiliere, contribution 
des portes et fenetres, taxes assimilees aux contributions directes (taxes de 


viabilite, pavage, trottoirs, raccor dements, taxes sur Us chiens, contributions sur 
les voitures, les chevaux, taxe des billards, etc.}. These exemptions are 
extended to official secretaries of the mission resident without the 
embassy or legation. 


Customs Duties. Complete exemption is accorded to heads of 
missions for goods imported by them for their personal use. Exemp- 
tion is accorded to members of their staffs on a basis of reciprocity. 

Income Tax. Complete exemption is accorded to heads of 
missions and members of their staffs. 

Motor Taxation. Complete exemption is accorded to heads of 
missions. In the case of members of their staffs one-third of the 
tax is remitted. 

Local Taxes. Where these represent definite services rendered, 
such as drainage, water-supply, street-cleaning, dust cart and similar 
services, they are chargeable both on the embassy building and on 
the residences of members of the diplomatic staff. 

418. ITALY 

Customs Duty (Dazio Consumo}. Parcels for members of the 
diplomatic corps are exempted from payment of duty, on applica- 
tion made on special forms furnished by the ministry for foreign 
affairs ; such applications must be signed by the head of mission, 
and give details of the number and weight of the parcels and a 
rough description of contents. 

Tobacco Monopoly. Foreign manufactured tobacco, destined for 
heads of missions and other members of the diplomatic corps, is 
exempted without limitation from customs and octroi duties, if 
reciprocal treatment is accorded. The customs are, however, 
authorised to sequestrate any tobacco in excess of 300 cigarettes 
found in the luggage of diplomatic representatives, this quantity 
being considered a generous allowance. 

Tax on Personal Property (Richezz.a mobile}. Diplomatic agents 
are exempt. This tax covers income from all sources except real 
property, i.e. revenue from interest on capital, profits on industry, 
salary, etc. They are also exempt from supplementary graduated 
income tax (supertax). 

Carriage Tax., Motor Tax, and Servant Tax. Exemption accorded 
on condition of reciprocity. 

Land and House Property Tax. On condition of reciprocity, the 
residences of foreign diplomatic representatives, when these are 
the property of foreign states, are exempt. 

Residence Tax (Imposta di soggiorno] and Stamp Tax on foreign 
bonds. Exemption is accorded. 

Local Rates ( Tassa sul valore locativo} . Consuls are automatically 
exempt, and instructions have been given to ensure exemption of 
foreign diplomats ; this applies to the sites of foreign embassies 
and legations. 


Extraordinary Inheritance Tax. Diplomatic agents are only called 
upon to pay on lands and buildings and capital held in their private 

Registration Tax. Diplomatic and consular representatives are 
subject to payment of the tax on contracts concluded by them in 
Italy (except representatives of countries where reciprocal treat- 
ment is accorded to Italian representatives) relating to the acquisi- 
tion of house or land property destined to become the site of 
foreign representation in Italy. 

Tax on Electricity, Gas, Light and Water. Requests for exemption 
have always been refused, largely in consideration of the fact that 
in most countries the supply of these commodities is in the hands 
of private enterprise. 

All rules regarding privileges and immunities accorded to 
diplomatic agents are, by old international custom, strictly subject 
to condition of reciprocity. 


Customs, Excise and Statistical x Duties. Subject to reciprocal 
treatment, the following are exempt : 

Diplomatic representatives of foreign countries and members 
of their diplomatic staffs. Exemption applies to articles imported 
at the time of arrival in the Netherlands as well as to goods imported 

Similar treatment is accorded to representatives of the League 
of Nations (e.g. the Registrar of the Permanent Court of Interna- 
tional Justice and his staff, if not of Dutch nationality) ; and to 
members of the Permanent Court of International Justice of foreign 

Though heads of states and their suites, and foreigners of dis- 
tinction, such as ministers of state, high officials, and members of 
temporary official missions, are not entitled to such treatment, the 
customs authorities receive instructions to afford every possible 
facility to them. 

Similarly diplomatic couriers, who are entitled to exemption 
from examination of packages closed by official seals, are usually 
accorded exemption in respect of their other baggage as well. 

The families of diplomatic representatives and of their diplo- 
matic staffs are entitled to the same customs privileges as the heads 
of those families. 

Furniture, flags, and stationery intended for the official use of 
legations are admitted free of import duty. 

Direct State Taxes. Heads of missions, members of their diplo- 
matic and non-diplomatic staff, and servants residing in the houses 
of heads of missions are exempt from direct state taxes, subject to 
reciprocity, and provided they are of foreign nationality and do not 
exercise any business or trade in the Netherlands. In the cases of 

1 I.e. tax levied for the cost of keeping statistics. 


income tax and capital tax there are certain exceptions, which may 
be summarised as profits arising from landed property and capital 
invested in business enterprises in the Netherlands. 

Motor Tax. Diplomatic, consular, and other representatives 
of foreign states, members of their staffs, and servants residing in 
the houses of such representatives, if of foreign nationality, are 
exempt from the payment of road tax for motor vehicles. 

Bicycle Tax. Diplomatic officers, members of their families, 
and the non-diplomatic staff of legations are exempt, provided 
they are of foreign nationality. 

Municipal Taxes. Heads of missions, and members of their 
diplomatic and non-diplomatic staffs, if of foreign nationality and 
not exercising any business or trade in the Netherlands, are exempt. 
Municipal dog-licences are granted free of charge to diplomats. 


On the basis of the legislation of the U.S.S.R., diplomatic 
representatives and also all persons belonging to official diplomatic 
staffs on the territory of the U.S.S.R., who are foreign citizens, are 
exempt from all direct taxes, general state and local taxes, and also 
personal obligations either in kind or in money, on a basis of 

Concerning the admission of packages accompanying foreign 
diplomatic and consular representatives and their employees, or 
addressed to them or to their premises : 

1. Luggage belonging to diplomatic representatives accredited 
to the government of the U.S.S.R., and members of diplomatic mis- 
sions of foreign governments in the territory of the U.S.S.R., which 
accompanies such persons as hand-luggage, or is in the luggage-van 
at the time of their passage through the customs establishments 
of the U.S.S.R., whether on arrival or departure, is, as a general 
rule, exempt from customs inspection. 

Nevertheless in certain special cases the inspection of luggage of 
such persons may be allowed, as an extraordinary measure, on each 
occasion by the order of the Chief Directorate of Customs. If so 
desired by the persons interested, the inspection may be carried 
out at the Moscow customs. 

2. Packages and luggage addressed to diplomatic representa- 
tives accredited to the government of the Soviet Union and not 
accompanied by them, or addressed to the missions, are subject 
to examination, but are exempt from the payment of customs 
duties and excise within the limits laid down in para. 4 of these 

3. Packages and luggage which are being sent to the address of 
persons other than diplomatic representatives, who are members 
of diplomatic missions of foreign governments, are subject to 
customs inspection and the payment of customs duties, excise and 
other taxes on the basis of general tariff laws and regulations. 

4. The amount of the customs duties or excise remitted in 


respect of the packages and luggage referred to in para. 2 is fixed 
each year by a special decision of the Commissariat of Commerce. 
The admission of this property, in virtue of the above-mentioned 
exemption from customs and excise, is carried out by means of 
special booklets, in which are entered both the amounts of the taxes 
or excise which are remitted, together with the period of validity 
of the booklets. 

(Note. Packages and luggage which are admitted for diplo- 
matic representatives without the payment of customs or excise are 
not subject to storage or poundage charges.) 

5. The booklets are issued to diplomatic representatives by the 
Commissariat for Foreign Affairs ; a list of the books issued is com- 
municated by the Protocol Department to the Chief Directorate of 
Customs at the People's Commissariat for Internal and External 
Trade. The booklets are valid within the limits of the periods 
indicated in them, without reference to the degree to which they 
have ben utilised. 

6. Stamps, seals, office stationery, official forms, signs and flags, 
which are essential for the official requirements of diplomatic 
representatives of foreign states, and also uniforms of diplomatic 
representatives, and of the members of diplomatic missions, are 
admitted free of duty over and above the limits laid down in 
para. 4 of these regulations. 

7. Articles of the so-called " first installation " forwarded to the 
address of diplomatic missions and members of diplomatic missions 
on the first arrival of such persons in the U.S.S.R. for the fulfilment 
of their official duties, as for instance household furniture, cutlery 
and chinaware, table linen, etc., may be admitted duty free after 
inspection, though on each occasion with the special permission of 
the Chief Directorate of Customs. 

8. Packages and luggage of diplomatic missions and members 
of diplomatic missions of foreign governments forwarded inde- 
pendently when the owners leave for abroad are subject to inspec- 
tion at the nearest customs house. On final departure abroad of 
the above-mentioned persons, packages and luggage which are 
forwarded independently can be passed through the customs 
establishments of the Union free of taxes and other charges men- 
tioned in the note to para. 4 above, but only within a period of 
six months from the day of the actual departure of such persons out 
of Soviet territory. 

9. In order to obtain permission under Nos. i, 2, 3 and 8 of 
these regulations for the export and import of the prohibited articles, 
diplomatic missions must request in each particular case, through 
the intermediary of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, the prior 
authorisation of the Chief Directorate of Customs. 

10. If, when on the inspection of luggage carried out in virtue 
of para. 2 of the first section of these regulations, articles the import 
and export of which are forbidden, or articles which, although their 
importation is not forbidden, are discovered in a quantity exceeding 


the personal needs of the diplomatic officer, the question of the 
admission of the articles, or of recovery in respect of them, will be 
settled in accordance with the existing laws and ordinances. 

421. SPAIN 

In general, heads of missions are exempt from all taxation of 
whatever nature, except in respect of private property which they 
may happen to hold in Spain. They must, however, pay customs 
duty on their motor cars at the time of sale, if sold within three 

As regards the treatment of officers other than heads of missions, 
the general practice is : 

Customs Duties. These are payable by all junior members of 
diplomatic staffs, except in the case of premiere installation. This 
phrase includes motor cars, which, on a reciprocal basis, are con- 
sidered to form a bond fide part thereof, and are thus allowed to 
enter duty free, though duty must be paid if they are sold within 
three years. Motor cars imported subsequently are liable to pay 
duty in the ordinary way. 

Income Tax, Motor Taxation, Local Taxes and Municipal Rates. 
In respect of these, complete exemption is granted on a reci- 
procal basis. 

But in the absence of reciprocal treatment, the above is subject 
to modification accordingly. 


Practice is based on general principles of law, usages of inter- 
national courtesy, and reciprocity. 

Customs Duties. Heads of missions are accorded free entry of 
goods for their personal use and that of their families. Counsellors, 
secretaries, and attaches, on premiere installation only, subject to an 
undertaking that the goods are for their personal use, and that if 
sold locally duties will be paid. This includes motor cars. 

According to a circular of February 14, 1921, the personnel of 
missions are classified thus : 

1 i ) The diplomatic personnel proper (corps diplomatique sensu 
lato] and the head of the chancery. As " exterritorial," these 
enjoy full diplomatic privileges and immunities, jurisdictional and 

(2) The rest of the official personnel, whether technical or manual 
(auxiliary), while subject to the local laws and jurisdiction as " non- 
exterritorial," are by courtesy exempt from taxes, whether direct 
and personal or sumptuary. This applies to such as are employed 
and paid by the state, and are in the exclusive service of the 
mission ; but not to the domestic personnel. 

Exemption is accorded on a reciprocal basis from direct per- 
sonal taxes, viz. : the federal extraordinary and temporary war tax, 
the only tax levied by the Confederation ; and taxes upon capital 
and income, levied by the Cantons and Communes. No exemption 


is accorded from tax on real property, or from taxes for public services 
rendered. But, as an exception, Article 7 of the ordinance of 
December 6, 1920, provides that, on a reciprocal basis, foreign 
states and heads of missions are exemp.t from tax on real property, 
if the latter is exclusively devoted to the purposes of the mission. 

Motor Tax. Exemption is accorded, and by courtesy the Canton 
of Berne issues gratis local permits. 

Dog Tax. Exemption is accorded. 

Stamp Tax on coupons, being an indirect tax, is leviable. 


Customs Duties. Articles 404 and 405 of the United States 
Customs Regulations, 1923, provide as follows l : 

Article 404. Baggage. The privilege of free entry is extended 
to the baggage and other effects of the following officials, their 
families, suites, and servants : 

Foreign ambassadors, ministers, charges d'affaires. 

Secretaries and naval, military and other attaches at embassies 
and legations, high commissioners and consular officers accredited 
to this government, or en route to and from other countries to which 
accredited, and whose governments grant reciprocal facilities to 
American officials of like grade accredited thereto. . . . Other 
high officials of this and foreign governments, and such distin- 
guished foreign visitors as may be designated by the Department 
of State. 

Applications should be made to the Department of State for the 
free entry of the baggage of, and extension of courtesy to, all foreign 
ambassadors and other foreign officers. ... In the absence of 
special authorisation from the Department prior to the arrival of 
foreign diplomatic and consular officers, collectors of customs may 
accord the privileges of this article to them upon presentation of 
their credentials, or by otherwise establishing their identity. Col- 
lectors will keep a record of the privileges granted, whether the 
subject of instructions from the Department or not, containing the 
name of the person to whom granted, his rank or designation, the 
name of the vessel and date of arrival. If by accident or unavoid- 
able delay in shipment the baggage or other effects of a person of any 
of the classes mentioned in this article shall arrive after him, the 
same may be passed free of duty upon his declaration. 

Article 405. Imported articles. Members and attaches of foreign 
embassies and legations 2 may receive articles imported for their 
personal or family use free of duty upon the Department's instruc- 
tions in each instance, which will be issued only upon the request 
of the Department of State. 

Packages bearing the official seal of a foreign government, 

1 Only nationals of the country they represent are entitled to the benefit. 

2 May be extended by reciprocal agreement to consular officers and non- 
commissioned personnel of embassies and legations. 


containing only official communications, documents, and office 
equipment, when accompanied by a certificate to that effect under 
such seal, may be admitted without customs examination. Costumes, 
regalia, and other articles for the official use of diplomatic or con- 
sular officers of a foreign government will be admitted free of duty. 1 

Collectors will take charge of all packages addressed to diplo- 
matic officers of foreign nations which arrive in advance of the 
receipt of instructions for free duty. Notification of such arrivals 
should be sent to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

(High Commissioners and trade commissioners (or trade 
representatives) whose status is similar to consular officers, are 
accorded the same treatment as consular officers, with respect to 
their baggage and effects, and articles imported for official use). 

Federal Income Tax. Ambassadors and ministers accredited to 
the United States and the members of their households (including 
secretaries, attaches, and servants) who are not citizens of the 
United States, are exempt from payment of Federal Income Tax 
upon their salaries, fees or wages. The income from investments 
in the United States in bonds and stocks and from interest on bank 
balances received by ambassadors and ministers accredited to the 
United States, who are not citizens of the United States, is exempt 
from tax, but income from any business carried on by them in the 
United States is taxable. In addition, such ambassadors and 
ministers, for the purposes of the tax, are treated as non-resident 
aliens and are therefore exempt from income tax with respect to 
income from sources without the United States. These provisions 
are also applicable to the wives and minor children of foreign 
ambassadors and ministers and the members of their households, 
including secretaries, attaches and servants. 

Federal Miscellaneous Taxes. Ambassadors and ministers of 
foreign governments accredited to the United States are exempt 
from : the tax upon passage tickets ; the tax upon dues, member- 
ship fees, or initiation fees to any social, athletic or sporting 
organisation ; the tax upon admission to places of public enter- 
tainment ; and the tax upon tobacco, snuff, cigars or cigarettes 
imported into the United States, in any case where customs 
regulations authorise free entry of such articles. In the latter case 
the requirements of the regulations in respect to size of packages 
of tobacco, snuff, cigars or cigarettes are waived. The above ex- 
emptions are also applicable to the members of the families and 
households of the ambassadors and ministers. 

No exemption from Federal estate tax is allowed by reason of 
the fact that the decedent was in the diplomatic service of a foreign 
government. Decedents who were in the diplomatic service of 
foreign governments, however, are treated as non-residents, and 
the liability of their estates for the tax determined accordingly. In 
the case of a non-resident decedent the net estate, which is the sub- 
ject of the tax, is that part of the gross estate which is situate in the 

1 Based on reciprocity. 


United States less certain deductions, but no specific exemption is 
allowed, as in the case of a resident decedent. 

The taxes referred to under this heading include substantially 
all of the Federal excise taxes which would be likely to have any 
direct appreciable effect upon foreign diplomatic representatives. 

Local Taxes in the District of Columbia. Ambassadors and 
ministers accredited to the United States and the members of their 
families and households are exempt in the district of Columbia from 
the tax upon personal property, but are not exempt from the tax 
upon real property. 

While no exemption is available with respect to the tax on 
gasoline, upon proper certification by the State Department, 
ambassadors and ministers accredited to the United States are 
exempt from the payment of fees covering the issuance of licence 
plates for automobiles. 




424. IN proceeding to his post, or in returning to report to 
his government, a diplomatic agent often has to traverse the 
territory of a third state, and questions have from time to time 
arisen as to his position therein. 

Passage in Time of Peace 
425. Schmelzing laid it down that : 

Envoys enjoy the totality of diplomatic privileges only in the 
territory of the state to which they are sent and to which they are 
accredited. They cannot consequently claim the privileges of 
inviolability in a third country which they touch on their journey 
through, in going or returning, or in which they stay for a lengthened 
period, unless they deliver credentials to the sovereign. The diplo- 
matist is only a private person when he traverses a third state, and 
as such he is not entitled to claim diplomatic privileges for himself, 
his suite or his property. 

It is, however, the custom that in time of peace foreign envoys 
traverse the territory of a third state freely and without hindrance, 
and may pass a time there, and that certain privileges and marks of 
respect are accorded to them similar to those enjoyed by regularly 
accredited diplomatists. This political courtesy rests upon no 
legal obligation, and, consequently, in case of dispute with the state 
from which it is claimed, reliance will be had on the essential 
difference between an envoy formally accredited, and one who is 
not accredited. 1 

426. Rivier, however, was of opinion that 

the agent passing through a third state when going to or returning 
from his post is more than a mere distinguished traveller. He is 
exercising his own state's right of legation in passing through under 
the circumstances indicated. By hindering or molesting him you 
interfere with the rights of both states. Consequently, as soon as 
his character is revealed the agent becomes entitled to claim for 

1. 222. 


himself and his suite, in all matters involving the rights of those two 
states, respect and complete security, i.e. inviolability. There is, 
however, no need to regard him as entitled to exterritoriality. If 
he stays in a third state, certain favours, such as the exemption 
from the payment of import duties and other taxes, may be accorded 
to him as an act of courtesy, without his having any right to demand 
it. The passage or stay of the agent will be allowed only if it is 
harmless, of which the state in whose territory he is can alone be 
the judge. That state will adopt such precautions as it may deem 
to be suitable. If passage is accorded, the state can impose a limit 
on its duration, fix the route to be taken, and prohibit the agent 
from stopping en route. ... It is assumed that the agent is travelling 
or sojourning in the character of a public personage. If he is there 
solely for his own pleasure, or in pursuit of some merely private 
object, he is merely a distinguished personage, neither more nor 
less. 1 

427. Halleck observes : 

"He has a right of innocent passage through the dominions of all 
states friendly to his own country, and to the honours and protec- 
tion which nations reciprocally owe to each other's diplomatic 
agents, according to the dignity of their rank and official character. 
If the state through which he proposes to pass has just reason to 
suspect his object to be unfriendly, or to apprehend that he will 
abuse this right by inciting its people to insurrection, furnishing 
intelligence to its enemies, or plotting against the safety of the 
government, it may very properly, and without just offence, 
refuse such innocent passage. But if an innocent passage is granted 
(and it is always presumed to be by a friendly Power, unless 
specially denied) he is entitled to respect and protection, and any 
insult or injury to him is regarded as an insult or injury both to the 
state which sends him and that to which he is sent." 2 

428. At the present day it is so much to the interest of all 
nations that their diplomatic representatives should be allowed 
to pass freely and without hindrance through such countries 
as they may have to traverse in order to reach, or to return 
from, their posts, that it is usual to afford all reasonable 
facilities and courtesies for the purpose. The only pre- 
cautions to be recommended are that the agent should provide 
himself with a passport, duly vise where necessary, in which 
his official character is fully detailed, and obtain from the 
diplomatic agent of the third state in his own country a 
laisser-passer to enable his baggage to pass through the customs 
of that state with the usual respect. When returning from 
the capital to which he is accredited, he will usually be able to 
obtain the same privilege from his colleague there. 

1 Principes du Droit des Gens, i. 508. 2 International Law, i. 389. 


429. But as regards the immunity of the diplomatic agent 
from the jurisdiction of a third state, writers differ, and it 
cannot be said that any well-established rule of international 
law exists. 

430. Recently Baron Heyking writes : 

" Le but de 1'exterritorialite est de debarrasser les fonctions diplo- 
matiques de tous les obstacles de la part du pouvoir de 1'Etat 
etranger. Ce but ne peut etre rempli que dans 1'fitat qui recoit 
1'ambassadeur et ou les fonctions diplomatiques doivent etre 
exercees. II est clair par consequent que les privileges d'exterri- 
torialite n'ont pas de raison d'etre dans les Etats que I'ambassadeur 
ne fait que traverser. Us ne peuvent etre reclames par lui que dans 
le cas oil une loi speciale existerait a ce sujet, loi etablie par 
deference, motu proprio, comme, par exemple, 1'edit des Pays-Bas 
du 9 septembre 1679. En 1'absence d'une disposition speciale de 
ce genre, 1'Etat qui sert de passage jouit a 1'egard de I'ambassadeur 
de tous les droits qu'il peut avoir centre une personne privee ; il 
peut meme, lorsqu'il il le soupgonne dangereux ou suspect, lui 
interdire le sejour dans les limites de ses frontieres." x 

431. And M. Deak : 

" Bien que le droit international n'impose pas aux tats 1'obliga- 
tion d'accorder I'immunite diplomatique aux personnes qui 
traversent leur territoire, on peut considerer que c'est une coutume 
generalement admise de leur accorder une protection speciale. 
Mais il n'existe pas de regies definies, et moins encore d'opinion 
unanime en droit international sur cette question, qui est devenue 
plus importante depuis 1'etablissement dela Societe des Nations." 2 

432. As shown too in the foregoing quotations, distinctions 
are drawn by writers between the case where the agent passes 
through the third country on his way to or from his post, and 
those in which he prolongs his stay, or is there merely for his 
own pleasure. In the latter case it is not apparent that he 
has immunity. 

Nevertheless, the Pan-American Convention of February 20, 
1928, the preamble of which says that it incorporates the principles 
generally accepted by all nations, lays down for the signatory 
states the following rules : ; ' Article 23. Persons belonging to the 
mission shall also enjoy the same immunities and prerogatives 3 
in the states which they cross to arrive at their post or to return 
to their own country, or in a state where they may casually be 
during the exercise of their functions and to whose government 
they have made known their position." 

1 L'Exterritorialite, Cours de La Haye (1925), ii. 266. 

2 Classification, etc., des Agents Diplomatiques, Rev. de Dr. Int. (1928), 558. 

3 Inter alia, exemption from all civil and criminal jurisdiction (Art. 1 9) . 


433. As regards other aspects, Halsbury's " Laws of 
England " states : 

" Whether process issued by the courts of this country can be 
served in a foreign country upon a foreign minister accredited to 
and received at the court of such foreign country must be taken to 
be doubtful." 1 

434. In France it has been held that the local courts have 
jurisdiction in the case of a foreign diplomatic officer who is 
accredited to another state in respect of an action against 
him relating to the building of a chalet within French terri- 
tory 2 ; and in respect of proceedings in divorce instituted 
against him by his wife in France. 3 (See also 836.) 

435. Certain incidents and cases are set out below, 
dating from ancient times up to the present. 

In 1541 Rincon and Fregoso, French ambassadors to Turkey and 
Venice, while on their journey down the River Po, were seized by 
the Governor of Milan and murdered, and their papers seized. 4 

In 1572 du Cros, French envoy to Scotland, was arrested in 
England, at a time when the passage of Frenchmen through 
England to Scotland was forbidden. It was contended that he 
should have asked for a passport. 5 

On September 9, 1679, an ordinance of the States-General 
accorded inviolability to diplomatic agents passing through the 
United Provinces, just as if they were accredited there. 

In 1793 the French revolutionary government sent Marat and 
Semonville on a mission to Switzerland. In passing through the 
territory of the Grisons they were arrested by order of the Austrian 
Government, stripped of their property, and confined in the citadel 
of Mantua. 6 

(i) In 1839, in the case Holbrook v. Henderson, before the 
Superior Court of New York, the minister of the republic of Texas 
in France and England, while returning to his own country, was 
arrested in the United States for debt. The court held that the 
privilege of an ambassador extended to immunity against all civil 
suits sought to be instituted against him in the courts of the country 
to which he was accredited as well as in those of a friendly country 
through which he was passing on the way to his post, and that he 
was entitled to this as representative of his sovereign, and also 
because it was necessary for the free and unimpeded exercise of his 
diplomatic duties. 7 

1 vi. 431. 

2 Leon c. Diaz, Clunet (1892), "37; Hurst, Les Immunitls Diplomatique*, Cours 
de La Haye (1926), ii. 228. 

3 Stoiesco c. Stoiesco, Clunet (1918), 656 ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 229. 

4 Flassan, iii. 9. 8 Ward, Law of Nations, 560. 

6 Sorel, L' Europe et la Revolution Franfaise, iii. 43 1 . 

7 4 N. Y. Super. Ct. 619 ; Hudson, Cases on International Law, 854. 


(2) In 1840 Mr. Beylen, United States consul, who was employed 
by his government as a courier to Genoa, was, while crossing France, 
cited for recovery of debts. The Civil Tribunal of the Seine held 
that he was exempt from French jurisdiction under the decree 
13 ventose, an II, which, in consecrating the inviolability of diplo- 
matic agents, made no distinction between those accredited to France 
and those traversing France in order to reach their posts elsewhere. 1 

(3) In 1854 the French Government refused to Mr. Soule, 
United States minister at Madrid (of French origin, but naturalised 
in the United States, and said to have been " of a fiery tempera- 
ment ") permission to stay in France on his way to his post, on the 
ground that his antecedents had attracted the attention of the 
authorities charged with public order ; they had no objection to 
his merely passing through, but as he had not been authorised to 
represent his adopted country in his native land, he was for the 
French Government merely a private person, and as such subject 
to the ordinary law. 2 

(4) In 1888, in the case New Chile Gold Mining Co. v. Blanco and 
another, in the English courts, an action was begun against 
M. Blanco, Venezuelan minister at Paris, and an order for the 
service of the writ out of the jurisdiction having been made, an 
application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench to set the 
order aside. In the result, and although the general question was 
not decided, the court set aside the order, and held that as a matter 
of discretion it would not allow service of a writ out of England on 
the minister of a friendly Power accredited to a foreign state. 3 

(5) In 1889, in the case Wilson v. Blanco in the United States, 
M. Blanco, Venezuelan minister at Paris, was served, while passing 
through, on his way to his post, with process in connection with a 
civil claim against him, and in default of appearance judgment was 
given against him for the sum of $2,194,535.34. On a motion to 
set aside the judgment and vacate the summons, the Superior Court 
of New York, in referring to the case of Holbrook v. Henderson in the 
same court, and to the views of numerous jurists of recognised 
authority, as set forth in Wheaton, granted the application to 
vacate the judgment and set aside the summons upon him. 4 

(6) In 1900 the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, in answer 
to an enquiry addressed to him by the Spanish ambassador, con- 
cerning the Due de Veragua, said : " L'agent diplomatique, ou 
meme la personne chargee temporairement d'une mission diploma- 
tique qui traverse la territoire francaise pour accomplir sa mission 
a 1'etranger ou retourne pour rendre compte a son gouvernement, 
doit etre assimile a 1'agent diplomatique accredite, et par suite 
doit etre exempte de la juridiction locale." 5 

1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 223. 

2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 119; Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 53. 

3 4 T. L. R. (1888), 346. * Scott, Cases on International Law, 293 
6 Clunet (1901), 342 ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 225. 


(7) In 1910, in the case Sickles v. Sickles, at Paris, concerning 
divorce proceedings instituted against the secretary of the United 
States legation at Brussels, the Civil Tribunal of the Seine declared 
itself incompetent, as the defendant had never been domiciled in 
France. But on the general question of his liability to the local 
jurisdiction in the circumstances of his stay in Paris for non-official 
reasons, they observed : " Que si ces prerogatives (immunites 
diplomatiques) doivent etre etendues au cas ou ces agents traver- 
sent un autre pays pour l'accomplissement de leur mission, ou 
apres son execution, ces envoyes ne peuvent reclamer les memes 
immunites lorsqu'ils se trouvent sur un territoire etranger sans etre 
appeles pour des affaires se rattachant a leurs fonctions ; que les 
raisons superieures et d'ordre public qui justifient ces immunites 
diploma tiquesne se rencontrent pas dans cettedernierehypothese." l 

(8) In 1924, in the case Carbone v. Carbone, in the United States, 
an action was brought against an attache of the legation of Panama 
in Italy in respect of proceedings in divorce. The court held that 
there was a marked difference between immunity from civil pro- 
ceedings and immunity from arrest. A country which a diplomatic 
agent crosses in going to or coming from the country to which he is 
accredited, owes to him only that it shall not hinder the fulfilment 
of his mission by restraining his personal liberty. The warrant of 
arrest against him was therefore annulled, but not the writ to enter 
appearance. 2 

(9) In 1926 Madame Kollontai, who had been appointed by the 
Soviet Government as minister at Mexico, was refused permission 
to pass through the United States (which was not in diplomatic 
relations with that government) on her way to her post. 

436. The treaty concluded between Italy and the Holy 
See on February n, 1929, provides as follows : 

Article 12. Italy recognises the right of the Holy See to active 
and passive legation in accordance with the general rules of inter- 
national law. Envoys of foreign governments to the Holy See 
shall continue to enjoy in the Kingdom all the privileges and immu- 
nities appertaining to diplomatic agents in virtue of international law, 
and their headquarters may remain in Italian territory and shall 
enjoy all the immunities due to them in accordance with interna- 
tional law, even if the states to which they belong maintain no 
diplomatic relations with Italy. It is understood that Italy under- 
takes always and in every case to leave free the correspondence from 
all states, including belligerents, to the Holy See, and vice versa. . . . 
In virtue of the sovereignty recognised, and without prejudice to 
the provisions of Article 19 below, diplomatists of the Supreme 
Pontiff shall enjoy in Italian territory, even in time of war, the 
treatment due to diplomatists and carriers of despatches of other 

1 Clunet (1910), 529. 

2 206 N. Y. Super. Gt., 40 (1924) ; Dedk, op. cit., 530. 


foreign governments, in accordance with the rules of international 

Article 19. Diplomatic officers and envoys of the Holy See, 
diplomatic officers and envoys of foreign governments accredited 
to the Holy See . . . possessing passports issued by their state of 
origin and vises by Papal representatives abroad, shall be admitted 
without further formality to the City across Italian territory. The 
same shall apply to the above-mentioned persons, who, being 
furnished with regular Papal passports, are proceeding abroad 
from the Vatican City. 

Passage in Time of War 

437. When the state by which the agent is accredited is at war 
with the third state. 

A Power which during war arrests the envoy of a hostile 
state who is found within its territory, and treats him as a 
prisoner of war, commits thereby no breach of international 
law. 1 As Rivier says : "If the two states are at war, the 
agent may in default of a safe-conduct be made prisoner." 2 
If he travels on board a neutral ship, the vessel may be seized 
and brought in for adjudication in the prize court. 3 

(1) In 1744 France declared war against the King of England, 
Elector of Hanover, and Hanover was consequently enemy territory 
for France. Marshal Belleisle, then at Frankfort as French ambas- 
sador to the Emperor Charles VII (Elector of Bavaria), was ordered 
to proceed to Berlin as minister. In crossing Hanover, he and his 
brother were made prisoners of war. Orders were sent from 
London to remove them to England, where they were retained for 
several months, until released conditionally. 4 

(2) In 1 744 Holdernesse, ambassador of Great Britain to Venice, 
was arrested near Nuremberg by order of the Emperor Charles VII. 
Since, as late as January 1 745, the latter had a minister in London, 
there was no justification for this arrest, and on learning of it, the 
Bavarian commander-in-chief ordered his release and preferred 
an apology. 5 

(3) In 1915 Dr. C. Dumba, Austrian ambassador at Washington, 
on his recall, and Captains Boy-Ed and Von Papen, German naval and 
military attaches, on their recall, owing to the dissatisfaction of the 
United States Government with their proceedings, were, at the 
request of that government, granted safe-conducts by the Allied 
Powers for their return journeys to Europe. 

(4) In 1917, on the entry of the United States into the war, 
Count Bernstorff, German ambassador at Washington, was, at the 
request of the United States Government, granted safe-conduct by 
the Allied Powers to enable him to return to Germany. 

1 Hall, 365. 2 Op. cit., 509. 3 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 235. 

4 Ch. de Martens, Causes ctlebres, etc., i. 285. 5 Ibid., 300 n. 


(5) In 1917 Herr von Heinriclis, former secretary to the German 
embassy at Madrid, while on his way to Mexico to take up another 
appointment, was made prisoner on landing in Cuba, then at 
war with Germany. 1 

(6) In 1918 Captain von Krohn, naval attache to the German 
embassy at Madrid, was, at the request of the Spanish Government, 
granted safe-conduct by the French Government, to permit of his 
return to Germany through France, a prescribed route being 
enjoined. 2 

438. When Italy declared war against Austria-Hungary 
in 1915, the diplomatic representatives of the Central Powers 
accredited to the Pope, who resided outside the exempted 
buildings occupied by His Holiness, avoided all difficulty by 
retiring beyond the Italian frontier. The Law of Guarantees 
of May 13, 1871 (now abrogated by the Treaty of February 1 1, 
1929), however, provided (Article n) as follows 3 : 

The envoys of foreign governments accredited to His Holiness 
will enjoy in the Kingdom all the prerogatives and immunities 
appertaining to diplomatic agents, in accordance with international 

The penal sanction for offences against such representatives 
shall be the same as that which would be applied in respect of 
foreign envoys accredited to the Italian Government. 

The envoys of His Holiness to foreign governments shall possess 
within the territory of the Kingdom the usual prerogatives and 
immunities, in accordance with the same law, both in going to 
their posts and in returning. 4 

439. When the state to which the agent is accredited is at war 
with the third state. 

An old case of 1 702 is recorded, when, during the war between 
Sweden and Poland, the Marquis de Bonnac, French envoy to Sweden, 
was arrested in passing through Polish territory. In reply to the 
serious representations of the French Government, it was said in 
extenuation that he should have provided himself with a passport. 5 

440. If the state to which the agent is accredited is 
invaded by the armed forces of the third state, various questions 
may arise. 

(a] If the government of the invaded state is transferred 
from the capital to a town in the country (as when in 1914 
the French Government transferred its seat from Paris to 
Bordeaux), the question whether the diplomatic agent should 
also transfer his residence to that town, or continue to reside 

1 Oppenheim, i. 398. 2 Genet, Traitt de Diplomatic, etc., i. 596. 

3 For certain provisions of the treaty of February n, 1929, between Italy and 
the Holy See, see 436. 

4 de Castro y Casaleiz, ii. 456. 5 Flassan, iv. 239. 


at the capital, is one for himself and his government to 
decide. 1 

(b) If the state to which the agent is accredited is occupied 
by the military forces of the third state, the obligation of 
withdrawal naturally falls upon diplomatic agents of states who 
may be in alliance with the former. The representatives of 
neutral states might also be required to withdraw, unless 
charged by their governments with special functions with the 
consent of the occupying state. 2 

In 1914, on the occupation of Luxemburg by German forces, 
the German Government insisted on the withdrawal of the French 
and Belgian ministers accredited to Luxemburg. 3 

In 1914, on the occupation of the greater part of Belgium by 
German forces, the Belgian Government transferred its seat to 
French territory, whither most of the diplomatic agents accredited 
to Belgium followed it. The Spanish and United States ministers, 
being charged with special functions, were, with some others, 
allowed by the German Government to remain in Brussels, in the 
enjoyment of diplomatic privilege. The United States minister 
withdrew shortly before the entry of the United States into the war. 4 

In 1916, on the invasion of Roumania, and its occupation in 
great part by the Central Powers, the latter insisted on the repre- 
sentatives of neutral states leaving Bucharest, and on January 13, 
1917, they left on a special train placed at their disposal for the 
purpose. 5 

(c) If the seat of government is besieged by the military forces of 
the third state. 

Siege of Cadiz, 1823. During the French invasion of Spain, the 
Cortes retired to Cadiz, and the King went with them. The 
French forces laid siege to the city. The instructions to the British 
minister, as given in a despatch from Canning of September 18, 
1823, were 6 : 

" You have judged wisely in declining their (the Spanish 
Government's) solicitation to repair under the present circum- 
stances to Cadiz. It is obvious that one object at least (if not the 
single object) of that solicitation is to produce a state of things fertile 
in sources of misunderstanding with the blockading belligerent ; 
and of questions which, as it would be difficult to solve, it would be 
most inconvenient unnecessarily to stir : questions, of which the 
usually admitted authorities in matters of international law have 
not even contemplated the occurrence ; and for the decision of 
which history affords no practical example. Who has laid down, 
and, in the absence of authority and precedent, who shall lay down 
what are the rights and privileges of the minister of a neutral Power 

1 Hurst, op. cit., 233. 2 Ibid., 232. 3 Ibid., 231. 

4 Ibid., 232. 6 Ibid., 232. 

6 Quoted in Stapleton's Political Life of the Rt. Hon. George Canning, i. 465. 


in a town besieged and blockaded by sea and land ? Has he a 
right of unlimited communication with his Court ? Is he to direct 
the vessel which he may employ to submit to search, or to resist it 
in the execution of this object ? These and a hundred other ques- 
tions of the like difficulty must arise in a situation so new and 
anomalous ; and questions between nations which are not referable 
to preconcerted agreements, or to settled principles and acknow- 
ledged law, what power is to decide but the sword ? If we had 
been disposed to go to war with France, and in behalf of Spain, we 
would have done so openly, and either on the merits of the case, or 
in vindication of some intelligible interest. But after professing and 
maintaining a perfect and scrupulous neutrality throughout the 
contest, to be betrayed at this stage of it into hostilities with France 
through an uncalled for and unprofitable discussion upon abstract 
points of international jurisprudence, would be a weakness unworthy 
of any government, and such as must make us the laughing stock 
of Europe. Your presence at Gibraltar places you quite as much 
within the reach of the Spanish Government for all purpose of 
active friendship and utility (as indeed the late transaction has 
shown) as if you were shut up within the walls of Cadiz and 
exposed (gratuitously as must be admitted) to the dangers and 
sufferings of a siege." 

Siege of Paris, 1870-1. During the siege of Paris by the German 
forces certain diplomatic agents remained in the city. Among 
these were the nuncio, and the United States, Swiss, Swedish, 
Danish, Belgian and Netherlands ministers. Having requested 
permission to send out a diplomatic courier through the German 
lines, they were informed that letters would be allowed to pass if 
unclosed, provided they contained nothing objectionable from a 
military point of view. On a further representation that the condi- 
tion of sending open despatches would render official relations with 
their governments impossible, Count Bismarck's reply, addressed 
to the nuncio, observed, " II a ete cree a Paris un etat de choses 
auquel 1'histoire moderne, sous le point de vue du droit interna- 
tional, n'offre aucune analogic precise. Un gouvernement en 
guerre avec une Puissance qui ne 1'a pas encore reconnu, s'est 
enferme dans une forteresse assiegee, et s'y trouve entoure d'une 
partie des diplomates qui etaient accredited aupres du gouverne- 
ment a la place duquel s'est mis le Gouvernement de la Defense 
Nationale. En face d'une situation aussi irreguliere, il sera difficile 
d'etablir sur la base du droit des gens des regies exemptes de 
controverse sous tous les points de vue." 

The United States minister alone, who had charge of the pro- 
tection of German nationals, was on this ground allowed the 
privilege of despatching and receiving closed bags once a week. 

The United States Secretary of State l appears in the meantime 
to have claimed for the representatives of neutral states in Paris 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States (1871). 


the right of free intercourse with their governments on the ground 
that such intercourse is in itself one of the privileges of envoys. 
Count Bismarck replied : 

" The right of unhindered written intercourse between a 
government and its diplomatic representative, especially so far as 
concerns the government to which he is accredited, is in itself 
undisputed. But this right may come in conflict with rights which 
of themselves are also beyond dispute, as, for instance, in the case 
where a state, to guard against contagious disease, subjects travellers 
and papers to a quarantine. So too in war. The universal and 
imperative right of self-protection, of which war is itself the expres- 
sion, may come in conflict with the diplomatic privileges which, 
just because privileges, are, in doubtful case, subject not to an 
enlarging, but to a contracting interpretation. ... If the writers 
on public law concede to the diplomatic representatives of neutral 
states rights as against a belligerent Power, they do so only while, 
at the same time, coupling therewith the right to regulate the corre- 
spondence of such persons with a besieged town, according to 
military exigencies. Vattel says : 

" ' Elle (la guerre) permet d'oter a 1'ennemi toutes ses ressources, 
d'empecher qu'il ne puisse envoyer ses ministres pour sollicker des 
secours. II est meme des occasions ou 1'on peut refuser le passage 
aux ministres des nations neutres qui voudraient aller chez 1'ennemi. 
On n'est point oblige de souffrir qu'ils lui portent peut-etre des avis 
salutaires, qu'ils aillent concerter avec lui les moyens de 1'assister, 
etc. Cela ne souffre nul doute, par exemple, dans le cas d'une 
ville assiegee. Aucun droit ne peut autoriser le ministre d'une puissance 
neutre ni qui que ce soit ay entrer malgre Vassiegeant, mais pour ne point 
offenser les souverains, il faut leur donner de bonnes raisons du 
refus que Ton fait de laisser passer leurs ministres, et ils doivent 
s'en contenter s'ils pretendent demeurer neutres.' 

" What is true of ministers will be all the more so of messengers 
and despatches. . . . The military necessity of cutting off a 
besieged town from outside intelligence appears a sufficient ground 
for subjecting to control, from a military point of view, the corre- 
spondence of diplomatic persons remaining in the town in its passage 
through territory occupied by the besiegers, and temporarily sub- 
ject to their war sovereignty. It is not perceived that these persons 
are thereby treated as enemies, nor that they are thereby prevented 
from continuing neutral, or that wars are thereby indefinitely pro- 
longed. On the contrary, the end of a war is all the sooner to be 
expected the more strictly the isolation of the hostile capital is 
carried out." 1 

In General 

441. The diplomatic agent accredited to a state, and in 
the absence of a mission or permission of his government, is 

1 Translation from the German. 


in no way authorised to interpose in the differences which that 
state may have with another. If he interferes, the state to 
which he is accredited, or the other, or both, may complain 
to his own government. Either government entitled to com- 
plain may take such measures as it may judge to be appro- 
priate, within the limits imposed by diplomatic privileges and 
immunities. 1 

In 1733 the Marquis de Monti, French envoy in Poland, took 
an active part, after the death of Augustus II, in supporting the 
election of Leczinski, and when the latter was driven from Warsaw 
by Russian and Saxon troops, followed him to Danzig, which was 
besieged, whereupon Monti surrendered to the Russian com- 
mander. To intercessions made on his behalf by France, Great 
Britain and Holland, the Russian reply was that only those 
ministers who do not transgress the limits of their functions can 
claim inviolability, and that only at the hands of the court to which 
they are accredited, and where they have been received and 
recognised as ministers. Monti had taken part in hostilities 
against the Russian forces ; his powers expired with the death of 
Augustus II, and so it was doubtful if he was entitled to be regarded 
as an ambassador after that event ; and, lastly, he had surrendered 
to the Russian commander, ready, as he said, to undergo all the 
misfortunes that might await him. 2 

In 1746 Van Hoey, envoy of the United Provinces at Paris, 
wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, then Secretary of State, after the 
battle of Culloden, asking that the Pretender's life should be spared 
if he was captured. This interference was much resented by the 
British Government, who complained to the States-General, demand- 
ing public satisfaction proportioned to the scandal caused by this 
proceeding to every friend of the honour, religion and liberty of 
the two Powers. The States-General administered a severe rebuke 
to Van Hoey, whom they ordered to write a polite and proper 
letter to the Duke of Newcastle, to acknowledge his own impru- 
dence and the fault of which he had been guilty, and to promise to 
conduct himself more prudently for the future. 3 

1 Rivier, op. cit., ii. 51 1. 

2 Ch. de Martens, op. cit., i. 210 ; Flassan, v. 72. 

3 Rivier, op. cit., i. 512 ; Ch. de Martens, op. cit., i. 312-25. 


442. THE Diplomatic Body comprises all the heads of 
missions, counsellors, secretaries and attaches, both paid and 
honorary, including military, naval, air and commercial 
attaches, chaplains and all other members who are on the 
diplomatic establishment of their respective countries. In 
Oriental countries many embassies and legations have corps 
of student interpreters (interpretes eleves], who are destined to 
be attached to the consular service when they have completed 
their studies. Whether these are to be included in the diplo- 
matic body depends on the decision of the head of the mission 
concerned. At many capitals a list of the diplomatic body, 
compiled from lists furnished by each mission, is published 
from time to time. This generally includes the wives and 
children of the members of the missions. 

443. The doyen is the senior diplomatic representative of 
the highest category. His functions are of a limited character 
in most countries, and are chiefly of a ceremonial description. 
He is the mouthpiece of his colleagues on public occasions. 
He is the defender of the privileges and immunities of the 
diplomatic body from injuries or encroachments on the part 
of the government to which they are accredited. He is some- 
times used as a channel for communication on ceremonial 
matters to the other heads of missions. Whatever records 
belong to the body as a whole are in his keeping. In some 
Oriental countries he may have more important duties to 
perform, as the channel through which joint representations 
regarding the treaty rights of foreigners in general are for- 
warded to the government. But he is in no case entitled to 
write or speak on behalf of his colleagues without having 
previously consulted them and obtained their approval of 
the step which it is proposed to take, and of the wording of 
any written or spoken representations on their behalf. No 
head of a mission will take part with his colleagues in a joint 
representation to the government of the country without 


special authorisation from home, or accept a summons from 
the doyen to attend a meeting for the discussion of international 
matters unless he has received instructions to take joint action. 
At Washington such joint demarches of the diplomatic body 
have been generally declined by the Department of State ; 
an apparent exception occurred just before the outbreak of 
the war with Spain in 1898, when the European ambassadors 
were received by the President to make a joint representation 
in favour of peace. 1 

444. The wife of the senior diplomatic representative of 
the highest category is called the doyenne. Her functions are 
limited to presenting at court ladies of the diplomatic body 
who have no one else to perform this office for them, i.e. if 
the head of the mission to which their husbands belong is 

445. Precedence among Heads of Missions. In each category 
of diplomatic agents seniority depends on the date of official 
notification of arrival at the capital. This is the rule laid 
down in the Reglement de Vienne ( 277). Some authors say 
that it depends on the date of the presentation of credentials. 2 

446. Owing to the necessity of obtaining new credentials 
on the occasion of the death of either the accrediting sovereign 
or of the sovereign to whom the head of a mission is accredited, 
differences of opinion sometimes arose as to the necessity of 
a change of precedence among diplomatists, consequent on 
the difference of date on which the new credentials came into 
their hands, which, of course, might affect the order in which 
they were enabled to give official notification to the minister 
for foreign affairs. In March 1818 a controversy occurred 
at Copenhagen in the following circumstances : The envoy of 
a certain Power was the doyen of the diplomatic body at the 
Danish court. In consequence of changes at his own court, 
he received new credentials. Some of his colleagues main- 
tained that he had thereby lost his seniority and must take 
rank after the others. The majority, however, took the 
opposite view. 3 In 1830 it was agreed among the heads of 
missions at Paris that, notwithstanding the date of delivery of 
their new credentials, they should continue to rank among 
themselves as before. The same arrangement was maintained 
in 1848, on the establishment of the second Republic, and in 
1852, on the assumption of the title of Emperor by Prince 
Louis Napoleon. Similarly in Belgium, on the accession of 

1 Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 124. 

2 Ibid., 70 ; de Martens-Geffken, i. 53 j Garcia de la Vega, 209, 422. 
5 Schmelzing, ii. 128. 


King Leopold II, in consequence of the death of Leopold I 
on December 10, 1865 ; and the Belgian diplomatic repre- 
sentatives in foreign countries also preserved their former 
relative seniority. 1 At the accession of King Alfonso of Spain, 
in 1875, tne British minister had been doyen, but the ministers 
of Portugal and Russia, having presented their new credentials 
before he did, claimed precedence. After much discussion it was 
decided that the previous order of precedence should prevail. 2 

447. It seems obvious that whatever arrangements the 
heads of missions may make among themselves, these cannot 
affect the rules of precedence at court which are adopted by 
the sovereign to whom they are accredited, or, in the case of 
republics, by those similarly adopted. Where there is any 
doubt as to the rules of precedence, the regulations of the par- 
ticular court or state are decisive on the point. And while in 
some places it is held that the date of presentation of credentials 
regulates the rank in each category, this cannot very well happen 
in countries which were parties to the Reglement de Vienne. 

448. It has sometimes been said that charges d'affaires 
accredited to the minister for foreign affairs rank among 
themselves according to the date of the presentation of their 
letters of credence (which is contrary to the Reglement de Vienne}, 
and that it is for this reason that a charge d'affaires ad interim, 
acting in the absence of the head of the mission, ranks after 
those belonging to the permanent category. But this can 
hardly be the reason, for occasionally a charge d'affaires ad 
interim may bear a letter of credence as such. The existence 
of charges d'affaires ad interim cannot be said to have been taken 
into account at Vienna in 1815. The distinction is now, 
however, generally recognised. (See 297.) 

449. It was formerly usual to confer the rank of minister 
plenipotentiary on the counsellor to the British embassy at 
Paris in the absence of the ambassador, and up to 1906, 
whenever the ambassador first went on leave, the counsellor 
presented his credentials as such to the French Government. 
But in 1 906 the counsellor of the British embassy at Paris was 
definitely appointed as minister plenipotentiary, and in 1929 
as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, a course 
which had previously been adopted in 1924 in the case of the 
counsellor to the British embassy at Washington. 

450. Wives of diplomatists enjoy the same privileges, 
honours, precedence and title as their husbands. The wife of 
an envoy consequently is entitled to : 

1 Pradier-Fodere, i. 290 ; Garcia de la Vega, 210. 

2 Foreign Relations of the United States, cited by Foster, op. cit., 71, 


1 . A higher degree of protection than what is assured to 
her in virtue of her birth and sex. 

2. The same personal exemptions as belong to her 

She accords to ladies of position at the court equality in 
matters of ceremony, only if her own husband accords equal 
rank to the husbands of those ladies. 

She claims precedence and preference in respect of presen- 
tation, reception at court, visits and return visits, over other 
ladies, only if her husband enjoys precedence over the husbands 
of those other ladies. 1 

45 1 . The rules as to presentations at court and to members 
of reigning families, or in a republic to the head of the state, 
as well as to official visits which diplomatic representatives 
should pay, and visits to which they are entitled, are laid down 
with much precision at every capital, and can be learnt by 
inquiry in the proper official quarter. 

452. Ambassadors and other heads of missions, when 
invited to national or court festivities, are entitled to a place of 
honour among the persons invited, which is fixed by local 
regulation or usage. Neglect of this ceremonial obligation, 
in itself of minor importance, in the past sometimes led to 
strained relations. In 1750 the Russian envoy at Berlin was 
omitted from the list of persons invited to a certain court 
festivity, because he was supposed to be absent from the 
capital. The incident led to a strong protest from his court, 
and diplomatic relations between the two states were con- 
sequently suspended for a long period. 2 

453. In monarchical countries the diplomatic body come 
after the members of the reigning family. In republics their 
precedence is not uniformly settled. In Great Britain foreign 
ambassadors yield precedence, so far as personages of British 
nationality are concerned, only to members of the Royal 
Family who are Royal Highnesses ; ambassadresses are 
usually given a similar position. Foreign envoys and ministers 
are by courtesy given precedence after dukes and before 
marquesses, and their wives after duchesses and before 
marchionesses. The precedence of charges d'affaires is not 
officially laid down and rests upon courtesy. 

In France the diplomatic body come after the Presidents of 
the Senate and Chamber of Deputies ; at Washington after 
the Vice-President. In South American republics it is believed 
they take rank after the members of the cabinet and the 
presidents of the legislative chambers. 

1 Schmelzing, 159. * Ibid., ii. 126. 


454. At the Court of St. James, heads of missions are 
expected to attend Levees. They and the personnel of their 
missions have the entree, and are expected to appear at court 
and on state occasions in the uniforms or dress prescribed 
by the regulations of their own court for functions of a cofre- 
sponding character. The ambassador and personnel of the 
embassy from the United States, and of some other embassies 
and legations accredited to the Court of St. James, wear 
evening dress, with breeches and stockings, at courts, state 
balls and evening state parties, but evening dress with trousers 
when Levee dress is worn. 1 

Heads of missions in Great Britain are supplied with a pass 
entitling them to break the line and to be accorded other 
exceptional facilities on occasions when the police are regu- 
lating the traffic at state functions, and are also accorded the 
privilege of a carriage pass entitling them to use the gates 
leading into and out of St. James's Park. 

455. Political significance has sometimes been attached 
to the absence of an envoy from a state ceremony. In 1818 
the omission of the Prussian envoy to attend the diplomatic 
circle on the French King's birthday gave rise to public 
comment, and the inference was drawn that the two govern- 
ments had been unable to come to an agreement about certain 
claims advanced by one of them. The allusions to these claims 
in both legislative chambers, combined with a new law of 
recruiting, excited a hope in the minds of certain hotheads 
that the claims would be referred to the arbitrament of arms. 
" Payez les etrangers du fer ' : was a common expression 
used in certain circles. 2 In 1823 Canning forbade the 
British ambassador in Paris to be present at any rejoicings 
given in celebration of the French successes in the Peninsula. 3 

456. Order of Precedence on the Occasion of Personal Meetings. 
If the ceremony is one at which the diplomatic body has 
to take what may be termed an active part, its members, 
ranged according to the order of precedence prescribed by 
the Reglement de Vienne, are placed on the right of the centre or 
post of honour occupied by the most eminent person present, 
i.e. usually the head of the state. If, however, the part taken 
by the diplomatic body is merely passive, i.e. that of spectators, 
a special place is set apart for it, such as a tribune in a church, 
boxes at a theatre for a gala performance, etc. 4 : 

1 Dress and Insignia worn at His Majesty's Court (1929), 88. 

8 Schmelzing, ii. 227. 

* Stapleton, Political Life of George Canning, i. 482. 

4 de Martens-Geffken, i. 127. - 



As regards seats, the place of honour and consequently the 
precedence attributed to the persons forming the company : At a 
four-cornered table of which all four sides are occupied, or at a 
round or oval table, the first place is usually considered to be facing 
the entrance, and the last place is that nearest to it. Counting 
from the first place, the order of seats is from right to left, and so on. 

In standing, sitting or walking, the place of honour is at the 
right, i.e. when the person entitled thereto stands or walks at the 
right. Precedence is when the person entitled goes a step before 
the other, who is at his left side, as in ascending a flight of stairs or 
entering a room. 

Amongst the Turks, and also at Catholic religious ceremonies, 
the left hand has often been regarded as the place of honour, so 
also among the Chinese. 

In a lateral arrangement, i.e. when the persons present stand 
side by side in a straight line, the outside place on the right, or the 
central place, is the first according to circumstances. When there 
are only two persons, the right hand is the first ( ) ; if there 
are three, the middle place is the first ( ), the right hand 
the second, the left hand the third. If the number is four, the 
furthest to the right is the first place, the next is the second, the 
left of the latter is the third, and then the fourth (0 ).* 
Of five persons, the first is in the middle, immediately to the right 
is the second, to the left is the third, further to the right is the fourth, 
and the fifth is the furthest to the left ( ). If six or 
more, the same principles are observed, according as the number 
is odd or even. 

In perpendicular order, i.e. when one comes after the other, the 
foremost place is sometimes the most honourable, sometimes the 
last, the next person who follows or precedes has the second and 

so on. If there are only two, the front place is the first { x: ] ; 
if three, the midmost is the first, the second is in front, the third 

is behind 

If four, the front place is the fourth, the next is 

the second, the next to that the first, the hindmost is the third 

1 de Martens-Geffken, i. 131, puts the order thus 


If five, the midmost is the first, the second is immediately in front, 
the third is behind, the foremost is the fourth and the hindmost the 


fifth 0. If there are six or more, the same principle is observed 

according as the number of persons is even or odd. 1 

457. In a diplomatic house precedence is accorded to 
officials of rank belonging to the country, provided no ambas- 
sadors are present. The latter yield precedence only to the 
minister for foreign affairs. 

On the other hand, in the house of an official or dignitary 
of the country, the diplomatists go before every one, except the 
minister for foreign affairs. 

In a diplomatic house the host gives precedence to his 
foreign colleagues over his own countrymen, no matter what 
the rank of the latter. 

458. Rules, as set forth in ' Dress and Insignia worn 
at His Majesty's Court," 2 specify occasions upon which 
orders, miniature decorations and medals are to be worn 
with evening dress, viz. " At all parties and dinners given in 
houses of Ambassadors and Ministers accredited to ^this 
Court, unless otherwise notified by the Ambassador or Minister 
concerned. (A decoration of the country concerned should 
be worn in preference to a British one, and if both are worn, 
the former should take precedence of the latter)." 

459. In former times the question whether an ambassador, 
or other person of high rank, such as a cardinal, should give 
the peat of honour to a person of lower rank paying him an 
official visit was held to be one of vital importance. Thus, in 
the instructions given to the Hon. Henry Legge, when he 
was being despatched to Berlin, in 1748, as envoy to the great 
Frederick, occurs the following passage : 

Whereas Our Royal Predecessor King Charles the Second did, 
by his Order in Council, bearing date the 26th Day of August, 1668, 
direct, that his Ambassadors should not, for the future, give the 
Hand [i.e. the seat of honour] in their own Houses to Envoys, in 
pursuance of what is practised by the Ambassadors of other Princes, 
and did therefore think it reasonable, that His Envoys should not 
pretend to be treated differently from the Treatment He had 
directed his Ambassadors to give to the Envoys of other Princes ; 
We do accordingly, in pursuance of the said Order in Council, 

1 Miruss, Europdisches Gesandschaftsrecht. 

2 Issued with the authority of the Lord Chamberlain, 151. 


hereby direct you, not to insist to have the Hand from Any Ambas- 
sador, in his own House, who may happen to be in the Court where 
you reside. 1 

Callieres, too, on this subject, says : 

Les Ambassadeurs du Roy ont differens ceremoniaux selon 
les coutumes etablies dans les diverses Cours ou ils se trouvent, 
1'Ambassadeur de France a Rome donne la main chez luy aux 
Ambassadeurs des Couronnes & de Venise, & ne la donne point 
aux Ambassadeurs des autres Souverains, ausquels les Ambassadeurs 
du Roy la donnent dans les autres Cours ; 1'Ambassadeur de France 
a le premier rang sur tous les Ambassadeurs des autres Couronnes 
dans toutes les ceremonies qui se font a Rome, apres 1'Ambassadeur 
de 1'Empereur. Ces deux Ambassadeurs y rec.oivent en tout des 
traitemens egaux & se traitent entr'eux avec la meme egalite. 

Les Ambassadeurs des Couronnes a Rome sont assis et decou- 
verts durant les Audiances que le Pape leur donne. 

II y a plusieurs Cours ou les Ambassadeurs du Roy donnent 
la main chez eux aux gens qualifiez des pays ou ils se trouvent, 
comme a Madrid aux Grands d'Espagne & aux principaux Officiers, 
a Londres aux Lords Pairs du Royaume, en Suede & en Pologne aux 
Senateurs, & aux grands Officiers, & ils ne la donnent point en 
aucun pays aux Envoyez des autres Couronnes. 

L'Empereur re9oit les Envoyez du Roy debout & couvert, & 
demeure en cet etat durant toute 1'Audiance, 1'Envoye etant seul 2 
avec 1'Empereur debout & decouvert. 

Les Electeurs Laiques les regoivent & leur parlent debout & 
decouverts durant les Audiances publiques qu'ils leur donnent, & 
ils sont assis & couverts lorsqu'ils ont Audiance des Electeurs 

Les Souverains d'ltalie se couvrent & les font couvrir, excepte 
le Due de Savoye, qui ne les faisoit pas couvrir, avant meme qu'il 
fut parvenu a la Couronne de Sicile, & qui leur parlait debout & 
couvert, eux etant debout & decouverts. 3 

Les Nonces du Pape en France, donnent la main chez eux au 
Secretaire d'Etat des affaires etrangeres, & ne la donnent point 
aux Eveques ni aux Archeveques lorsqu'ils recoivent leurs visites 
en ceremonie. 4 

Ils donnent la main chez eux aux Ambassadeurs des Couronnes 
& a celuy de la Republique de Venise qui sont dans la meme Cour, 
et tous les Ambassadeurs leur cedent la main en lieu tiers, excepte 
ceux des Roys Protestans, qui n'ont point de commerce public 
avec eux ; on leur donne le titre de Seigneurie Illustrissime, en leur 
parlant, & en leur ecrivant, il y en a qui leur donnent le titre 
d' 'Excellence, comme aux Ambassadeurs, & ils le regoivent d'ordinaire 
assez volontiers quoyque ce soit un titre Lai'que. 5 

1 P.R.O.. King's Letters, Prussia, 1737-1760, 2. 

2 This was formerly the rule at Vienna. 

3 Callieres, 107. * Ibid., 131. 6 Ibid., 132. 


Les Envoyez se rendent entr'eux les memes civilitez que les 
Ambassadeurs a leur arrivee a 1'egard des complimens des visites, 
les Envoyez de France & des autres Couronnes donnent la main 
chez eux dans toutes les Cours a tous les Envoyez des autres 
Souverains. 1 

460. And the instructions given to the Marquis d'Hautefort 
in 1750, on his appointment by the King of France to represent 
him at Vienna, stated that : 

Le sieur Morosini, ambassadeur de la republique de Venise 
aupres du Roi, a refuse de visiter le Cardinal Tencin, 2 sous le pre- 
texte que ce prelat ne voulait pas lui donner la main chez lui. Ce 
refus a paru d'autant plus singulier de la part de ce ministre que 
ses deux predecesseurs immediats n'avoient fait nulle difficulte de 
remplir ce devoir de politesse envers cette eminence. Comme le 
Comte de Kaunitz 3 voudra vraisemblablement suivre 1'exemple 
du sieur Morosini, 1'intention du Roi est que le marquis de Hautefort 
ne fasse point de visite aux cardinaux allemands, a moins que 
ceux-ci ne lui donnent la main chez eux ou qu'il soit bien assure que 
le comte de Kaunitz aura recu 1'ordre de sa cour de se conformer 
en France au ceremonial observe jusqu'a present par rapport aux 
cardinaux. 4 

It is to be hoped that such pretensions on the part of cardinals 
and ambassadors have not survived to the twentieth century. 

461. Conduct of Diplomatic Representatives of Belligerents 
towards each other during War-time. 

Les Ministres des Princes qui sont en guerre & qui se trouvent 
dans une meme Cour ne se visitent point tant que la guerre dure, 
mais ils se font des civilitez reciproques en lieu tiers lorsqu'ils se 
rencontrent, la guerre ne detruit point les regies de 1'honnetete ny 
celles de la generosite, elle donne meme souvent occasion de les 
pratiquer avec plus de gloire pour le Ministre qui les met en usage, 
& pour le Prince qui les approuve. 5 

The custom would seem to be that diplomatic agents of 
belligerent states accredited to neutral countries ignore each 
other, unless circumstances compel them to meet. During the 
late war the German ambassador at Washington is said to have 
ignored the British ambassador, while conceding to the French 
ambassador such courtesy as the latter was entitled to as doyen 
of the diplomatic corps. 

Callieres relates the story of the Sieur de Gremonville, 
French representative at Rome during hostilities between 
France and Spain, who, learning of a plot to kill the Spanish 
ambassador, warned the latter, and earned much praise for this 

1 Callieres, 193. 2 Who was also Foreign Minister. 

3 Appointed ambassador at Paris in 1 750. 

4 Recueils des Instructions, etc., Austria, i. 326. 6 Callieres, 194. 


action. The story recalls the incident of Fox communicating 
to Talleyrand, in 1806, information regarding a scheme for the 
assassination of Napoleon, disclosed to him by a Frenchman. 1 

462. Visits. Flags. At some capitals it was formerly, and 
may still be in some cases, the usage for diplomatists to visit 
each other and offer congratulations on their respective 
national fete-days, such as July 14 for France, July 4 for the 
United States. Where diplomatic houses have a flagstaff on 
the roof or in the grounds, the national flag is flown as a 
compliment to the other friendly Power, and it will also be 
hoisted on the national fete-day of the country represented. 

463. The flag flown by British diplomatic missions abroad 
is the Union Jack, with the Royal Arms in the centre on a 
white shield, surrounded by a green garland, and is flown 
either over the house of the mission, or at the bow of the boat 
or other vessel, if His Majesty's representative is afloat. It is 
customarily flown on the King's birthday, the Queen's birth- 
day, the Prince of Wales' s birthday, Empire day (May 24), on 
the occasion of the accession or on the birthday of the sovereign 
to whom the mission is accredited, and on the national holiday 
of the country in which the mission resides, amongst other occa- 
sions ; and it is flown at half-mast on the occasion of the deaths 
of members of the British Royal family, or the death of the 
sovereign or head of state to whom the mission is accredited. 

464. Signing Treaties and other Documents. If the treaty is 
a bilateral one, prepared in duplicate, each country has 
precedence in the preamble of the original to be retained by it, 
and in its signature. A usual method, where there are two 
texts, is to give each country precedence in the preamble of 
its own text, and then, to avoid further change, give priority 
to each of the two countries in turn by printing its text in the 
left-hand column of the original to be retained by it. If the 
treaty is a multilateral one between heads of states, the latter 
are mentioned in the preamble in the alphabetical order of 
the states over which they preside ; if between governments, 
the contracting countries may be ranged in alphabetical order 
in the preamble. Signatures are appended in the same order. 
See, however, 574-581, where the matter is more fully 
gone into. 

465. Rules of the past, which have largely fallen into 
desuetude, are said to have been as follows : 

The first named in the text, especially in the preamble, has the 
first place in signing, the second named the second, and so on. When 

1 Cambridge Modern History, ix. 269 ; Holland Rose, Life of Napoleon I., ii. 70. 


the signatures are appended in two columns, the first place is at the 
top of the left-hand column, the second at the top of the right-hand 
column, and so on. But when resident ambassadors sign a protocol, 
they sign in the order of their local seniority, and not according to 
the alphabetical order of the French names of the country they 
represent. If the minister for foreign affairs also signs, his signa- 
ture takes the first place. But cases exist where plenipotentiaries 
have disregarded all these rules, and have appended their signatures 

466. The title of " Excellency '' is given to Ambassadors 
orally as well as in written communications in virtue of their 
diplomatic rank. 

The title came into general use after the Peace of Westphalia. 
It is said to have been adopted by the French plenipotentiaries 
d'Avaux and Servien, in order to mark the difference between 
the ambassadors of crowned heads and those of lesser poten- 
tates. 1 After the Congress of Vienna it became general at all 
European courts. Of course, an ambassador of princely rank 
is addressed by the corresponding title he bears ; if he is a 
cardinal by that of " Eminence." 

467. English usage does not accord it to Secretaries of 
State. 2 His Majesty's ambassadors, the Governors-General of 
His Majesty's Dominions, the Viceroy and Governor-General 
of India, and the Governors of the Provinces of India are 
officially addressed as " Excellency." The Governors of His 
Majesty's colonies receive the title by courtesy locally. 

In French practice it is accorded to ambassadors, 
presidents of foreign republics, and in general to foreign great 
dignitaries, officers and ministers of state. 

468. Callieres says : 

On donne le titre ^Excellence aux Ambassadeurs extraordinaires 
et ordinaires, & on ne le donne point aux Envoyez, a moins qu'ils 
ne le pretendent par quelqu'autre qualite, comme celle de Ministre 
d'fitat, de Senateur ou de Grand Officier d'une Couronne. Ce 
titre d' 'Excellence n'est point en usage a la Cour de France, comme il 
est en Espagne, en Italic, en Allemagne & dans les Royaumes du 
Nord, & il n'y a que les Strangers qui le donnent en France aux 
Ministres & aux Officiers de la Couronne, & qui le re^oivent d'eux, 
lorsqu'ils ont des litres, ou des qualites qui leur donnent droit de 
la pretendre. 3 

469. With respect to envoys extraordinary and ministers 
plenipotentiary, Rivier says : " Ce n'est que par cour- 

1 Flassan, iii. 93. 

2 See letter of C. Amyand to Colonel Yorke of July 4, 1751 (S. P. France, 
242, P.R.O.). 

3 125. 


toisie qu'on leur donne, ainsi qu'a leurs femmes, le titre 
d' Excellence." 1 Garcia de la Vega said that it was not 
due to any person in Belgium, but that the minister for 
foreign affairs accorded it to the ministers for foreign affairs of 
crowned heads, to ambassadors and to foreign envoys of the 
second category. Ministers and the foreign diplomatic body 
gave it to the king's ministers. 2 

470. In Spain " Excellency " has been given to ministers 
of the crown, councillors of state, the Archbishop of Toledo, 
to Knights of the Golden Fleece, Collar Knights and Knights 
Grand Cross of the Order of Carlos III, to Knights Grand 
Cross of several other orders, and to a host of other personages, 
including Spanish and foreign ambassadors and ministers 
plenipotentiary of the first class. Senoria ilustrisima was 
given to third-class functionaries of the diplomatic body, and 
Senoria to the fourth and fifth classes of the same. 3 

471. The Peruvian reglement of November 19, 1892, for 
the reception of foreign ministers and cognate matters, gave 
directions to address an envoy extraordinary and minister 
plenipotentiary as Vuestra Excelencia, a minister resident as 
Vuestra Senoria Honorable, a charge d'affaires en titre or ad 
interim as Vuestra Senoria, 

Uniforms. British Practice 

472. The uniform worn by members of His Majesty's 
diplomatic service is the civil uniform, which is worn only 
during tenure of office, or on retirement by special permission 
of the sovereign. The classes are the following : 

First Class. Ambassadors (with the addition of em- 
broidered seams and sleeves). 

Second Class. Ministers. 

Third Class. Counsellors and commercial counsellors. 

Fourth Class. First secretaries, second secretaries, com- 
mercial secretaries (Grades I and II). 

Fifth Class. Third secretaries, honorary attaches, com- 
mercial secretaries (Grade III). 4 

473. Evening Dress. Evening dress coat of blue cloth with 
black velvet collar (the collar cut with notched ends), black 
silk linings ; four buttons on each front, two at the waist 
behind, and one on each tail ; also two small buttons on a 
3-inch cuff, and one above. The facings are of the same 

1 Principes du Droit des Gens, i. 450. 2 Guide Pratique, 243. 

3 de Castro y Casaleiz, i. 360. * Foreign Office List (1931), 145. 


material as the body of the coat. Buttons : gilt, mounted, 
the Royal Arms with supporters. Dress waistcoat : single- 
breasted, of white marcella, with four small gilt buttons to 
match. Trousers : plain black evening dress material. 

This dress is worn abroad by members of His Majesty's 
diplomatic service at the discretion of the ambassador or 
minister ; it is worn at official dinners and parties (a) in the 
presence of members of the British Royal Family who are 
Royal Highnesses, and may also be worn if in accordance 
with local custom ; (b] in the presence of members of the 
Royal Family of the court to which the ambassador or minister 
is accredited. It is never worn in Great Britain. 1 
474. White Uniform to be worn in Hot Climates. 

The uniform is made of white drill, with embroidery on the 
cuffs and collar of the same width and material as that worn 
by diplomatic officers, but worked on white cloth and detach- 
able ; two breast pockets, each buttoned with a small gilt 
button ; buttons full dress or undress ; white drill trousers 
without lace ; white gloves and black boots. It is worn with 
a white helmet, bearing on the front a gilt badge with the 
Royal Arms with supporters. 

Note. The sword is worn on paying or returning official 
visits and on other occasions of ceremony. It is carried in 
a white frog, projecting through a slit on the left side of the 
coat, and attached to a belt worn under the coat. On these 
occasions a spike is worn on the helmet. 2 

475. Dress to be worn by His Majesty's Representatives on 
Official Naval Visits. 

(a] When calling officially on a flag officer or on officers 
commanding His Majesty's ships, Levee dress should be worn 
by His Majesty's representatives, or alternatively white 
uniform in countries where such uniform is worn in lieu of 
Levee dress. On receiving visits from flag officers or officers 
commanding His Majesty's ships, however, His Majesty's 
representatives may use their discretion as to the dress to be 
worn, but if they do not wear uniform they should wear a 
frock coat or morning coat with star, in cases where the 
representative has received the first or second class of one of 
the British orders of knighthood. 

(b) An ambassador or minister accompanying a naval 
commander-in-chief on a visit to pay his respects to the head 
of a state should wear Levee dress, or, where circumstances 
render such an alternative appropriate, white diplomatic 
uniform. 3 

1 Foreign Office List (1931), 146. 2 Ibid., 147. 3 Ibid., 147. 


476. Precedence of Naval, Military and Air Attaches, Com- 
mercial Counsellors, etc. 

At British missions abroad precedence as between members 
of the diplomatic service and naval, military and air attaches, 
and commercial counsellors, is regulated as follows : 

(i) Naval, military and air attaches at His Majesty's Embassies 
and Missions abroad, irrespective of their rank, have place and 
precedence next in succession after the Diplomatic Counsellor, but 
before the Commercial Counsellor, or, at posts where the staff does 
not include a Diplomatic or a Commercial Counsellor, next in 
succession after Diplomatic First Secretaries, but before Commercial 
Secretaries First Grade. 

(ii) Assistant naval, military and air attaches at His Majesty's 
Embassies or Missions abroad, irrespective of their rank, have place 
and precedence next in succession after Diplomatic Second Secre- 
taries, but before Commercial Secretaries Second Grade, excepting 
at posts where such assistant attaches are the only resident naval, 
military or air representatives, in which case their place and 
precedence will be governed by the provisions of paragraph (i) 
above as though they held substantive appointments. 

(hi) Excepting in the cases provided for above, Commercial 
Counsellors and First, Second, and Third Grade Secretaries in His 
Majesty's Commercial Diplomatic Service will rank respectively 
with, but after, Diplomatic Counsellors and Diplomatic First, 
Second, and Third Secretaries. 

(iv) It is to be clearly noted, however, that, notwithstanding 
the above provisions, the charge of any of His Majesty's Embassies 
or Missions abroad will invariably devolve upon the senior diplo- 
matic member of the staff, unless other arrangements are specially 
authorised by the Secretary of State. 1 

477. In the case of other countries it is not apparent what 
relative precedence is accorded to such special attaches. 
In the diplomatic lists of the personnel of the foreign missions 
accredited to Great Britain, their names are as a rule ranged 
after the members of the diplomatic service, and usually in the 
order : military, naval, air and commercial attaches. 

478. Decorations and Presents. 

In former days when a diplomatist left the court at which he 
had represented his sovereign, either on a permanent or temporary 
mission, he usually received a decoration. A gold snuff-box set 
with brilliants was a very usual gift. 

479- Queen Elizabeth objected to her subjects wearing foreign 
insignia of knighthood. Two young Englishmen, Nicolas Clifford 
and Antony Shirley, had been admitted by Henri IV to the Order 


Foreign Office List (1931), 131. 


of St. Michael as a reward for their services. On their return to 
England they appeared at court displaying the insignia of the 
order, which provoked the Queen's anger, because the French 
king, without consulting her, had allowed these her subjects 
to take the oath to him on their admittance, and she threw them 
into prison. Nevertheless, she was too merciful to put the law in 
force against them, seeing that they were ignorant youths, and also 
because she entertained a special goodwill towards the King of 
France, who had conferred so great an honour upon them. She 
therefore ordered that they should return the insignia and take care 
to have their names removed from the register of the Order. 
Henri IV is said to have wittily replied : "I wish the Queen would 
do me a corresponding favour in return. I should like her to 
appoint to the Order of King Arthur's Round Table any aspiring 
Frenchman whom she might see in England." That Order, so 
celebrated in fable, disappeared long ago, just as that of St. Michael, 
in consequence of the disturbed state of affairs, had sunk so low, 
that a French nobleman said : " The chain of St. Michael, which 
was formerly a distinction for very noble personages, is now a 
collar for every kind of animal." 

In 1596, when the title of Count of the Holy Roman Empire 
was conferred on Thomas Arundel of Wardour, with remainder to 
all his male and female descendants, it was argued in the House of 
Lords that an action for theft would lie against any one who branded 
with his mark the sheep of another, and an action of deceit against 
any one who by scattering food before the sheep of another enticed 
them into his own flocks. 1 Queen Elizabeth is reported by Camden 
to have said, in connection with this case : " There is a close bond 
of affection between princes and their subjects. As it is not proper 
for a modest woman to cast her eyes on any other man than her 
husband, so neither ought subjects to look at any other prince 
than the one whom God has given them. I would not have my 
sheep branded with any other mark than my own, or follow the 
whistle of a strange shepherd." 2 

480. During the lifetime of Queen Victoria diplomatic servants 
of the crown were not allowed to accept foreign decorations, except 
in the case of special complimentary missions to foreign sovereigns. 
In all such cases the Queen's permission to accept and wear had 
to be obtained ; the intention to confer had to be notified to the 
Secretary of State through the British Minister accredited at the 
court of the foreign sovereign or through his minister accredited 
at the court of Her Majesty. By an order of 1898 permission could 
only be obtained by the chief of a complimentary mission from 
Her Majesty, or by a military or naval attache on the termination 
of his appointment. 3 In 1911 the regulation was relaxed in so far 

1 Camden, Annales Rer. Angl., Ludg., Batav., 1639, 734. 

2 The story is reproduced by Wicquefort in L'Ambassadeur, nouv. 6dit., augm., 
1730, v.ii. 33, andBk. ii. 99. 

3 There is a well-known story that when Castlereagh, at Vienna in 1814, 
appeared in his ordinary dress-coat with only the riband of the Garter among a 


that private permission might be given to accept and wear on 
certain specified occasions, in a case where the decoration was 
more or less of a complimentary character. The rules of 1914 
stated that permission in such cases would only be given on excep- 
tional occasions, when in the public interest it was deemed expedient 
that acceptance should not be declined. 

481. The rules issued in 1930, however, are more stringent, 
and members of the British Diplomatic Service cannot ordinarily 
expect to be allowed to accept and wear foreign decorations. 
The only exceptions which the rules allow are for the grant of 
unrestricted permission in the case of decorations conferred 
for distinguished services in the saving of life ; and for the 
grant of restricted permission, enabling the decorations to be 
worn on certain specified occasions alone, in the case of 
foreign honours conferred upon (i) British ambassadors or 
ministers when the King pays a state visit to the country to 
which they are accredited ; (2) members of special missions 
when the King is represented at a foreign coronation, wedding, 
funeral or similar occasion ; or (3) any diplomatic represen- 
tative when specially accredited to represent His Majesty on 
such occasions (but not on the members of his staff). Per- 
mission is no longer granted to British ambassadors or ministers 
abroad to accept decorations when leaving their posts on final 

It is not the practice in England to offer a decoration to 
a foreign ambassador or other diplomatic agent on quitting 
his post. 

482. The Constitution of the United States prohibits 
persons holding any office of profit or trust under them from 
accepting, without the consent of Congress, any presents, 
emoluments, office or title of any kind whatever from any 
king, prince or foreign state. The printed instructions of the 
Department of State are that the offer of presents, orders or 
testimonials shall be respectfully but decisively declined. 1 

4 8 3- 

In 1834 a rule was made in Great Britain prohibiting all persons 
in H.M. employment, in diplomatic, consular, naval or military 
capacities, from receiving from a foreign Government any presents, 
whatever might be the occasion on which presents might be offered. 
This rule has occasionally been relaxed by special permission of 
the Secretary of State. But in the " good old times " presents in 

crowd of foreign ambassadors in full uniform and covered with orders, Talleyrand 
exclaimed, " Mafoi ! C'est distingue' ! " Croker, Correspondence and Diaries, iii. 191, 
puts the scene at Chatillon. 
1 Foster, op. cit., 144, 150. 


money to members of the Foreign Office were usually made on 
the occasion of the exchange of ratifications of an important 
treaty. Thus, in 1786, in connection with the commercial treaty 
between Great Britain and France, 500 guineas were given by 
the French Government, of which six-tenths went to the under- 
secretaries, one-tenth to the chief clerk, and three-tenths to the 
junior clerks. In 1793 the Russian Government made a present 
of 1000 in connection with conventions relating to commerce and 
to the war with France, of which the two under-secretaries received 
each 300, and the remainder was shared among ten other clerks. 
In the same year 500 were presented by the Sardinian chancery 
to the under-secretaries and clerks for the ratification of a treaty 
between King George III and the King of Sardinia, and similar 
sums were received from the German Emperor and the Spanish, 
Prussian and Sicilian chanceries, which were divided in the same 
proportions. Thus each under-secretary received in that year 900 
from this source, in addition to his salary. Similar presents were 
made by the British Government to foreign chanceries in the King's 
name. The usual present to an ambassador on his retirement was 
of the value of 1000, and to an envoy of 500. l 

484. From this usage the transition to gifts intended to influence 
the course of politics in any particular country was easy. In 
1727 the four Swedish commissioners who signed the Swedish 
accession to the Treaty of Hanover received 40,000 thalers from the 
English and French Courts. 2 This was probably in excess of the 
usual scale of such presents. Between 1765-6 England, France 
and Russia spent huge sums in endeavouring to influence the 
Swedish Diet. France alone, in eight months, distributed among 
its members nearly 1,830,000 livres, of which Denmark provided 
100,000, but nevertheless France did not succeed in obtaining a 
majority in her favour. 3 

The practice of giving presents of this character upon the 
exchange of the ratifications of treaties and conventions, or to 
ambassadors or ministers of foreign courts sent to the King of 
England on missions of congratulations or condolence, or to the 
permanent representatives of foreign Powers on their taking leave 
on the termination of their appointments, was abolished in 1831 
by a circular from Lord Palmerston. 4 

The United States, for a short period, from 1790 to 1793, 
adopted the practice of giving a gold chain to a foreign diplomatic 
agent on the termination of his appointment. 5 

485. At the Congress of Vienna it was agreed that the plenipo- 
tentiaries should receive neither presents nor decorations, but each 
of the Powers concerned gave presents to Gentz, the principal secre- 
tary, and to others who had helped in drawing up the protocols. 
On the proposal of the British it was decided to present Gentz 

1 J. Q,. Adams, Memoirs, iii. 527, cited by Foster, op. cit., 147. 
2 Miruss, op. cit., 200. 3 Flassan, vi. 560. 

4 Hertslet, Old Foreign Office, 174-6. 5 Foster, op. cit., 143. 


with a snuff-box and 800 gold ducats, to four of his assistants snuff- 
boxes and 500 ducats each, and to two more each 100 ducats, or 
3000 ducats in all. This sum would come to over 1200. When 
the ratifications were exchanged of the treaty of peace of July 20, 
1814, between France and Spain, presents, consisting of a gold 
snuff-box with a portrait of Louis XVIII, worth 15,000 francs, 
were provided for Labrador, the Spanish plenipotentiary, and a 
similar one, with the portrait of Ferdinand VII, for Talleyrand, 
besides 1000 (90,000 reals) for the clerks of the French and Spanish 
ministries for foreign affairs. On June 8, 9 and 10, 1817, a treaty 
was signed between Spain and the five Great Powers with respect 
to the succession to Parma on the death of the ex-Empress Marie- 
Louise, followed by the accession of Spain to the treaties of Vienna 
and Paris (of 1815). On this occasion the Spanish Minister of 
State received five gold snuff-boxes with portraits of the respective 
sovereigns, and Fernan Nunez, the ambassador in London, received 
the same number. To the clerks of the Spanish Ministry of State 
a sum of 450,000 reals (10,000 ducats) was given for the treaty of 
June 10 (Parma succession). Besides these gifts, various decora- 
tions of the order of Carlos III were distributed. As the English 
Foreign Office neither gave nor received decorations, a sum of 
1000 was given by the British embassy to the secretaries of the 
Spanish embassy, a corresponding amount being assigned to the 
secretaries of the British embassy. Presents to the amount of 
90,000 reals (1000) were also given to the chanceries of the five 
Great Powers. Care was taken that the decorations given on 
both sides to the chancery clerks should be of corresponding 
class, a matter always considered to be of the highest importance 
even in modern days, when such trinkets are exchanged. 1 At 
the end of 1817 the amounts of the gifts in money bestowed 
by the contracting parties on the occasion of the conclusion of 
treaties, of royal marriages, of congresses and other conventions, 
and since then instead of jewellers' gold and silver work, mutually 
fixed in money, were divided among the officials of the state 
chancery at Vienna. The sum accumulated up to that date was 
estimated at 28,000 ducats. 2 

486. At the Congress of Teschen, in 1779, Repnin and 
Breteuil, the representatives of the two mediating Powers, each 
received a portrait of Maria Theresa set in diamonds. Frederick 
gave to Repnin his portrait, set in diamonds, estimated at 20,000 
thalers, and a very fine snuff-box to Breteuil, but of less value. 3 
Schmelzing states that Metternich, in November 1818, received 
the Grand Cross of the Netherlands Lion from the hands of the 
King of Holland. This was the twenty-fifth order with which His 
Highness was decorated. 

1 Villa-Urrutia, iii. 381, 382 n. ; 448, 483. 

2 Schmelzing, ii. 208. 3 Temperley, Frederick the Great, etc., 203. 


487. THE mission of a diplomatic agent may come to an end 
during his lifetime in any one of the following ways : 

1 i ) By the expiration of the period for which he has been 
appointed, as, for instance, to a congress or a conference, 
when that comes to an end ; or, if he has been appointed 
ad interim, by the return of the minister en litre. A formal 
recall is in these cases unnecessary. 

(2) When the object of the mission has been attained, as 
in the case of a ceremonial mission ; or by the completion or 
failure of a negotiation for which he has been specially 
appointed. A formal recall is in these cases unnecessary. 

(3) By his recall on his appointment elsewhere, or by his 
resignation and its acceptance by his own government. By 
British rules the head of a mission is appointed only for five 
years, and his appointment ceases at the end of that time, 
unless it be specially continued. It is also a rule that every 
member of the diplomatic service must retire on attaining the 
age limit, though exceptions have occasionally been made to 
this rule. 

(4) By his recall, owing to the dissatisfaction of his own 
government, or at the request of the government to which he 
is accredited. To avoid scandal, gossip or loss of reputation 
to the official who has been so unfortunate as to incur the 
displeasure of his official chief, it is usual to intimate to him 
that he may come away on leave of absence, or that his 
presence is desired at home in order that he may be consulted. 

(5) By the decease of his own sovereign or of the sovereign 
to whom he is accredited. The death of a president of a 
republic does not produce this effect, nor does the expiration 
of the term of office of a president. 1 In either of the two former 
cases fresh credentials are necessary, unless the letter of the 

1 But when the French President, M. Thiers, resigned in 1873, and was 
succeeded by President MacMahon, the German Government insisted on new 
credentials, and its example was followed by Austria, Italy and Russia (Valfrey, 
La diplomatic fran<;aise, ii. 190). Great Britain and other countries did not. 


minister's new sovereign notifying his accession expressly states 
that the minister is to be continued. During the interval 
which may elapse the minister's ordinary relations with the 
authorities of the country go on as usual, and if he is engaged 
on some particular negotiation he can continue to carry it 
on sub spe rati. As a charge d'affaires is accredited only to the 
minister for foreign affairs, the death of a sovereign does not 
affect his position. Neither does the retirement of a minister 
for foreign affairs, and the appointment of a new one, in 
either country. 

(6) If for some violation of international law with regard 
to himself, or on account of some unexpected incident of 
serious gravity, the agent assumes the responsibility of breaking 
off relations. At the present day, when all capitals where 
diplomatists reside are connected by telegraph, such a case 
can hardly occur. 

(7) When the government to which he is accredited, for 
any reason, sends him his passports without waiting for his 
recall. This may happen either when, in consequence of 
actions committed by him, the government to which he is 
accredited no longer regards him as persona grata, or when in 
consequence of offence given by his own government the other 
resolves to break off relations. Such a rupture of relations 
is not necessarily followed by war. If a war has become 
inevitable, the accredited minister of one or the other party 
is more often instructed, after presenting an ultimatum, to ask 
for his passports. The minister of the other party is usually 
instructed to take the same step, if his passports have not 
already been sent to him. 

(8) By a change in the rank of the minister. This more 
often occurs by way of an increase of rank, as when an 
envoy is promoted to be ambassador, a minister resident to 
be envoy, or a charge d'affaires en litre to be minister resi- 
dent. This increase of rank may be permanent ; on the 
other hand, it may only be temporary, as, for instance, 
when an envoy is raised to the rank of ambassador for 
the purpose of investing the sovereign with the insignia of 
a high order, or to attend such ceremonies as those of a 
coronation, Royal marriage, funeral, or some important 
national celebration. In the latter cases, once the event is 
over, the diplomatic agent simply reverts to his original 

(9) By the outbreak of war between the two states. 

(10) By the deposition or abdication of the sovereign of 
either state. 


(n) By the replacement of a monarchy by a republic, or 
a republic by a monarchy, in either state. 
(12) By the extinction of either state. 

488. Whatever may be the causes that lead to the termina- 
tion of a mission, the minister remains in possession of the 
immunities and privileges attached to his public character 
until he leaves the country to which he has been accredited 
within such reasonable time as may be necessary to complete 
and dispose of the affairs of his mission. (See 320, 335.) 

The Pan-American Convention concerning diplomatic officers, 
signed at Havana, February 20, 1928, lays down for the signatory 
states the following rules : 

" Art. 25. The mission of the diplomatic officer ends 

(1) By the official notification of the officer's government to 

the other government that the officer has terminated 
his functions ; 

(2) By the expiration of the period fixed for the completion 

of the mission ; 

(3) By the solution of the matter, if the mission had been 

created for a particular question ; 

(4) By the delivery of passports to the officer by the govern- 

ment to which he is accredited ; 

(5) By the request for his passports made by the diplomatic 

officer to the government to which he is accredited. 

In the above-mentioned cases, a reasonable period shall be 
given the diplomatic officer, the official personnel of the mission, 
and their respective families, to quit the territory of the state ; and 
it shall be the duty of the government to which the officer was 
accredited to see that during this time none of them is molested 
nor injured in his person or property. 

Neither the death or resignation of the head of the state, nor 
the change of government or political regime of either of the two 
countries shall terminate the mission of the diplomatic officers." 

489. When a minister is about to quit his post, whether on 
account of his being transferred elsewhere, or because he is 
being retired on account of age, or at his own request, he 
asks for a farewell audience in order to present his letters of 
recall. This is done through the minister for foreign affairs, 
by a note enclosing a copy of the letter of recall. The farewell 
audience is usually a private one. But at distant posts, and if 
he is being transferred elsewhere, he may have to take his 
departure before the letter of recall can reach him. In this 
case it will be a matter within his own discretion whether to 
ask for a farewell audience. Unless his new appointment has 
been already gazetted at home it may be better not to mention 


the probability of his not returning. In such circumstances 
his letter of recall will be delivered by his successor at the 
same time as the latter presents his own credentials. The same 
course will be followed when he has been recalled in con- 
sequence of the dissatisfaction of his own government. 

490. On receiving the letter of recall, the sovereign or 
president of republic to whom he has been accredited 
customarily addresses to the agent's own sovereign or president 
what is termed a recredential, expressing his satisfaction with 
the agent's conduct and regret at his departure. (See 125.) 
He does not ask for a farewell audience if he breaks off 
relations himself, or if his own government resolves on a 
rupture of diplomatic intercourse. If the latter is the cause of 
his return home, it may happen that he is instructed to come 
away without taking leave. 

491. If the mission terminates by the death of the minister 
at his post, and if he is to be buried in the country where he 
was accredited, it was formerly usual to offer a public funeral 
in his honour, the religious ceremony depending on local law 
and usage. At the present day all ceremonial marks of 
respect befitting the representative character of the deceased 
would doubtless be shown on such an occasion. An excep- 
tional mark of respect has sometimes been paid by conveying 
the body of the deceased to his own country on a warship. 

If his family desire to remove the corpse for interment else- 
where, their wishes must be respected, but in such a case 
they should be made known without delay, before temporary 
interment has taken place on the spot, as the laws of most 
countries render it difficult and troublesome to obtain an order 
for exhumation. 

The secretary of legation, if there is one, will at once 
become charge d'affaires, and it will be his duty to ensure that 
no political documents or cyphers are left with the private 
papers of the deceased, which latter devolve on his legal 
representatives. If there is no secretary, the consul should be 
authorised to perform this duty. It is by no means desirable 
to admit the intervention of a colleague of the deceased, even 
though he be the representative of a friendly or allied Power, 
as seems to be assumed by many writers will be done. The 
representative of another Power has no such right. Nor has 
the local authority any right to meddle with the papers. 

Questions regarding the succession to the personal property 
of the deceased must be regulated by the laws of his own 
country. It may be prudent for a diplomatist to make one of 


his staff an executor of his will in respect of his personal 
property in the country. His movable property can be re- 
exported without the payment of customs duties, or what are 
known in some countries as droits d' extraction. These rules, of 
course, do not apply when the deceased was a subject or 
citizen of the country where he was accredited. The suc- 
cession to any real property which the deceased may have 
possessed there, and any legal formalities are, of course, 
regulated by the lex loci rei sita. 

It is customary to accord to the widow and family of the 
deceased minister, for a reasonable time, the immunities which 
they enjoyed during his lifetime. 1 

The Pan-American Convention concerning diplomatic officers, 
signed at Havana, February 20, 1928, lays down for the signatory 
states the following rule : " Article 24. In case of death of the 
diplomatic officer, his family shall continue to enjoy the immunities 
for a reasonable term, until they may leave the state." 

Persona non grata 

492. Numerous instances of a diplomatic agent becoming 
persona non grata are recorded in the books, and others are known 
to have occurred without being made public. In European 
countries such matters have often been covered up with 
official secrecy. In the present chapter the term is used to 
denote cases in which a diplomatic agent, after having been 
accepted and having entered upon his functions, has in some 
way given offence to the government to which he is accredited, 
so as to induce them to ask for his recall. In some instances 
the request has been granted, with more or less readiness ; in 
others it has been declined. In the latter case it has usually 
happened that the offended government has informed the 
agent that no further official intercourse would be held with 
him and has sent him his passports. 

Request for Recall 

493. The following are instances in which a request for 
the recall of a diplomatic agent having been made, the request 
was complied with : 

In 1792 M. E. C. Genest was appointed French minister 
to the United States. On his arrival, and before pre- 
senting his credentials, he began to fit out privateers to 

1 The substance of these paragraphs is largely taken from de Martens-Geffken, 
chap. ix. 


prey on British commerce, in violation of United States 
neutrality. French consuls, sitting as courts of admiralty, 
condemned prizes, some of them being captured in United 
States waters. When remonstrated with, he expressed con- 
tempt for the opinions of the President and questioned his 
authority. Mr. Morris, the United States representative in 
Paris, was instructed to ask for Genest's recall, which was im- 
mediately granted. 1 The French Republican Government 
took advantage of the occasion to ask for the withdrawal of 
Mr. Morris, who had taken part in the effort to effect the 
escape of Louis XVI from Paris. This was at once conceded. 2 

494. In 1804 the Spanish Government asked for the recall 
of Mr. C. Pinckney, the United States minister at Madrid. 
The reason assigned was a threatening note which he had 
addressed to the Spanish Minister of State. This note 
contained an intimation that he would inform American 
consuls of the critical state of the relations between the two 
countries, and direct them to notify American citizens to be 
ready to withdraw with their property. Mr. Pinckney was 
instructed to come away on leave of absence. 3 

495. In 1809 Mr. E. J. Jackson, British minister at Washing- 
ton, in a correspondence with the Department of State, 
respecting the repudiation by the British Government of an 
arrangement entered into by his predecessor, Mr. Erskine, 
for the settlement of the Chesapeake case and the withdrawal 
of the Orders in Council, intimated that when the agreement 
was concluded the United States Government were fully aware 
that Mr. Erskine had exceeded his instructions. The Secretary 
of State had already protested against this insinuation, and, 
on its being renewed, wrote to Mr. Jackson that no further 
communication would be received from him. Shortly after- 
wards the United States minister in London was instructed 
to ask for Mr. Jackson's recall. This was consented to by the 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, however, main- 
tained that Mr. Jackson did not appear to have committed 
any intentional offence against the United States Government. 4 

496. In 1829 tne United States Government had come to 
the conclusion that the prejudices entertained by a portion of 
the inhabitants of Mexico against their envoy, Mr. Poinsett, had 
greatly diminished his usefulness, and had decided to authorise 
his return home, if it appeared to him expedient. But before 
instructions to this effect could be despatched, the Mexican 
charge d'affaires presented a request for his recall, which was 

1 Moore, iv. 485. 2 Ibid., iv. 489. 

3 Ibid., iv. 490. * Ibid., iv. 514. 


promptly granted, and a charge d'affaires was appointed to 
Mexico in place of a minister. 1 

497. In 1846 Mr. Jewett, the United States charge d'affaires 
at Lima, became involved in a dispute with the Peruvian 
Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the course of which he charac- 
terised a decree which had been officially communicated to 
him as " a compound of legal and moral deformities presenting 
to the vision no commendable lineament, but only gross and 
perverse obliquities." He also omitted to address the minister as 
" Excellency" or" Honourable " in his written communications. 
He was recalled in consequence of a reiterated request from the 
Peruvian Government. In the despatch to Mr. Jewett, the 
Secretary of State laid it down that "if diplomatic agents 
render themselves so unacceptable as to produce a request for 
their recall from the government to which they are accredited, 
the instances must be rare indeed in which such a request 
ought not to be granted. To refuse it would be to defeat the 
very purpose for which they are sent abroad, that of cultivating 
friendly relations between independent nations. Perhaps no 
circumstances would justify such a refusal unless the national 
honour were involved." 2 

498. In 1863 M. H. Segur, minister of Salvador at Washing- 
ton, was alleged to have attempted to violate the neutrality 
laws of the United States during a conflict between Salvador 
and two other Central American republics. Without stating 
their grounds of objection, the United States Government, 
through their minister to the Central American States, inti- 
mated that it would be agreeable if M. Segur could be 
relieved of his official functions and an unobjectionable person 
appointed in his place. The minister, encountering some 
unwillingness on the part of the Salvadorean President, said 
that matters had come to the knowledge of the United States 
President which rendered M. Segur's recall " necessary in 
the highest degree." The Foreign Minister of Salvador 
thereupon replied that " the presence of M. Segur being 
required ' in Salvador, the President had been pleased to 
authorise his recall in order that he might " render important 
services." 3 

499. In 1871 Mr. Fish, the United States Secretary of 
State, informed the United States minister at St. Petersburg that 
the conduct of M. Catacazy, Russian minister at Washington, 
both officially and personally, had for some time past been such 
as " materially to impair his usefulness to his own government 
and to render intercourse with him, for either business or social 

1 Moore, iv. 491. 2 Ibid., iv. 492. 3 Ibid., iv. 500. 


purposes, highly disagreeable " ; that in these circumstances 
the President was of opinion that the interests of both countries 
would be promoted if the head of the Russian legation were 
changed ; and it was hoped that an intimation to this effect 
would be sufficient. The President eventually consented to 
tolerate M. Catacazy until after the intended visit of the 
Grand Duke Alexis to the United States. On this occasion the 
Secretary of State reaffirmed the United States view that an 
official statement that a diplomatic agent had ceased to be 
persona grata is sufficient for the purpose of obtaining his recall. 
" The declaration of the authorised representative of the Power 
to which an offending minister is accredited is all that can 
properly be asked, and all that a self-respecting Power can 
give." Finally, M. Catacazy wrote to the Secretary of State 
that he had received orders to sail for Russia immediately 
after the end of the Grand Duke's tour. Mr. Fish replied that 
this was understood to be a practical compliance with the 
request for his recall. 1 

500. In 1898 a translation of a private letter from Senor 
Dupuy de Lome, the Spanish minister at Washington, to a 
Spanish journalist friend in Cuba, which had been abstracted 
from the mails at Havana, was published in a New York 
paper. 2 The letter described President McKinley as " weak 
and a bidder for the admiration of the crowd, besides being 
a would-be politician (politicastro] who tries to leave open a door 
behind himself while keeping on good terms with the jingoes 
of his party," and it intimated that it would be a good thing 
for Spain " to take up, even if only for effect, the question of 
commercial relations." The United States minister at Madrid 
was instructed to ask for his immediate recall, on the ground 
that the letter contained " expressions concerning the President 
of the United States of such a character as to end the minister's 
utility as a medium for frank and sincere intercourse between 
this country and Spain." The minister sought an interview 
with the Minister of State, who replied that the Spanish 
Government sincerely regretted the indiscretion of their 
representative, who had already offered his resignation. The 
United States minister subsequently addressed a note to the 
Minister of State, reminding him that he had not yet had 
the satisfaction of receiving any formal indication that the 
Spanish Government regretted and disavowed the language 
and sentiments employed. The Minister of State replied 
that at the interview referred to he had stated that the Spanish 

1 Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, 433. 

2 Johnson, America's Foreign Relations, ii. 249. 


Government sincerely regretted the incident, adding that " the 
Spanish ministry, in accepting the resignation of a functionary 
whose services they had been utilising and valuing up to that 
time, left it perfectly well established that they did not share, 
and rather, on the contrary, disauthorised, the criticisms 
tending to offend or censure the chief of a friendly state, 
although such criticisms had been written within the field of 
personal friendship, and had reached publicity by artful and 
criminal means." Two days later the Spanish Government 
appointed a new minister. 1 

501. In 1915 the United States Government requested 
the recall of Dr. Constantin Dumba, the Austro-Hungarian 
ambassador at Washington, who admitted that he had 
proposed to his government plans for instigating strikes in 
American munition factories. This information had reached 
the United States Government through a copy of a letter 
borne by a United States citizen, and a further charge against 
the ambassador was that he was employing a United States 
citizen, protected by a United States passport, as a secret 
bearer of official despatches through the lines of the enemy of 
Austria-Hungary. Dr. Dumba was therefore no longer 
acceptable to the United States Government, who had no 
alternative but to ask for his recall on account of his improper 
conduct, which they did with deep regret, while assuring the 
Austro-Hungarian Government that they sincerely desired to 
continue the existing cordial and friendly relations. 2 On his 
departure, Dr. Dumba was, at the request of the United States 
Government, granted safe conduct by the Allied Powers to 
enable him to return to his own country. (See 437.) 

502. In 1927 the French Government addressed a protest 
to the Soviet Government against the action of M. Rakovsky, 
their ambassador at Paris, in signing a public declaration, which, 
in the event of any future war against the Soviet Union, 
incited the workers of capitalist countries to work for the 
defeat of their governments, and their soldiers to join the 
ranks of the Red Army. This action, the French Government 
alleged, was a flagrant violation of engagements undertaken 
by the Soviet Government at the time of their recognition 
in 1924. The Soviet Government having disavowed the 
action of M. Rakovsky, the latter afterwards made a com- 
munication to the Press with the evident intention of aligning 
particular interests against the policy of the French Govern- 

1 Moore, iv. 507 : Foreign Relations of the United States, 1898, 1007. 

2 Diplomatic Correspondence between the United States and Belligerent Govts. 
Neutral Rights and Commerce, x. 361. 


ment in regard to the settlement of Russian debts. The 
French Government thereupon deemed it impossible, in the 
interests of the two governments and of the success of their 
negotiations, that M. Rakovsky should continue his am- 
bassadorial functions at Paris, and as the Soviet Government 
declined to take the initiative in recalling him, they formally 
demanded his replacement by a more suitable representative. 
In complying with this request, the Soviet Government asked 
for the agrement of the French Government to the appointment 
of M. Dovgalevsky as his successor. 1 

503. The following are instances in which the recall of 
a diplomatic agent was asked for and refused, whereupon his 
dismissal followed or he was no longer received : 

In 1804 the Marques de Casa Trujo, Spanish minister to the 
United States, proposed to the editor of an American news- 
paper to oppose certain measures and views of the government, 
and advocate those of Spain. The government censured his 
action, as constituting a violation of an Act of Congress 
known as the " Logan Statute." 2 He defended his conduct in 
a note, which he caused to be published in the newspapers. 
On the ground of this attempt to tamper with the Press his 
recall was asked for, through the United States minister at 
Madrid. The Spanish Government replied that he had asked 
leave of absence to return home at a season convenient for 
making the voyage, and the President acquiesced in their request 
to let the object sought be thus accomplished. The minister 
remained, however, in the United States, and even returned 
to Washington. He was, therefore, informed that his remain- 
ing was " dissatisfactory " to the President, who expected him 
to leave the country as soon as the season permitted. In reply 
he maintained that he was still in possession of all his rights 
and privileges, and stated that he intended to remain in 
Washington as long as it might suit " the interests of the King " 
and his own " personal convenience." He followed this up 
with a somewhat intemperate protest, which he communicated 
to his colleagues and also caused to be published in the Press. 
The United States Government sent printed copies, together 
with a statement of the facts, to their representative at Madrid, 
instructing him to lay them before the Spanish Government. 
To their surprise, the Minister of State not only defended 

1 Le Temps, Oct. 15, 1927. 

2 The violation of the Logan Act was alleged to have been committed by 
certain American lawyers, who had furnished Yrujo with a legal opinion adverse 
to the view of the United States Government (H. Adams, History of the United 
States, ii. 259). 


Casa Yrujo, but also declared that the communication of the 
papers without explanation was a disrespectful mode of 
addressing the Spanish Government. Yrujo's official relations 
with the Department of State ceased, and another Spanish 
diplomatist was received as charge d'affaires. 1 

504. In 1847 tne Brazilian Government pressed for the 
recall of Mr. Wise, the United States minister at Rio. As this 
would, by implication at least, have involved a censure on his 
action in connexion with the imprisonment of a lieutenant 
and three sailors of the United States navy, the President 
declined to accede to the request. At the same time, the 
Brazilian diplomatic agent was informed that the United 
States minister having some time previously asked to be 
relieved, his request would be granted, and he would quit 
Rio during the following summer. 2 

505. The Paris revolution of 1848 led in Spain to the 
adoption of reactionary measures by the government, and 
the reports received by Lord Palmerston from the British 
minister, Mr, Bulwer, induced him to recommend " earnestly to 
the Spanish Government the adoption of a legal and consti- 
tutional course of government." After holding up as a warning 
to the Spanish Cabinet the recent fall of the French king, he 
added, " It would then be wise for the Queen of Spain, in the 
present critical state of affairs, to strengthen the Executive by 
enlarging the basis upon which the administration is founded, 
and by calling to her councils some of those men who possess 
the confidence of the Liberal party." Mr. Bulwer addressed 
an official Note to the Duque de Sotomayor, Minister for 
Foreign Affairs, enclosing a copy of Palmerston's despatch, 
and advising the Spanish ministry " to return to the ordinary 
form of government established in Spain without delay." 
Sotomayor returned to him both documents, accompanied 
by a strongly worded note, expressing resentment at this 
interference in the domestic affairs of the country. He 
quoted also a paragraph which seemed to indicate that the 
contents of Bulwer's note were known outside, even before it 
reached the Minister of State. Bulwer replied, denying 
that the journal in question had any knowledge of his note, 
and justifying his own action. This drew from Sotomayor 
a further response, refusing to recognise him as competent to 
discuss subjects affecting the internal policy of Spain. At the 
same time, he despatched instructions to the Spanish minister 
in London to ask for Bulwer's recall, which Palmerston refused. 

1 Moore, iv. 508 ; H. Adams, op. cit., ii. chaps, xi. and xvi. 

2 Moore, iv. 495. 


The minister repeated the request in writing, but withdrew it 
on the following day, in consequence of fresh instructions 
from Madrid. Shortly afterwards, a fresh insurrection broke 
out in Madrid, and Bulwer addressed another note to Soto- 
mayor, justifying the original note that had given so much 
offence, and complaining of the hostile language of the 
government Press. Sotomayor sent him a private letter, 
suggesting that he should anticipate as much as possible the 
leave of absence which he was contemplating. Bulwer replied 
that he could not " hasten his departure in consequence of 
a system of slander and libel to which no British minister or 
gentleman could make the slightest concession." Thereupon 
Sotomayor sent him his passports, and despatched an agent to 
London to offer explanations to the British Government, but 
Palmerston declined to receive him, as he was not provided 
with any credentials and possessed no diplomatic character. 
Isturiz, the Spanish minister, then presented a formal note to 
Palmerston, enclosing copies of his instructions, and adding 
that the Spanish ministry were convinced that Bulwer had 
been making use of his official position in favour of a party 
which aimed at obtaining possession of power. This had led 
them to ask for his recall, but as that was refused, the dispute 
had ended by the delivery of his passports to the British 
minister. Palmerston replied, calling on him to present in 
writing forthwith a statement of the grounds on which the 
Spanish Government had proceeded. Two more argumenta- 
tive notes were exchanged, in the last of which Isturiz was 
informed that it was impossible for the Queen to continue to 
receive him as the minister of the Queen of Spain, or for Her 
Majesty's Government to continue to hold official intercourse 
with him. Isturiz thereupon quitted England, and diplomatic 
intercourse between the two countries was interrupted until 
its renewal in the early part of 1850 at the request of the 
Spanish Government. 1 

506. In 1849 M. Poussin, French minister at Washington, 
in the course of a correspondence respecting the detention by 
Commander Carpenter, U.S.N., of a French ship until his 
claim for her salvage was satisfied, asked that the United 
States Government should disavow his conduct and reprove 
him. The Secretary of State, in transmitting Commander 
Carpenter's explanations, declined to comply with this demand. 
On this M. Poussin wrote : 

" His [Comr. Carpenter's] opinions have little interest in our 
eyes, when we have to condemn his conduct. I called on the 

1 Correspondence presented to Parliament, 1848. 


Cabinet of Washington, Mr. Secretary of State, in the name of the 
French Government, to address a severe reproof to that officer of 
the American Navy, in order that the error he has committed, on 
a point involving the dignity of your national marine, might not 
be repeated hereafter. From your answer, Mr. Secretary of State, 
I am unfortunately induced to believe that your government sub- 
scribes to the strange doctrines professed by Commander Carpenter 
. . . ; and I have only to protest, in the name of my government, 
against these doctrines." 

The Secretary of State, in reply, acquainted him that the 
correspondence had been sent to the United States Minister 
in Paris, for submission to the French Government. As the 
latter did not consider that it furnished sufficient ground for 
M. Poussin's recall, the President caused him to be informed 
that the United States Government would hold no further 
correspondence with him as the minister of France, and that 
this decision had been made known to his government. 
M. de Tocqueville, the French minister for foreign affairs, 
who had conducted the correspondence with the Secretary 
of State in reference to this affair, shortly afterwards 
left office, and his successor dropped the matter. No inter- 
ruption took place in the diplomatic intercourse of the two 
countries. 1 

507. In 1852 the United States Government asked for 
the recall of Senor Marcoleta, the Nicaraguan minister, which 
was refused by that Republic. The Secretary of State then 
informed Senor Marcoleta that instructions had been sent to 
Mr. Kerr, the United States minister to Central America, to 
renew the request for his recall and the appointment of a 
successor, and that meanwhile no communication could 
be received from him in his official capacity. The charge 
against him was that he had communicated to the Press the 
contents of certain proposals in regard to an inter-oceanic 
canal, which had been shown to him unofficially and in 
confidence. He not only endeavoured to frustrate the negotia- 
tion, but also boasted of his influence with certain senators 
and threatened to use it. The Secretary of State wrote on 
this occasion to the United States minister at Nicaragua that 
" such a request can never be refused between governments 
that desire to preserve amicable relations with each other ; 
for a minister whose recall has been asked loses, by that fact 
alone, all capacity for usefulness. If previously unacceptable, 
he must become doubly so by being retained in office in 
opposition to a distinct wish expressed for his recall. . . . The 

1 Moore, iv. 530. 


gravity of the step is a sufficient safeguard against its being 
rashly taken." Mr. Kerr was told that, without stating why 
the recall was asked for, he was at liberty to explain why such 
a statement could not be made with propriety. A year after- 
wards, however, a new President of the United States having 
been elected, Sefior Marcoleta presented fresh credentials as 
minister from Nicaragua, and continued to hold that position 
until April I856. 1 

508. In 1855, during the Crimean War, the United States 
Government complained to the British Government that 
British officials and agents had organised and were carrying 
out in the United States an extensive plan for enlisting recruits 
for the British army, in violation of the neutrality laws and in 
infringement of the sovereign rights of the United States. The 
British Secretary of State disclaimed any intention of sanction- 
ing a violation of the United States laws by British officials, 
but the correspondence shows that his views of what might 
legally be done in that way differed from those of the United 
States Government. Prosecutions begun against some persons 
alleged to be acting as agents produced a written confession 
by one of the accused, implicating the British minister, 
Mr. Grampian, and the British consuls at New York, Cincinnati 
and Philadelphia. The United States Secretary of State 
thereupon asked for the recall of the minister and the removal 
of the consuls. Lord Clarendon, in reply, communicated 
declarations of the officials concerned, denying that they had 
committed the acts attributed to them, and expressed the hope 
that this would satisfy the United States Government. The 
latter, being unable to accept this conclusion, discontinued 
further intercourse with Mr. Crampton and sent him his 
passports (the exequaturs of the three consuls were also 
revoked) . Lord Clarendon subsequently replied that the British 
Government retained their high opinion of the zeal, ability 
and integrity of Mr. Crampton, and believed that in many 
important particulars the President had been misled by 
erroneous information, and by the testimony of witnesses 
unworthy of belief. Such a conflict of opinion on such a 
matter must necessarily be the subject of serious deliberation 
by both parties. If Her Majesty's Government had been 
convinced that Her Majesty's officers had in defiance of their 
instructions violated the laws of the United States, they would 
have removed these officers. In the present case Her Majesty's 
Government were bound to accept the formal and repeated 
declaration of the President of his belief that the British 

1 Moore, iv. 497. 


officials in question had violated the laws of the Union, and 
were on that account unacceptable organs of communication, 
and " they could not deny to the United States a right similar 
to that which, in a parallel case, Her Majesty's Government 
would claim for themselves, the right, namely, of forming their 
own judgment as to the bearings of the laws of the Union 
upon transactions which have taken place within the Union." 
The British Government, " while regretting a proceeding on 
the part of the President of the United States, which cannot 
but be considered as of an unfriendly character," did not 
suspend relations with the United States minister in London, 
and in January 1857 Lord Napier was appointed to represent 
Great Britain at Washington. 1 

509. In 1875 Mr. Russell, United States minister at 
Caracas, addressed a despatch to his government, in which he 
said : "I feel bound to add that there are, in my opinion, 
only two ways in which the payment of so large an amount 
can be obtained. The first is by sharing the proceeds with 
some of the chief officers of this government ; the second by 
a display, or at least a threat, of force. The first course, which 
has been pursued by one or more nations, will, of course, 
never be followed by the United States. The expediency of 
the second it is not in my province to discuss." This despatch 
having been published in a report to the House of Representa- 
tives, was resented by the Venezuelan Government, who 
thereupon sent Mr. Russell a note breaking off official 
relations with him, and informing him that the ground for 
this action was that in the despatch referred to " an opinion is 
advanced and statements are made which constitute a most 
violent attack, because they insult the administration most 
grievously, besides involving a falsehood." Mr. Russell's 
passports were sent to him a fortnight later. The Venezuelan 
Government did not at first offer any explanation to the United 
States of the step they had taken, and the Secretary of State, 
therefore, wrote to the Venezuelan minister at Washington, 
informing him that unless he should have been authorised to 
make one which might be regarded as satisfactory, the dignity 
of the United States Government would require that his 
relations with it should also terminate. The minister at first 
replied that he was instructed to offer the required explanation, 
but was unable to do so because of the loss of important papers 
by shipwreck. Three months later he wrote that he was 
instructed to withdraw and cancel the note to Mr. Russell 
breaking off relations with him. Later he communicated 

1 Moore, iv. 534 ; Br. and For. State Papers, xlvii. and xlviii. 


instructions from his government, intimating that Mr. Russell 
would no longer be persona grata. The latter eventually 
resigned, but, having proceeded to Caracas, with the authorisa- 
tion of the Department of State, to present his letters of recall, 
the Venezuelan minister for foreign affairs declined to receive 
him. 1 

510. In 1888 Lord Sackville, British minister at Washington, 
received a letter purporting to come from a naturalised citizen 
of English birth, named Murchison, asking for advice as 
to the way he, and many other individuals in his position, 
should vote in the pending election of the President. Lord 
Sackville replied that " any political party which openly 
favoured the mother country at the present moment would 
lose popularity, and that the party in power was fully aware 
of the fact " ; that with respect to the " questions with Canada, 
which have been unfortunately reopened since the rejection of 
the [fisheries] treaty by the Republican majority in the Senate, 
and by the President's message alluded to [by the writer of 
the letter], allowance must be made for the political situation 
as regarded the presidential election," and he enclosed an 
extract from a newspaper in which electors were distinctly 
advised to vote for Mr. Cleveland. This letter of Lord 
Sackville found its way into the newspapers, and caused a 
lively discussion in the Press. The New York Tribune published 
a report of an interview with him, in which he was represented 
to have said that " both the action of the Senate and the 
President's letter of retaliation were for political effect," but 
in a private note to Mr. Bayard, the United States Secretary of 
State, he said that his words were so turned as to impugn the 
action of the executive, and added : "I *beg to emphasise 
that I had no thought or intention of doing so, and I most 
emphatically deny the language which is attributed to me by 
other papers of ' clap-trap ' and ' trickery ' as applied to the 
government to which I am accredited." Mr. Bayard tele- 
graphed to the United States minister at London, complaining 
of the letter and of the language used at interviews with news- 
paper reporters, and suggested that Her Majesty's Government 
should take appropriate action without delay. Lord Salisbury 
declined to act until he should be in receipt of the precise 
language of Lord Sackville and his explanation. Lord 
Salisbury appears to have said also that the minister's recall 
would end his diplomatic career, which would not necessarily 
be the case if he were dismissed by the United States, for 
which there were precedents. Mr. Bayard thereupon addressed 

1 Moore, iv. 535. 


a note to Lord Sackville, informing him, by the instructions of 
the President, that he was convinced that " it would be 
incompatible with the best interests and detrimental to the 
good relations of both governments that you should any 
longer hold your present official position in the United States," 
and enclosing a passport. 1 

511. In 1905 M. Taigny, French minister at Caracas, 
in a note to the Venezuelan Government, protested against 
the act of the Venezuelan authorities in summarily closing, 
under a decree of September 4, 1905, the offices of the 
French cable company at Caracas and elsewhere, constituting, 
in the view of the French Government, a violation of the rights 
of the company. In their reply the Venezuelan Government 
asserted that the matter was one solely within the competence 
of the local authorities, and that to treat it through the diplo- 
matic channel was derogatory to Venezuelan sovereignty ; that 
the use of the diplomatic channel in such matters was only 
justified where there was denial of justice ; this was not the 
case, a judicial decision had been rendered as the outcome of 
legal procedure. Further, the company had been the accomplice 
of those concerned in the last civil war ; and in supporting the 
company the French Government appeared to assume the 
responsibilities incurred by the company. The note ended 
by saying that the Venezuelan Government would not treat 
further " des affaires d'un caractere diplomatique et de bonne 
amitie avec le gouvernement franais par rintermediaire de 
son representant actuel a Caracas, 1'honorable M. Olivier 
Taigny, jusqu'a ce qu'il ait rec.u les explications satisfaisantes 
qu'exige la bonne amitie entre les nations qui la cultivent avec 
respect et convenance mutuels." The French Government 
requested the withdrawal of the final part of this note, regard- 
ing the interruption of all negotiations until Venezuela had 
obtained satisfaction. The Venezuelan Government there- 
upon suggested the withdrawal of both notes, and this was 
agreed to by the French Government on condition that 
an agreement was come to between Venezuela and the 
company. But in declaring, through the intermediary of the 
United States minister, that its note would be withdrawn, 
the Venezuelan Government added that it was hoped that the 
French Government would send a representative with whom 
more agreeable relations could be entertained. M. Taigny, 
however, remained in charge ; but on the occasion of the 

1 Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the U.S., 1888, pt. ii. ; Br. and For, 
State Papers, Ixxxi. 479 ; Moore, iv. 536. 


New Year official reception of the diplomatic corps by 
the President he was not invited to attend, and it appeared, 
that only on condition of his recall would the Venezuelan 
Government resume official relations. In the meantime 
the last remaining office of the company was closed. The 
French Government thereupon announced M. Taigny's 
recall, leaving their interests in charge of the United States 
minister. But on M. Taigny going on board the French 
s.s. Martinique to ascertain the instructions of his govern- 
ment he was refused permission to return on shore, and thus 
virtually expelled from the country. The diplomatic body 
protested against this act as contrary to diplomatic immunity, 
but the Venezuelan Government maintained that immunity 
had lapsed with his actual recall. 

As a consequence, the French Government on January 18, 
1906, notified the Venezuelan charge d'affaires at Paris that his 
mission was regarded as terminated, and that he should leave 
French territory the same day ; he departed that evening 
for Liege, being accompanied to the frontier by the head 
official of the French Surete generate. 1 Diplomatic relations 
between the two countries were suspended for several years. 

512. In 1921, during the acute civil disturbances in 
Guatemala, Mr. H. Gaisford, the British minister, took 
part in giving assistance to certain ex-ministers and func- 
tionaries of the former government who were imprisoned and 
whose lives were in danger, and afforded shelter in the legation 
to some persons who had sought refuge there. In 1922, on 
the expulsion of the Roman Catholic Archbishop, Mr. Gaisford, 
who was also of the Roman Catholic faith, called at the Episcopal 
Palace, but was refused admission by the police agent in charge 
of the building. The Guatemalan minister for foreign 
affairs, thereupon, on the strength of a report from the chief 
of police, addressed a note to him accusing him of having 
struck the policeman and of having used abusive language ; 
it was added that the substance of the note had been com- 
municated to the other diplomatic representatives for their 
information. The accusation was denied by Mr. Gaisford ; 
and the diplomatic body protested against an act taken on 
the simple word of a police agent, and without asking the 
British minister for his version of the matter. The Guatemalan 
Government nevertheless requested the recall of Mr. Gaisford, 
alleging that besides the incident in question he had intervened 

1 de Boeck, U Expulsion et les difficultes Internationales qu'en souleve la pratique. 
Cours de La Haye (1927), iii. 502. 


in favour of Guatemalan citizens accused of conspiracy, and 
had afforded asylum to accused persons. Mr. Gaisford was 
instructed to come away on leave of absence, and the legation 
remained closed until September i, 1924 when Mr. W. E. 
O'Reilly was appointed minister. 

513. In 1924 the Mexican Government requested the 
recall of Mr. H. A. C. Cummins, who was in charge of the 
British legation (Charge des Archives], and whose energetic 
efforts on behalf of British owners of property in Mexico 
during the civil disturbances then raging in that country had 
rendered him persona non grata. It was added that if he did not 
depart within ten days compulsion would be used. The 
British Government had already decided to accredit Sir T. 
Hohler to Mexico on a special mission, in order to be furnished 
with an independent report, so as to enable them to come to 
a decision as to recognising General Obregon's administration. 
The Mexican Government were so informed, but while 
welcoming this proposal, they professed to be unable to await 
his arrival, alleging that Mr. Cummins had shown discourtesy 
throughout in his communications with them. They urged 
as an elementary principle that a government had at any time 
the right to request, with or without explanation, the recall 
of any diplomatist or agent of another country, and that 
it was due to international courtesy then to withdraw him. 
In the meantime Mr. Cummins reported that no food or any- 
thing else was permitted to enter the legation, that telephonic 
communication had been cut, and that even members of the 
diplomatic corps were not allowed to enter. Matters having 
reached this pass, no alternative was possible but to instruct 
Mr. Cummins to withdraw, and the good offices of the United 
States Government were sought to convey an intimation to 
him to this effect, and to obtain facilities for him to do so. 
These were courteously afforded by the United States Govern- 
ment, and on Mr. Cummins' departure the archives and 
effects of the legation were taken charge of by the United 
States charge d'affaires. 1 In August 1925 Mr. Norman King 
was appointed British charge d'affaires at Mexico, and in 
December 1925 Mr. E. Ovey was appointed envoy. 

514. The Times of June 9, 1931, published the following 
message from its correspondent at Riga : " Mgr. Riccardo 
Bartolini, Titular Archbishop of Laodicea of Syria, and Papal 
nuncio, quitted Lithuania yesterday. Mgr. Bartolini had long 
ceased to be persona grata in Kovno owing to his alleged 
undue interference with the internal affairs of the country, 

1 Parliamentary Paper, Mexico, No. I ( 1 924) . 


and the Lithuanian Government had repeatedly intimated the 
desirability of his recall to the Vatican, but the nuncio 
remained until the Lithuanian authorities unambiguously told 
him to go, threatening otherwise to restrict his movements or 
expel him." 

Dismissal without notice 

515. The following are instances of dismissal without 
notice : 

In 1584 one Francis Throkmorton was arrested in 
England, in consequence of a letter he had written to Mary, 
Queen of Scots, which was intercepted, and the investigation 
showed that Don Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador, 
was party to a plot which aimed at the deposition of Queen 
Elizabeth. Camden 1 relates that while Throkmorton was 
under examination ' Don Bernadino de Mendoza, the 
Spaniards Embassadour in England, secretly crossed the seas 
into France, in a great rage and fury, as if hee had been thrust 
out of England with breach of the privilege of an Embassadour, 
whereas he himselfe being a man of a violent and turbulent 
spirit, abusing the sacred privilege of an Embassage to the 
committing of treason, was commanded to depart the land, 
whereas by the ancient severity, he was to be prosecuted 
(as many thought) with fire and sword. For he had his 
hand in those lewd practises with Throkmorton and others for 
bringing in of forreiners into England, and deposing the 
Queene . . . But yet lest the Spaniard should thinke, that 
not Mendoza's crimes were punished, but the priviledges 
of his Embassadour violated, William Waad Clerke of the 
Councell, was sent into Spaine, to inform the Spaniard plainly 
how ill he had performed the office of his Embassie ; and withal 
to signifie (lest the Queene by sending him away might seeme 
to renounce the ancient amity betwixt both kingdomes) that 
all offices of kindnesses should be shewed, if he would send 
any other that were desirous to preserve amity, so as the same 
kindnesses might in like sort be shewed to her Embassadour 
in Spaine." 

Waad, however, was refused an audience of the Spanish 
King and " returned home unheard." 

516. In 1587 L'Aubespine, the French ambassador in 
England, was alleged, on the confession of his secretary, to be 
implicated in an attempt on the life of Queen Elizabeth. 

1 Camden's Annales Rerum Anglicarum, et Hibernicarum regnante Eliza- 
betha ; Translated into English by jf?.JV. 5 Gent. London, 3rd edit., 1635, 263, 264. 


Camden relates that he was a man wholly devoted to the 
Guisian faction, and that " supposing it best to provide for 
the captive Queene's safety, not by arguments, but by arti- 
ficiall and bad practises, tampered first covertly for taking away 
Queene Elizabeths life with William Stafford, a young gentle- 
man, and prone to apprehend new hopes, whose mother was 
one of the Queenes honorable Bed-Chamber, and his brother 
at that time Embassadour Legier in France ; and there he 
dealt with him more overtly by Trappy his secretary, who 
promised him, if he would effect it, not onely infinite glory and 
great store of mony, but also especiall favour with the Bishop 
of Rome, the Duke of Guise, and in generall with all the 
Catholicks. Stafford, as detesting the fact, refused to do it ; 
Yet commended one Moody, a notable hackster, a man 
forward of his hands, as one who for money would without 
doubt dispatch the matter resolutely." Stafford afterwards 
disclosed the plot, and L'Aubespine was sent for and con- 
fronted with the other parties to the conspiracy. His denials 
were unsatisfactory, and he affirmed that if he had been 
accessory yet he ought not to make discovery to any but the 
King his master. He was gravely admonished not to commit 
treason again, nor to forget the duty of an ambassador and the 
Queen's clemency, and told that he was not exempted from the 
guiltiness of the offence though he escaped punishment. 1 

(Though given as a case of dismissal without notice, it 
does not appear from this account as if dismissal actually 
followed. Oppenheim reads it that he was simply warned 
not to do it again.) 

517. In 1624 the Marquesse de Inojosa and Don Carlos 
Coloma, the two Spanish ambassadors then resident in England, 
informed James I that a dangerous conspiracy against his 
authority was being fomented by the Duke of Buckingham, 
whose influence, for political reasons, they wished to under- 
mine. This accusation having, after investigation, proved 
entirely unfounded, they were called upon to furnish explana- 
tions and particulars, but failed to afford any. The King of 
Spain was thereupon informed, through the English ambassador 
at Madrid, of their grave offence, and was asked to punish 
them for it. It appears, however, from the narrative that the 
ambassadors quitted England after receiving intimation that 
the King would no longer hold intercourse with them ; and 
that " matters growing daily worse and worse betwixt the 
two Crownes, they were rather rewarded than reprehended, 
Inojosa being promoted to be Governour of Milan, while 

1 R.N.'s translation of the Annales, 3rd edit., 1635, 337, 338. 


Coloma received additions of employment and honours in 
Flanders." * 

518. In 1654 Le Bas (called Baron de Baas in the French 
documents) was sent to England to assist the President de 
Bordeaux, charged with a mission to re-establish friendly 
relations between France and England. In an interview 
with Naudin, a French doctor, 2 he proposed to the latter to 
foment " divisions and dissentions in this land," 3 and to 
procure funds for the purpose from France. Naudin gave 
information, and Cromwell sent for Le Bas, taxed him with 
his complicity in the plot, and ordered him to leave the country 
within three days. Bordeaux protested and told the Pro- 
tector that His Highness should first complain to the King of 
France and ask for his recall. But Cromwell replied that Bas 
was more guilty than Bordeaux supposed, and that such a 
person could not be suffered to remain any longer in England. 4 

519. In 1720 Bestoujew-Rioumine, the newly appointed 
Russian resident in London, was instructed by Peter the 
Great to deliver memoires, recounting the wrongs the Tsar 
had suffered at the hands of the British Government. These 
were published simultaneously with their delivery. The 
King of England and his ministers naturally were profoundly 
irritated by this proceeding of the Tsar, and it was decided 
to suggest to Bestoujew that he should quit the country within 
a week. This he accordingly did, and diplomatic relations 
were not re-established until 1731, when Rondeau was 
appointed British resident at Petersburg. 5 

520. In 1726 the following announcement was made in 
the London Gazette : 

Whitehall, March 4th. 

" This day Mr. Inglis Marshal and Assistant Master of the 
Ceremonies in the absence of Sir Clement Cotterel Master of the 
Ceremonies went by His Majesty's order to M, de Palm the Emperor's 
Resident, and acquainted him that he having in the audience he 
had of the King on Thursday last delivered into the Hands of His 
Majesty a Memorial highly injurious to His Majesty's Honour and 
the Dignity of his Crown ; in which Memorial he has forgot all 
Regard to Truth and the due Respect to His sacred Majesty ; and 
the said Memorial being also publickly dispers'd next Morning in 
Print together with a letter from the Count de Sinzendorff to him 

1 Sir John Finett, Finetti Philoxonis : Som choice observations, etc., London, 1656. 

2 Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth, etc., iii. 113, 121, 126, 151. 

3 Thurloe's State Papers, ii. 309, 351. 

4 Guizot, Histoire de la Republique d'Angleterre, etc., ii. 406, etc. ; Thurloe, State 
Papers, 406, etc. 

5 F. de Martens, Recueil des Traite's, etc., ix. (x.) 52. 


the said Palm still more insolent and more injurious than the 
Memorial if possible ; His Majesty had thereupon commanded him 
to declare to him the said Resident Palm that His Majesty looked 
upon him no longer as a public Minister and required him forthwith 
to depart out of this Kingdom." 

The origin of this affair is to be found in the alleged secret 
treaty between the Emperor and the King of Spain for the 
restitution of Gibraltar and Minorca to the latter, and the 
re-establishment of the Stuart dynasty on the throne of Great 
Britain, which was disclosed by Ripperda ( 392) to the British 
minister at Madrid. 1 Allusion was made to this secret 
treaty in the King's speech on the opening of Parliament, 
January 17, 1 726-7. 2 Palm thereupon received instructions 
from Count Sinzendorf to present a memorial to the King, 
protesting against the statements contained in the King's 
speech, as " manifest falsehoods," and " insulting and injuring, 
in the most outrageous manner, the majesty of the two 
contracting Powers, who have a right to demand a signal 
reparation and satisfaction proportioned to the enormity of 
the affront." 3 The memorial 4 presented by M. de Palm 
declared the statements quoted to be founded on the falsest 
reports, and concluded by demanding on behalf of " his 
sacred Imperial Majesty ''' " that reparation which is due to 
him by all manner of right, for the great injuries which have 
been done to him by these many imputations." On the day 
following, printed copies of translations of both documents 
into English and French were sent by him to members of both 
Houses, aldermen of London and other persons. 5 Palm had 
been instructed to publish the memorial, but the whole pro- 
ceeding was justly resented by the King, who requited the 
insult by expelling the Emperor's resident and thus breaking 
off diplomatic relations. 

521. In 1788 Gustavus III, King of Sweden, wishing to 
take his revenge for the intrigues carried on by Catherine II 
among the malcontent Swedish nobles, saw his opportunity 
when his enemy, engaged in war against Turkey, had equipped 
a fleet destined to proceed to the Mediterranean. He pro- 
ceeded then to send his own fleet to sea and to despatch 
a considerable land force into Finland. On this, Count 
Rasoumoffsky, Russian envoy at Stockholm, by order of the 
Empress, addressed a note of protestation to the Chancellor 
Oxenstierna, in which he declared " to the minister of His 

1 Cobbett, Parliamentary History, viii. 505, 509. 2 Ibid., 524. 

3 Ibid., 557, 558, 599 n., and P.R.O., S.P. Foreign, Germany, vol. Ix. 

4 Ibid., 555-7 n., and P.R.O., same vol. 5 Ibid., 554. 


Swedish Majesty, as well as to all those of the nation who had 
any share in the administration, that his mistress had no 
hostile intentions towards her neighbours." The King of 
Sweden, regarding the expression used in this note, in 
addressing it both to his ministry and " to all those of the 
nation who shared in the government," as a personal insult, 
and as intended to create disunion between the government 
and the nation by recalling the anarchy to which the revolu- 
tion of 1772 had put an end, caused the writer to be notified 
that he must quit the kingdom. The attempt was made to 
compel him to embark on board a Swedish yacht which would 
have transported him to St. Petersburg, but he refused, and 
remained at Stockholm for seven weeks. An answer to 
RasoumofTsky's note was despatched to Nolcken, Swedish 
ambassador at St. Petersburg, for delivery to the Russian 
Government. But Nolcken had already been informed that the 
Empress would no longer recognise him, and he was ordered 
to leave in a week's time. 1 

522. In 1814 a Spanish subject named Espoz y Mina, 
who had failed in an attempt to seize the fortress of Pampeluna, 
took refuge in France. The Spanish charge d'affaires, Conde de 
Casa Florez, having heard that he was staying at an hotel in 
Paris, proceeded to arrest him and some other Spanish sub- 
jects, who were probably his accomplices, with the aid of 
a commissaire de police, without applying first to the French 
Government. This gave great offence to the Government of 
Louis XVIII. Mina, having been set at liberty, was expelled 
from France, and Florez' passports were sent to him, instead 
of asking for his withdrawal. A complicated negotiation 
followed to which an end was put by Napoleon's escape from 
Elba. 2 

523. In 1895 the Italian Government published a protocol 
signed at Caracas some time previously by the diplomatic 
representatives of Belgium, France, Germany and Italy, which in the 
opinion of the Venezuelan Government contained " gratuitous 
and defamatory statements reflecting on the honour of the 
State and the integrity of the Executive." Without taking 
the preliminary step of asking for the withdrawal by their 
governments of the two out of the original four diplomatists 
who were still resident, the Venezuelan Government sent 
them their passports. Simultaneously an explanation was 
addressed to the two Powers concerned. France, which was 
one of these, broke off diplomatic relations, while Belgium, 
the other, refrained from accrediting any one in place of the 

1 Ch. de Martens, op. cit., ii. 275. 2 Villa-Urrutia, iii. 407. 


minister who had been dismissed. Eventually Venezuela 
invoked the good offices of the United States to bring about 
the restoration of diplomatic relations, her government 
declaring that Venezuela had intended no affront to France 
or Belgium, whose flags she had conspicuously saluted on the 
same day that she dismissed their personally objectionable 
agents. 1 

524. In 1916 illicit acts of espionage carried on from 
Greek territory, and communications with enemy submarines 
operating in Greek waters, to the detriment of Greek, Allied 
and neutral shipping, made it necessary to give notice to the 
German, Austro-Hungarian, Bulgarian and Turkish ministers at 
Athens to quit Greece and betake themselves, on November 22, 
with their staffs, on board a steamer which would convey 
them to a port whence they could return to their respective 
countries. This notification was conveyed to them by the 
French naval commander, the facts having been communi- 
cated to the Greek Government, and they departed from 
Greece accordingly. 

525. In 1917 the United States Government published 
certain intercepted telegrams, addressed by Count Luxburg, 
German minister at Buenos Aires, to the German Government, 
and transmitted by the Swedish legation there via the 
Swedish Government. These telegrams advocated the sink- 
ing of Argentine vessels then on their way to Europe, without 
leaving any trace (" spurlos versenkt"). The publication of these 
telegrams aroused intense indignation in the Argentine 
Republic, and the Argentine Government sent Count Luxburg 
his passports, informing him at the same time that he 
had ceased to be persona grata. Meanwhile the German 
Government expressed keen regret at the incident and their 
disapproval of the methods suggested, which, they said, were 
personal to Count Luxburg. The publication of further 
telegrams, however, revealed even more serious machinations, 
and Count Luxburg, who had endeavoured to escape into the 
interior of the country, was arrested and interned. Eventually, 
at the request of the Argentine Government, who were anxious 
to effect his speedy departure from the country, the British 
Government consented to grant him a safe-conduct to return 
to Germany, but his health having given way under the strain, 
he was admitted to a German hospital suffering from mental 
and nervous breakdown. 2 

1 Moore, iv. 548. 

8 Times History oflhe War, xv. 20 ; American Journal of International Law, xii. 
(1918), 135-140. 


526. Besides the incidents mentioned, references to others 
are found in various works, as follows : 

In 1884 the Argentine Republic dismissed the Papal nuncio 
for opposing a law on education 1 ; in 1895 the Hawaiian 
agent in the United States was dismissed for criticism of United 
States policy 2 ; in 1 906 the secretary left in charge of the 
nunciature of the Holy See at Paris was expelled for infringing 
laws concerning the activities of the clergy 3 ; Rustem Bey, the 
Turkish ambassador to the United States, was sent home early 
in the war for publishing indiscreet newspaper and magazine 
articles 4 ; Prince Henry of Reuss, German minister to Persia, 
who engaged in military activities in that country, was 
dismissed. 5 

527. The recorded cases in which a diplomatic agent has 
either been dismissed or his recall demanded are of a wide 
variety, and while in some of these cases there can be no doubt 
that summary action was called for, in others there appears 
less justification for the steps taken. 

On the general question Dr. Hannis Taylor has written 6 : 

" when a sovereign dismisses an envoy without waiting for his 
recall, on the ground of his misconduct, not only the dignity of the 
envoy, but that of his state is so involved that justice and courtesy 
alike demand that reasons should be given sufficient to warrant 
a proceeding of such gravity. In justice to itself the dismissing 
state should formulate the grounds upon which its action is based 
injustice to its agent the accrediting state should ascertain whether 
such grounds rest upon adequate proof. There is no reasonable 
foundation for the position assumed by Halleck, 7 and reproduced 
by Calvo, 8 that a state is in duty bound to recall an envoy who 
has become unacceptable to the government to which he is 
accredited simply upon its statement that he is so ; and that such 
state has no right to ask for reasons to be assigned why such envoy 
has become unacceptable since his reception as persona grata. Dana 
also falls into obvious confusion when he assumes that a dismissal 
or demand for recall may be rested upon the identical grounds 
upon which a state may object to receive a particular person in the 
first instance. 9 After all special objections to the personality of an 
envoy have been waived by his reception, it is obviously unjust 

1 Calvo, Traite, t. iii., 1517. 

2 Hill, American Journal of International Law (1931), 257. 

3 de Boeck, L'Expulsion, etc., Cours de La Haye (1927), iii. 510. 

4 Life and Letters of Walter H. Page, ii. 49 n. 

5 Genet, Traite de Diplomatie, etc., i. 595. 

6 A Treatise on International Public Law, 350. 

7 International Law, i. 393. 8 Droit International, 1365. 
9 Dana's Wheaton, Note 137. 


that he should be expelled and disgraced without a reasonable and 
provable cause. As Hall has fairly expressed it : ' Courtesy to a 
friendly state exacts that the representative of its sovereignty shall 
not be lightly or capriciously sent away ; if no cause is assigned, or 
the cause given is inadequate, deficient regard is shown to the per- 
sonal dignity of his state ; if the cause is grossly inadequate or false, 
there may be ground for believing that a covert insult to it is 
intended. A country, therefore, need not recall its agent, or 
acquiesce in his dismissal, unless it is satisfied that the reasons 
alleged are of sufficient gravity in themselves.' x No more just or 
reasonable rule can be formulated as a standard by which the 
merits of particular cases of dismissal or forced recall, past or 
present, may be tested." 

The author adds in a footnote : 

" The government of the U.S. has, however, given its sanction 
to the view maintained by Halleck, Calvo and Dana : ' The 
official or authorised statement that a minister has made himself 
unacceptable, or even that he has ceased to be persona grata, to the 
government to which he is accredited, is sufficient to invoke the 
deference of a friendly Power and the observance of the courtesy 
and the practice regulating the diplomatic intercourse of the 
Powers of Christendom for the recall of an objectionable minister " 
(Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, to Mr. Curtin, November 16, 1871, 
with reference to the Catacazy case, 499) . 

There appears, however, to be some inconsistency between 
the latter view and the action of the United States Govern- 
ment a few years later in the case mentioned in 509. 

528. The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 
1928, concerning the rights and duties of diplomatic officers, 
which in its preamble declares that it incorporates the principles 
generally accepted by all nations, says in Article 8 : " States 
may decline an officer from another or, having already 
accepted him, may request his recall, without being obliged 
to state the reasons for such a decision." 

It can hardly be said, however, that the latter clause of this 
Article is in accordance with the principles generally accepted 
by all nations, or in accordance with their practice, since it 
can scarcely be imagined that in requesting the recall of an 
ambassador or minister, the government taking this step 
would omit the courtesy of informing the government of the 
state which had accredited him of their reasons for doing so. 

On the whole, the conclusion to be drawn would seem to 
be that any government has the right of asking for the recall 
of a foreign diplomatic agent on the ground that his con- 

1 Hall, 359. 


tinuance at his post is not desired, and the government 
which has appointed him has an equal right of declining to 
withdraw him. In judging of any controversy that may arise 
regarding the demand and the refusal to comply, the grounds 
on which recall was asked for and those on which it was 
refused must be carefully weighed. If the government which 
asked for the recall is dissatisfied with the grounds of refusal, 
it can send the diplomatic agent his passports. As long as 
the diplomatic agent of the dismissing government has not ren- 
dered himself persona ingrata there is no reason for dismissing 
him. That would only be done if the dismissal was intended 
to we'ar the aspect of a national affront. But if the grounds 
of dismissal appear insufficient to the government which 
accredited the diplomatist, it can indicate its view by entrust- 
ing the mission for a while to a charge d'affaires. In any case 
of the kind a government asked to recall its agent will naturally 
desire to ascertain whether he has exceeded or acted contrary 
to his instructions, and thereby rendered himself responsible 
for the offence he has given. If it finds that he has not, it 
cannot, out of self-respect, consent to the demand, and must 
leave it to the other government to dismiss him. It is a tenable 
opinion that the agent's government is entitled to satisfaction 
on this point. It may prove difficult for the historian, who 
has only official documents before him, to pronounce in each 
instance what was the determining factor in the decision to 
ask for a recall. Ostensibly taken on political grounds, it 
may also have been influenced in some cases by the general 
conduct of the agent. 




529. FROM the point of view of international law there is 
no essential difference between congresses and conferences. 
Both are meetings of plenipotentiaries for the discussion and 
settlement of international affairs ; both include meetings 
for the determination of political questions, and for the treat- 
ment of matters of a social-economic order. The term 
congress has in the past been more frequently applied to 
assemblies of plenipotentiaries for the conclusion of peace 
and the redistribution of territory which in most cases is one 
of the conditions of peace, as, e.g., the Congress of Vienna 
(1814-15) after the Napoleonic wars, the Congress of Paris 
(1856) after the Crimean war, and the Congress of Berlin 
(1878) for the settlement of affairs in the East, following the 
Russo-Turkish war ; but sometimes it has been conference, 
as, e.g., the Conference of London (1830-3) after the revolt 
of Belgium, the Conferences of London (1912-13) to arrange 
terms of peace between Turkey and the Allied Balkan States, 
and the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. At the Congress of 
Paris (1856) the assemblage began by styling itself a confer- 
ence, and then, apparently without discussion of its title, 
assumed the name of " congress." 

530. In earlier times congresses were ordinarily held at 
a neutral spot, or at some place expressly neutralised for the 
purpose of the meeting. There were often mediators, who 
presided over the discussions, whether carried on orally or in 
writing. Before the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire 
in 1806 the principal representative of the Emperor discharged 
the functions of president. In the nineteenth century 
congresses were mostly held at the capital of one of the Powers 
concerned, and then the chancellor or minister for foreign 


affairs of that Power usually presided. On these occasions, 
besides the specially deputed plenipotentiaries, the local 
diplomatic representatives of the respective Powers were also 

531. The first international gathering to which the name 
of conference was given was that on the affairs of Greece, 
held at London in 1827-32. Conferences were usually held 
at the capital of one of the Powers taking part, the presidency 
being nearly always offered to the minister for foreign affairs 
of that Power, the other members being ordinarily the local 
diplomatic representatives of the other Powers. 

532. The statement is ascribed to Canning in 1824 that 
the plenipotentiaries at a congress are arbiters, and at a con- 
ference advisers only. The Duke of Argyll said of a congress 
that it was essentially a court of conciliation an assembly in 
which an endeavour is made to settle high matters in dispute 
by discussion and mutual conciliation. 1 At the present day 
the term "conference" is habitually used to describe all inter- 
national assemblages in which matters come under discussion 
with a view to settlement. The treaties of peace concluded 
after the war of 1914-18 resulted from the deliberations of 
the Peace Conference of Paris, which in its broad outlines 
resembled the Congress of Vienna of 1814-15. The Universal 
Postal Convention, however, continues to be revised periodi- 
cally at congresses of the states forming the Postal Union. 

533- The place of meeting of an international conference 
may be determined in various ways. Sometimes it is the 
capital of the state which proposes this means of adjusting the 
questions at issue ; or, it may be, that of the state most 
concerned in their settlement. Sometimes it is chosen as a 
convenient centre for all parties to meet ; or to enable dis- 
cussions to be carried on in a neutral atmosphere. In the 
case of a multilateral treaty about to undergo revision, it may 
be determined by the place of the former meeting., by a pro- 
vision in the treaty itself, or by an understanding reached at 
the previous conference. 

Instances may be found in the Conference of London 
(1850-2), Great Britain acting as mediator in the pending 
dispute between Denmark and Prussia over Schleswig and 
Holstein ; in the Congress of Paris (1856), the French Emperor 
having taken a prominent part in the peace preliminaries after 
the Crimean war ; in the Hague Peace Conference (1899), 
the Emperor of Russia, at whose initiative the conference was 
summoned, having proposed this meeting-place in view of its 

1 The Eastern Question from 1836, ii. 97. 


detachment from localities where political interests might 
supervene ; in the Conference of Algeciras (1906), in view of 
its proximity to Morocco, the subject of the discussions ; in 
the London Naval Conference (1908-9), having regard to 
the predominant naval position of Great Britain ; in the 
Paris Peace Conference of 1919 ; and in the Conference of 
Locarno (1925), chosen, with the concurrence of the Swiss 
Government, in virtue of its being in neutral territory. 

The Geneva Conference of 1864, for the amelioration of 
the condition of the wounded in armies in the field, was 
convened by the Swiss Government, and the subsequent 
conferences of 1868, 1906 and 1929, for the successive revisions 
of the Red Cross Convention, took place also at Geneva ; on 
the last occasion the work of the conference was extended to 
the framing of a convention for the treatment of prisoners of 
war, in amplification of the rules of the Hague Land War 
Convention of 1907. The Second Peace Conference of 1907, 
for the revision of the conventions concluded at the former 
Hague Conference of 1899 and their amplification, similarly 
met also at The Hague. In the case of the Universal Postal 
Convention and the Radiotelegraph Convention, which are 
subject to periodical revision, the place of the next meeting 
is on each occasion determined by agreement at the conference. 

534. Invitations to a conference are usually preceded by 
an exchange of views between the governments concerned, or 
at any rate those chiefly affected ; and in the case of a con- 
ference for the conclusion of peace normally by the conclusion 
of preliminaries of peace or an armistice between the belli- 
gerents. It is always desirable, wherever possible, that the 
scope of the intended conference should be determined before- 
hand, so as to provide a definite basis for the discussions. 
Failure to reach an agreement has sometimes resulted from 
want of due initial preparation, and a preliminary step should 
be the formulation of a programme of the matters which are 
to be brought under discussion with a view of arriving at a 
settlement. As the Duke of Argyll observed : 

" It was reasonable too, as it always must be, not to go into Con- 
gress without some previous understanding with the Powers to be 
there assembled. Every man conversant with the conduct of 
affairs knows very well that public and formal discussions cannot 
be conducted with any hope of a successful issue unless such 
preliminary understandings have been arrived at." 1 

1 Op. cit., ii. 128. 


535- Ordinarily the invitations to a conference are issued 
by the government of the state wherein it is to be held, but 
cases may, of course, occur in which another government does 
so, after the consent of the former has been given to the 
conference being held in its territory. In the case of the 
Peace Conference of 1899 at The Hague, the proposals were 
made by the Emperor of Russia, but the invitations were 
issued by the Netherlands Government, which took part in 
the conference. In the case of the Algeciras Conference of 
1906, an invitation was addressed to the Powers by the Sultan 
of Morocco, but the meeting took place in Spain, which was 
a party to the conference. In the case of the Locarno Con- 
ference of 1925, the concurrence of the Swiss Government, 
which was not a party to the conference, was a necessary 
preliminary to the meeting being held in Swiss territory. In 
the case of the conference for the Codification of International 
Law held at The Hague in March-April, 1930, the invitations 
were issued by the Council of the League of Nations, and the 
conference was held in the territory of the Netherlands, one of 
the members of the League. 

536. On important occasions congresses or conferences 
have often been attended by Prime Ministers or other high 
personages of the states concerned. Lord Beaconsfield, when 
Prime Minister, with Lord Salisbury, Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs, attended the Congress of Berlin, 1878, which 
was presided over by Prince von Bismarck, German Chancellor. 
The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, was attended by the 
President of the United States, the Prime Ministers of Great 
Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South 
Africa, the French President of the Council, etc. The Locarno 
Conference of 1925 was attended by the Italian (on one 
occasion) and Polish Prime Ministers, the German Chan- 
cellor, and the British, French, German, Belgian and Czecho- 
slovak Ministers for Foreign Affairs. 

537- But more often, and normally in the case of the 
numerous conferences of non-political or semi-political character 
held in modern times, diplomatic representatives are appointed 
as chief plenipotentiaries, assisted sometimes by others ; or the 
plenipotentiaries may be officials or persons having special 
knowledge of the subject or subjects to be discussed. The 
importance of the occasion will determine the numbers of 
their suites, which often include officials or persons having 
necessary legal or technical qualifications, secretaries, trans- 
lators, etc. 


538. The plenipotentiary (or plenipotentiaries) of each 
state, with his (or their) staff, constitute what is called the 
delegation of that state to the conference ; if there is more than 
one plenipotentiary for a state, the senior is usually designated 
as first plenipotentiary, and he and the others will sit together 
as a group. If the agenda range over a wide field, the staff 
may amount to a considerable number of persons, more 
especially on the part of the receiving state. At the Washington 
Conference of 1921-22 on the Limitation of Armament and 
Pacific and Far Eastern questions, the four plenipotentiaries 
of the United States were assisted by an advisory committee of 
twenty-one persons : a secretariat of sixteen persons ; for 
ceremonial, protocol, etc., five persons. There was a technical 
staff for the limitation of armament of twenty ; a staff on 
chemical warfare, consisting of a professor of chemistry and 
officers of the army and navy ; a staff of sixteen on Pacific 
and Far Eastern questions ; a staff of four for legal questions ; 
a staff of two on economic questions and merchant marine ; a 
staff on communications of four civilians and officers of the army 
and navy ; two cartographers ; two officers for Press work ; 
one for archives ; one disbursing officer ; and two editors. 

539- The plenipotentiaries at an international conference 
are, as their name implies, furnished with full powers from the 
head of the state or the government they represent, empower- 
ing them to take part in the negotiations, and to conclude, 
subject if necessary to ratification, any treaty instrument which 
may result from the deliberations. (See 135.) Where a state 
appoints more than one plenipotentiary, full powers may be 
issued to each, or, on the other hand, their names may be 
included in a single document, authorising them to act jointly 
or severally. As regards diplomatic privileges, see 365. The 
names of the plenipotentiaries should be communicated in 
advance to the government of the state wherein the conference 
is to be held. If they have to traverse a third state on their 
journey thither, it is well also to advise the government of 
that state of their intended mission. 

540. The language employed at an international con- 
ference is usually French, but there is a growing tendency to 
use English also. On recent occasions, such as the Paris 
Peace Conference of 1919, and the Washington Conference 
of 1921-22, both English and French were officially used. 
At League of Nations conferences both French and English 
have equal validity. At Pan-American conferences, French, 
English, Spanish and Portuguese appear to have been em- 


ployed in the treaties concluded. And where but a limited 
number of states take part the language of one or other of 
them is sometimes adopted as the official language. At Brest- 
Litovsk, in the peace negotiations of 191718 between Russia 
and the Central Powers, the German, French, Russian, Turkish 
and Bulgarian languages appear to have been from time to 
time employed. 

541. The president of an international conference is 
usually, but not always, the principal representative of the 
country in which it is held, if that country is a participant. 
Often he is the minister for foreign affairs. His election may 
be moved by the representative of the country which comes 
first in alphabetical order, or by the doyen d'dge, or sometimes 
by some other specially chosen for the occasion. 

At the Congress of Vienna (1814-15) Count Metternich, 
Austrian minister for foreign affairs, was elected president 
on the proposal of the French plenipotentiary. At the London 
Conferences of 1830-33 and 1850-52, concerning Belgian and 
Danish affairs, respectively, the British Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs presided. At the Congress of Paris, 1856, the 
French minister for foreign affairs presided, on the motion 
of the Austrian plenipotentiary. At the Congress of Berlin, 
1878, Prince von Bismarck was elected president on the pro- 
posal of the Austro-Hungarian plenipotentiary. At the 
Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the Netherlands 
minister for foreign affairs proposed the election of the 
Russian first plenipotentiary, who on the first occasion (1899) 
proposed that the Netherlands first plenipotentiary should be 
honorary president ; on the second occasion (1907) the 
Netherlands minister for foreign affairs was appointed 
honorary president, the Netherlands first delegate being 
effective vice-president. At the Algeciras Conference of 1906, 
the Spanish minister for foreign affairs was elected, on the 
proposal of the German first plenipotentiary. At the London 
Naval Conference of 1908-9, Lord Desart, the British first 
plenipotentiary, was elected on the proposal of the French 
plenipotentiary, the doyen d'dge. At the Peace Conference of 
Paris, 1919, M. Clemenceau, President of the Council and 
minister for foreign affairs, naturally presided. Other 
instances will be found in the examples appended to the 
present chapter. 

542. The functions of the president of an international 
conference are to open the proceedings by a speech setting 
forth the purposes and objects of the conference ; to name the 



members of the secretariat, previously agreed to informally 
by the representatives in general ; to direct the course of the 
discussions throughout the continuance of the conference ; 
and ultimately to declare the conference closed. At the final 
meeting it is customary to propose a vote of thanks to him for 
his services. 

543. Precedence among the plenipotentiaries is custom- 
arily determined by the alphabetical order in French of the 
states represented, unless some other order is agreed upon. 
The order in which they sit is alternately to the right and to 
the left of the president. (See 456.) At a peace conference 
the representatives of the belligerent states may fall into two 
opposite groups. 

544. The course of procedure at a conference varies with 
the importance or degree of complexity of the matters under 
discussion. Rules of procedure are framed at the outset for 
guidance. Where, as often happens, committees are set up 
to discuss particular items on the agenda, these in turn appoint 
a chairman, frame if necessary rules of procedure, and in 
addition to a secretary or secretaries, often appoint a " rap- 
porteur," to prepare the report to be furnished to the plenary 
body. Sub-committees may be formed from the members of a 
committee to deal with special points arising, and these in turn 
report to the committee. As apart from the main work of 
discussion, a small committee to examine the full powers of the 
representatives is desirable, and a drafting committee to prepare 
the text of the treaty instrument resulting from the work of 
the conference is nearly always necessary. 

545- When a " rapporteur " is appointed by a committee 
which has been charged with the discussion of a particular sub- 
ject, he may or may not be also the chairman of the committee ; 
and his functions as " rapporteur " are to summarise the dis- 
cussions in the form of a report, showing the conclusions 
arrived at by the committee in the matter. This report, which 
is first submitted to the members of the committee, is then 
communicated by him to the plenary body, and he is the 
mouthpiece of the committee in placing their decision before 
that body. And similarly in the case of a sub-committee which 
has been appointed to report to the committee itself. 

546. Plenary meetings of the whole body of representatives 
take place from time to time as the work proceeds. The first 
plenary meeting is of an introductory character, for the 
election of president, naming of the secretariat, framing of 
the lines on which the conference is to be organised, the 


appointment of committees, etc. Thereafter plenary meetings 
are held, as may be required, to receive and consider the 
reports of the committees. In a typical case, where the results 
of the discussions are embodied in a treaty, and where the 
issues involved are free from special difficulties, the successive 
stages might, for instance, be a first reading of the draft 
treaty prepared ; followed by a further reading, should 
modifications have been proposed and referred back to the 
committees ; and then a final reading of a formal character, 
at which the finished result would be submitted for the 
signatures of the plenipotentiaries. 

547. At all important conferences much care is devoted 
to the preparation of a formal record of the proceedings. 
A prices-verbal is prepared by the secretary or secretaries on 
the occasion of each sitting, setting forth the date, hour and 
place of meeting, the names of the plenipotentiaries and their 
staffs, and the states represented ; followed by a statement 
of the deliberations carried on and the conclusions reached, 
and the hour at which the sitting closed. To this are attached 
any draft projects which may have come under consideration, 
declarations made, etc. The proces-verbal is signed by all the 
plenipotentiaries present, and usually by the president and 
secretary-general or secretaries. Sometimes it is read at the 
following sitting and adopted, but it is more usual first to 
submit proofs to the plenipotentiaries for any necessary 
amendments, when the president states the fact of agreement 
at the next sitting and pronounces its adoption, whereupon it 
is signed. The original is preserved by the government of 
the state in which the conference is held, which supplies 
certified copies to the representatives of the others. 1 

548. In modern practice, the signatures to a treaty, drawn 
up at the conclusion of a conference as the outcome of its 
deliberations, are appended, in the case of a compact between 
heads of states, in the alphabetical order of the states over 
which they preside ; in the case of a compact between govern- 
ments, in the alphabetical order of the states represented. 
But in the case of a treaty of peace the signatories on each side 
may be classed separately, as in the Treaty of Versailles and 
other treaties of peace resulting from the Paris Peace Con- 
ference of 1919. 

549. In the past a great part of the work of a congress 

1 Basdevant, La Conclusion et la Redaction de trails, Cours de La Haye (1926), 
v. 629. 


or conference might relate to the nice adjustment of matters 
of ceremonial and precedence, the due observance of the 
alternat (see 39) and other points of strict etiquette, such as 
whether negotiations should be carried on by means of written 
pro-memorid or viva voce, whether certain Powers should be 
admitted or not, the wording of safe-conducts and full powers, 
the use of the distinction " Excellency," and the recognition of 
titles assumed by certain sovereigns. At the Congress of 
Nijmegen (1676-9) it is recorded that on the signature of the 
treaty of peace between France and Spain, two copies of the 
treaty having been prepared, one in French and the other 
in Spanish, and laid on the table at which sat the English 
mediators, the three French plenipotentiaries entered by one 
door at the same moment as the three Spanish plenipotentiaries 
entered at the other ; they sat down simultaneously in exactly 
similar armchairs, and signed both copies respectively at the 
same instant. 

550. The question what states shall be admitted to take 
part in a conference is, however, one that may occasionally 
arise. Of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Professor Temperley 
says : 

" The first question was to decide what Powers were to be 
represented at the conference, and what number of plenipoten- 
tiaries were to be allowed to each. It was finally determined to 
admit all those who had declared war on, or had broken off rela- 
tions with, Germany, though the neutrals were to be allowed to take 
part in discussions which affected their special interests." 1 

551. The principal secretary at a conference is usually an 
official of the country in which it is held, if that country is 
a participant, and the other members of the secretariat are 
also often furnished by it, supplemented, it may be, by others 
drawn from among the suites of the various representatives. 
The secretariat comes under the control and authority of the 
president of the conference, and while its main duties are 
the preparation of the proces-verbaux and official records of the 
conference, they comprise also the arrangement of all matters 
of routine, and such other duties as may be assigned to it. 
Translations of speeches and documents are often required, 
and communications may have to be issued to the Press. 
The bureau in which these activities are carried on is placed 
under the guidance of the president and vice-presidents, 
assisted by the secretary-general. 

552. The proceedings of the conference, and the results 

1 History of the Peace Conference of Paris, i. 247. 


arrived at, are on important occasions sometimes recorded 
in a Final Act, more especially when these results are embodied 
in a number of treaty instruments, the titles of which are set 
out, with, it may be, certain " vceux " or recommendations, 
in the Final Act, which is presented for signature by the pleni- 
potentiaries at the last meeting of the conference. (See 614.) 

553- As regards conferences held under the auspices of the 
League of Nations, no general rules of procedure have been 
framed applicable to all such conferences. Generally speaking, 
the rules adopted are published in the minutes of the particular 
conference, as was done, e.g.., in the case of the conference 
regarding the Codification of International Law, held at 
The Hague in igso. 1 The Rules of Procedure of the Assembly 
of the League of Nations itself are shown in 808. 

554. Lists of the more important congresses and con- 
ferences from the middle of the seventeenth century onwards 
were given in the former edition of this work ; and in his 
further treatise, " International Congresses," from which many 
of the details in the present chapter have been drawn, the 
late Sir E. Satow dealt more fully with those held since the 
beginning of last century. It is not proposed in the present 
edition to recount these former proceedings, which in many 
cases have now but a historical value, but rather to give, by 
way of illustration, a few of the more important of the numerous 
conferences held within recent years. 


555- The usual preliminary of a treaty of peace is an armis- 
tice. On October 5, 1918, the German Government transmitted 
through the Swiss Government their request to the President 
of the United States to assist in the restoration of peace. The 
President, on October 23, sent the papers to the governments 
with which the United States was associated, with a suggestion 
that the military advisers should be asked to submit to the 
governments associated against Germany the necessary terms 
of such an armistice as would ensure to them the unrestricted 
power to enforce the details of the peace to which the German 
Government had agreed. On November 5, having received 
the necessary reply from the Allied governments, he informed 
the German Government that Marshal Foch had been autho- 
rised to receive properly accredited representatives of the 
German Government and to communicate to them the terms 
of an armistice. 

1 Document C. 351, M. 145, 1930 V. 


During the days immediately preceding, Marshal Foch 
had discussed the terms of an armistice with the generals of 
the Allies, and the naval authorities had added suggestions. 
Then a meeting of the Supreme Council of the Allies, together 
with Colonel House (United States), MM. Venizelos (Greece), 
Vesnitch (Bulgaria) , Marshal Foch, Admiral Wemyss, Generals 
Sir H. Wilson, Bliss (United States) and de Robilant (Italy), 
was held at Versailles on October 31. On November 2 
M. Clemenceau raised the question of adding the words 
" reparation of damages." The Belgian, Italian and British 
representatives thought the subject out of place in an armistice 
convention, but it was nevertheless agreed to. Then the 
French Minister of Finance proposed to preface those words 
by the addition of: "With the reservation of all ulterior 
claims and reclamations on the part of the Allies and the 
United States " (sous reserve de toutes revendications et reclamations 
ulterieures de la part des Allies et des Etats-Unis). This was like- 
wise adopted. On November 4 the consideration of the terms 
was resumed, and the text of an article respecting surface 
ships adopted. Thereupon on November 5 the Allies informed 
the President of the United States of their willingness to make 
peace on the terms laid down in his address of January 8, 
1918 (the Fourteen Points), and the principles of settlement 
enunciated in his subsequent addresses. On clause 2, relating 
to what is usually described as the freedom of the seas, they 
reserved to themselves complete freedom in the Peace Con- 
ference, and they declared that by the restoration of invaded 
territories they understood compensation made by Germany 
for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies 
and their property by the aggression of Germany by land, by 
sea, and from the air. 

On November 8 the two delegations met at Rethondes 
station in the forest of Compiegne. The German Government 
intimated their acceptance on the loth, and signature of the 
armistice convention followed at 5 a.m. on November n. 
It came into force at noon that day (i i a.m. Greenwich time). 1 

Thereafter, the Five Great Powers assumed the exclusive 
direction of the proceedings (just as at Vienna in 1815). 
Up to the time of delivery of the terms of peace to the German 
delegates on May 7, 1919, the meetings of the Plenum, i.e. 
the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers, were 

1 Tardieu, La Paix, 66 -8 1. Geschichte des Waffenstillstands, published by the 
German Government, and Mermeix, Les negotiations secretes et les quatre Armistices, 
Paris, 1 92 1 ; also Die deutsche Waffenstillstands-Kommissions-Bericht fiber ihre Tdtigkeit 
vom Abschluss des Waffenstillstandes bis Inkrafttreten des Friedens. Charlottenburg, 


eight in number, besides a secret session. At the first of these 
plenary assemblies the Prime Minister of France was chosen 
permanent chairman, in accordance with precedent. A 
principal secretary-general and five others bearing the title 
of " secretary " were appointed for the respective Great Powers, 
besides four vice-presidents. The Great Powers began their 
private and confidential conversations before any general 
meeting of plenipotentiaries. 

At the plenary session of January 25, five resolutions were 
submitted and adopted, appointing committees or commis- 
sions. 1 i. To work out the details and constitution of the 
proposed League of Nations ; 2. To inquire into and report 
on the responsibility of the authors of the war and the enforce- 
ment of penalties ; 3. To examine and report on the amount 
which the enemy countries ought to pay by way of reparation 
and what they were capable of paying ; 4. To inquire into 
the conditions of employment from the international aspect ; 
5. To inquire into and report on the international control of 
ports, waterways and railways. There was a general discus- 
sion before these resolutions were adopted, and it was agreed 
that representatives of minor powers with special interests 
should meet to elect members of these commissions in addition 
to those nominated by the Five Great Powers. 2 There was 
also a drafting commission. Minutes of these meetings were 
kept and printed from stenographic notes. 

Although each of the Great Powers was entitled to five 
plenipotentiaries, and each of the minor Powers to two, 3 the 
Supreme Council which actually carried on the main work 
of the conference was a much smaller body. It consisted at 
first of the President of the United States and the Prime 
Ministers of France, Great Britain and Italy, with their 
ministers for foreign affairs, and the Japanese ambassadors 
at Paris and London, ten in all. This lasted from January 1 2 
till March 24. From that time onward it was reduced to a 
council of four, the President and the three Prime Ministers. 
During the absence of the Italian delegation from April 24 to 
May 5 it became a council of three. Of their very numerous 
daily conversations it seems that stenographic records 4 were 
made in French and English, and sometimes, as in matters 

1 66th Congress ist session, Document No. 106, Hearings before the Committee on 
Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, 300. 

2 List of members, ibid., 309. 

3 See the Preamble to the Treaty of Versailles in History of the Peace Conference 
of Paris, Temperley, v. iii. 105. 

4 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, 



concerning Austria, they were also translated into Italian. 1 
A distinction seems to have been made between stenographic 
reports and proces-verbaux. Copies of the latter, which were 
sometimes very detailed, were supplied to the plenipotentiaries. 
The record of a discussion on January 1 6 regarding the situation 
in Russia has been printed, besides one of January 2i. 2 On 
the latter occasion, in addition to the members of the council 
of ten, there were present twelve other persons, including 
three out of the five secretaries of the delegations and the 
official interpreter. Under such circumstances it was not 
possible to prevent the leakage of information that" the 
principals wished to keep secret, and this led to measures of 
restriction. The memoranda of the debates on the League 
of Nations were not taken down in shorthand. They 
were regarded as confidential, and so, it may be presumed, 
were those of other sittings of the Supreme Council. By 
January 25 one of the delegates from Japan, besides three 
ambassadors, had arrived. But the protocol of the plenary 
sitting of that date was signed by M. Clemenceau and the six 
secretaries alone. The third plenary meeting, at which a 
draft Covenant of the League of Nations was read, was held 
on February 14. The commission on that subject met on 
April 10 and n, 3 and definitely agreed on the text to be 
presented to the conference, which was done at the fifth 
plenary sitting on April 28. 

The United States Secretary of State was appointed chair- 
man of the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of 
the War and the Enforcement of Penalties, 4 and its work was 
divided among three sub-commissions. 

The so-called Council of Four, representing the Principal 
Allied and Associated Powers, was in reality a Council of Five, 
as it included a Japanese member. 5 The matters discussed 
were summarised, and the conclusions arrived at were recorded 
in a proces-verbal, copies of which were distributed within 
twenty-four hours, and it was open to the members to correct 
anything it might contain. Every decision required the unani- 
mous consent 6 of the Peace Conference, which never decided 
any question by a majority vote. In the commission on the 
League of Nations voting was resorted to, on at least one 

By the Treaty of Versailles the territories renounced by 
Germany were to be apportioned by the Principal Allied and 

1 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, 171. 

2 Ibid., 1240. 3 Ibid., 270. * Ibid., 314. 
5 Ibid., 521. 6 Ibid., 527. 


Associated Powers (Art. 118), just as, by the separate articles 
of the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814, the disposition of the 
territories ceded by France was left to the Four Powers. 

The Economic Commission was composed of delegates of 
the Great Powers, representatives of certain of the minor 
Powers being associated with them from time to time. The 
work was shared among sub-committees, which considered 
different branches of the subject. 1 The members met from 
time to time to compare notes, and the whole of the economic 
clauses were gone over and subjected to criticism by this 
group. The sub-commissions sat frequently and towards the 
end almost continuously, and when they arrived at a con- 
clusion they presented a report to the commission for approval, 
amendment, or rejection. When finally adopted these reports 
were put together to form a whole. Then the reports of the 
commission were presented to the Supreme Council and were 
accepted. After that they were handed over to the drafting 
commission, 2 and emerged substantially in the form in which 
they appear in the text of the treaty. The decisions of the 
commission were taken unanimously. 

The records of the Financial Commission were not steno- 
graphic, for there was a good deal of discussion not necessary 
to put on the minutes. The latter, containing the substance of 
the agreements arrived at, were kept in French and English, 
were presented to the members, and at each subsequent 
meeting were approved with whatever alterations were 

In addition to the committees already mentioned, a 
Supreme Economic Council was formed, territorial com- 
missions were set up for Czechoslovakia, for Poland, for 
Roumania and Yugoslavia, for Greece and Albania, for 
Belgium and Denmark, besides military, naval and air com- 
missions. Perhaps the most important of all was the drafting 
commission, on which the five principal Powers were repre- 
sented. Subordinate to this were the economic and financial 
drafting commissions. Besides this machinery, a Council of 
Five was formed out of the ministers for foreign affairs. 
This was the organ for the insertion in the treaty of clauses 
omitted by oversight, and, while the Four were occupied 
with the negotiation of the treaty with Germany, it was able 
to proceed with the discussion of the Austrian treaty. 

The whole treaty with Germany having thus been framed, 
there was in the first place the exchange of credentials on 

1 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, 9. 
z Ibid., 12. " 


May i , next the delivery of the terms to the German delegates 
on May 7. This was followed by discussion between the 
parties, in the shape of notes delivered by Germany and 
answered by the Allies. Finally, on May 30, Germany 
put in a lengthened criticism of the draft, which was answered 
on June 16 by a note signed by the president of the con- 
ference, covering the " Reply of the Allied and Associated 
Powers to the observations of the German delegation on the 
conditions of peace." l 

Some minor concessions were made, but the original text 
was on the whole maintained, and signature followed on 
June 28, together with that of a supplementary protocol, 2 
indicating precisely the conditions in which certain pro- 
visions of the treaty were to be carried out. The deposit in 
Paris of the required number of instruments of ratification did 
not take place till January 10, 1920, being impeded mainly 
by the difficulties encountered by the Allies in obtaining 
satisfaction from Germany for failure to execute the provisions 
of the armistice of November n, 1918, of which the chief 
violation was the scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow 
on June 21, 1919, a week before the signature of the treaty of 
peace. On November 6 the Allies sent a note to Germany, 
accompanied by a protocol relating to the unexecuted pro- 
visions of the armistice of which they required the signature 
before the Peace Treaty could come into operation. It was 
not till January 10 that the German Government was induced 
to sign this document, and on the same day the deposit of 
ratifications was accomplished at the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs at Paris in a plenary sitting of the signatories of the 

After the signature of the Treaty of Peace with Germany 
the Council of Four was broken up, and its members, except of 
course the French member, left Paris. The current business 
in connection with the execution of its provisions, and the 
framing of the treaties with the other belligerents, was com- 
mitted to the five ministers for foreign affairs. This council 
also came to an end after the deposit of ratifications, and was 
succeeded by a Conference of the Ambassadors of the Allies 
accredited at Paris. 

The Treaty of Versailles embraced an extensive series of 
provisions. The duty of enforcing their execution devolved 

1 See Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers, 1919 [Cmd. 258], also International 
Conciliation, November, 1919, No. 144. For the Comments by the German Delegation 
on the Conditions of Peace, see No. 143 of the same publication. 

2 Temperley, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, iii. 345. 


on various constituted bodies. The boundaries of the new 
states had to be delimited ; in some cases a plebiscite had to be 
resorted to in order to determine the line of partition. Of 
a permanent nature was the constitution of the League of 
Nations and the organisation for the international regulation of 
labour conditions. The international commissions for the 
traffic on the Elbe, Oder, Niemen, Danube, Rhine and Moselle 
presented the same character. The clearing offices and 
mixed arbitral tribunals set up under the economic clauses 
were provisional, also the inter-allied commissions of control 
for the execution of the military, naval and air clauses pro- 
viding for disarmament, and the inter-allied Reparation 

Although the uninterrupted presence of the Prime Ministers 
in Paris was no longer considered imperative after the signa- 
ture of the Treaty of Versailles, they still continued to meet 
from time to time in France, Great Britain and elsewhere for the 
discussion of matters of common concern arising out of that 
treaty and for the consideration of other treaties with enemy 
belligerents. No leading representative of the United States 
was present at these gatherings until President Harding 
authorised the attendance of the American ambassador at 
Paris in August 1921. Germany maintained a Peace Delega- 
tion in Paris, the head of which corresponded with the 
chairman or the secretary-general of the Supreme Council 
and with the Council of Ambassadors. The decisions arrived 
at by the Supreme Council on each occasion were made 
public in the form of official communiques.^ 


556. Invitations were addressed by the United States 
Government on August 1 1, 1921, to Great Britain, France, Italy 
and Japan, for a Conference on the Limitation of Armament, to 
be held in Washington on November n, 1921, in connection 
with which Pacific and Far Eastern questions would also be 
discussed ; to China, to participate in the latter discussion ; 
and also on October 4, to Belgium, the Netherlands and 
Portugal. Acceptances were received from all. 

The conference opened on November n, 1921, the 
respective countries being represented as follows : 

United States : Mr. C. E. Hughes, Secretary of State ; Mr. H. C. 
Lodge, Senator ; Mr. O. W. Underwood, Senator ; Mr. Elihu 
Root, former Secretary of State and Senator. 

1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. 15, 1921. Protocols and Correspondence [Cmd. 1325]. 


Belgium : Baron de Carder de Marchienne, ambassador at 

Great Britain : Mr. A. J. Balfour, Lord President of the Privy 
Council ; Baron Lee of Fareham, First Lord of the Admiralty ; 
Sir A. Geddes, ambassador at Washington. 

Canada : Sir R. L. Borden, Prime Minister. 

Australia : Mr. G. F. Pearce, Minister. 

New Zealand : Sir J. W. Salmond, Judge of the Supreme Court. 

South Africa : Mr. A. J. Balfour. 

India : Mr. V. S. S. Sastri, Member of the Indian Council of 

France : M. Briand, President of the Council ; M. Viviani, 
former President of the Council ; M. Sarraut, Minister for the 
Colonies ; M. Jusserand, ambassador at Washington. 

Italy : M. C. Schanzer, Senator ; M. V. Rolandi-Ricci, 
ambassador at Washington ; M. F. Meda. 

Japan : Baron Kato, Minister for the Navy ; Baron Shidehara, 
ambassador at Washington ; Mr. M. Hanihara. 

China : Mr. S. A. Sze, envoy at Washington ; Mr. V. K. 
Wellington Koo, envoy at London ; Mr. Chung-Hui Wang ; 
Mr. Chao-chu-Wu. 

Netherlands : Jonkheer H. A. van Karnebeek, Minister for 
Foreign Affairs ; Jonkheer Beelaerts van Blokland, envoy ; Dr. E. 

Portugal : Viscount d'Alte, envoy at Washington ; M. E. J. de 
Carvalho e Vasconcellos. 

Each delegation was accompanied by a large staff of special 
advisers, technical experts, secretaries, clerks, etc. 
The agenda for the conference were thus framed : 

Limitation of Armament 

One. Limitation of Naval Armament, under which shall 
be discussed : 

(a] Basis of limitation. 

(b] Extent. 

(c] Fulfilment. 

Two. Rules for control of new agencies of warfare. 
Three. Limitation of land armament. 

Pacific and Far Eastern Questions 

One. Questions relating to China. 
First : Principles to be applied. 
Second : Application. 
Subjects : 

(a] Territorial integrity. 


(b) Administrative integrity. 

(c] Open door. Equality of commercial and in- 

dustrial opportunity. 

(d] Concessions, monopolies or preferential economic 


(e) Development of railways, including plans re- 

lating to Chinese Eastern Railway. 
(/) Preferential railroad rates. 
(g) Status of existing commitments. 

Two. Siberia. (Similar headings.) 

Tkree. Mandated islands. (Unless questions earlier 
settled.) Electrical communications in the Pacific. 

Under the heading of" Status of Existing Commitments," 
it is expected that opportunity will be afforded to consider 
and to reach an understanding with respect to unsettled 
questions involving the nature and scope of commitments 
under which claims of rights may hereafter be asserted. 

The places of the plenipotentiaries at the hollow square 
of tables were arranged according to the diplomatic rule 
governing such matters. The United States Secretary of 
State had his seat at the middle of the top table, with the other 
three United States delegates on his right ; at his left were the 
British delegates ; next on the right came the French dele- 
gates ; next on the left came the Italian delegates, and last 
on the right came the Japanese delegates. At the subsequent 
sessions the seats at the top of the table were moved one place 
to the left, so that the Secretary of State occupied a seat to 
the left of the middle, and so a seat was assigned to one of the 
French delegates at the right end of the top row. 

Apart from the public sessions, the main part of the business 
was transacted in committees. These were the Committee 
on Limitation of Armament and the Committee on Pacific and 
Far Eastern questions. The former, composed of the pleni- 
potentiary delegates of the Five Great Powers, held twenty- 
one sittings, the latter, composed of the plenipotentiary 
delegates of the the nine Powers that took part in the conference, 
thirty-one sittings. Each had power to appoint such sub- 
committees as it might from time to time deem advisable. 

At the plenary sessions, practically every speech was 
repeated in French. Records of the speeches made in com- 
mittees were kept ; official communiques in a condensed form 
were published. 

Besides the secretary-general of the conference there were 


six other secretaries and assistant secretaries, drawn from the 
United States service, two interpreters, etc. 

At the first plenary session an introductory speech was 
delivered by the President of the United States, printed copies 
of which in French and English were laid on the desks of the 
delegates. The President having withdrawn after delivering 
his speech, the British first delegate proposed that the United 
States Secretary of State should be permanent head of the 
conference, in accordance with the usual practice. This 
being agreed, the Secretary of State, in his capacity as chair- 
man, delivered a speech in which he proposed a scheme for 
the execution of heading one of the section Limitation of Naval 
Armament of the agenda, and briefly mentioned the second 
part of the agenda, Pacific and Far Eastern questions. This 
he followed by a concrete proposal for the limitation of the 
United States, British and Japanese navies. 

The Chairman then proposed as secretary-general 
Mr. J. W. Garratt, a former minister plenipotentiary, and 
that the heads of missions of the Five Great Powers, or such 
representative as each Power might respectively select for the 
purpose, should constitute a committee on programme and 
procedure with respect to the limitation of armament ; further 
that the heads of missions of the Five Powers and of the other 
Powers invited to take part in the discussion of Pacific and 
Far Eastern questions, or such representatives as they might 
respectively designate, should form a committee on pro- 
gramme and procedure for the discussion of those questions. 
He suggested that the credentials of the delegates should be 
left with the secretary-general at the close of the session. 
These proposals were agreed to. 

At the second session the record of the first session, having 
been previously distributed to the delegates for any corrections 
necessary, was unanimously approved. This procedure was 
followed at each subsequent session. The British and Japanese 
first delegates intimated their acceptance in principle of the 
United States proposals, and speeches followed from the Italian 
and French leading delegates. Further discussion was carried 
on in the committee, aided by a sub-committee of experts. 

At the third plenary session the French Prime Minister 
explained the French view with regard to land armament, and 
was followed by the British, Italian and United States repre- 
sentatives. It came ultimately to be recognised that an agree- 
ment on this question was impossible. Two days later the 
committee which had this matter in hand had a private 
general discussion on subjects relating to it and to new agencies 


of warfare. These were referred to the sub-committee, con- 
sisting of the heads of delegations, with instructions to bring in 
an order of proceeding with regard to those subjects, and with 
power to appoint sub-committees to deal with the questions 
relating to poison gas, aircraft, and rules of international law. 
After this the matter of land armament disappeared from the 
agenda, and the conference resumed the discussion of the 
limitation of naval armament. The important point to be 
settled was the ratio to be fixed between the naval strengths 
of the United States, Great Britain and Japan, and concurrently 
those of France and Italy. These were finally, after much 
discussion, fixed at 5, 5, 3, i 75 and i 75 for the Five Powers. 
The discussion on the tonnage of submarines, carried on in 
committee, led to no agreement, nor was any arrived at on the 
tonnage of other auxiliary craft. 

An important part of the agenda consisted of questions 
relating to China, some of them interesting Japan in particular. 
The questions at issue between those two Powers were adjusted 
with the help of the United States Secretary of State and the 
British first delegate, in thirty meetings. These matters were 
disposed of by two treaties and various resolutions. 

The results achieved at the conference may be summarised 
thus : 

(1) The treaty between the United States, the British 
Empire, France, Italy and Japan, limiting naval armament, 
signed February 6, 1922, was the most important. It confined 
the size of battleships thereafter constructed to 35,000 tons, 
and the calibre of guns to 16 inches, and specified the existing 
battleships which might be retained by each of the contracting 
Powers. All other battleships possessed by the United States, 
Great Britain, or Japan were to be scrapped, in accordance 
with the rules laid down in the treaty. There were also rules 
governing the replacement of ships more than twenty years old. 
The total tonnage to be retained by the United States was 
525,850 tons, by the British Empire 558,950 tons, by France 
221,170 tons, by Italy 182,800 tons, by Japan 301,320 tons. 

Article 23 provided for the treaty remaining in force 
until December 31, 1936, and in case none of the contracting 
Powers should have given notice two years before that date 
of its intention to terminate the treaty, then until the expira- 
tion of two years from the date on which such notice might 
be given. 

(2) A treaty between the same Powers designed to render 
more effective the rules adopted by civilised nations for the 
protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants at sea 


in time of war, and to prevent the use in war of noxious gases 
and chemicals. 1 

(3) A treaty between the same Powers relating to their 
insular possessions and insular dominions in the Pacific Ocean, 
was not included among the agenda. It was designed to 
terminate and supersede the Anglo-Japanese alliance, of 
which the necessity was recognised as no longer existing. 
The discussion of this compact was carried on by the heads of 
the delegations concerned. A doubt having arisen with respect 
to the words " insular possessions and insular dominions," it 
was found necessary to conclude a supplementary treaty 
defining the application of these terms in relation to Japan. 

(4) A treaty between the United States, Belgium, British 
Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and 
Portugal, relating to principles and policies to be followed 
in matters concerning China. 

(5) A treaty between the same countries relating to the 
Chinese customs tariff. 

A number of resolutions were also adopted : 

(i) For a commission to be constituted to consider amend- 
ments of the laws of war. 

(ii) Excluding from the purview of the above commission 
rules or declarations relating to submarines or the use of 
noxious gases and chemicals already adopted by the Powers in 
this conference. 

(iii) Regarding a Board of Reference for Far Eastern 

(iv) Regarding exterritoriality in China, under which a 
commission was to be established in China. 

(v) Regarding foreign postal agencies in China, and under- 
taking that their withdrawal should be effected not later than 
January i, 1923. 

(vi) Regarding armed forces in China, by which the 
Powers declared their intention to withdraw their armed forces 
on duty in China, whenever China should assure the protec- 
tion of the lives and property of foreigners in China. 

(vii) Regarding radio stations in China, with accompany- 
ing declarations. 

(viii) Regarding the unification of railways in China, 
with accompanying declaration by China. 

(ix) Regarding the reduction of Chinese military forces. 

(x) Regarding existing commitments of China or with 
respect to China, i.e. the political and other international 

1 This treaty failed to secure the number of ratifications required to bring it 
into force. 


obligations of China and of the several Powers in relation to 

(xi) Regarding the Chinese Eastern Railway, approved by 
all the Powers, including China. 

(xii) Regarding the Chinese Eastern Railway, approved by 
all the Powers other than China. 

There was also signed by China and Japan a treaty 
settling outstanding questions relative to Shantung, which 
had been pending ever since China refused to sign the Treaty 
of Versailles, Article 156 of which provided that Germany 
should renounce in favour of Japan all her rights, title and 
privileges which she acquired in virtue of her treaty with 
China of March 6, 1898, and disposing of all other arrange- 
ments relative to the province of Shantung, together with all 
Japanese rights of whatever kind relating to the Tsingtao- 
Tsinanfu railway. The announcements in Article i that 
Japan would restore to China the former German leased 
territory at Kiaochow, and in section iii with regard to the 
withdrawal of Japanese troops, were followed by the British 
First Delegate's declaration of the British Government's 
intention to hand back Wei-hai-wei to China. This was 
confirmed by an exchange of letters of February 3 between 
Mr. Balfour and Mr. Sze. France also declared in committee 
her willingness to restore Kwang-chow-wan to China under 
certain conditions. 

The closing session of the conference was held on Feb- 
ruary 6, 1922, when the President of the United States 
delivered a farewell address to the delegates. 

Siberia, Mandated Islands and Electrical Communications 
in the Pacific, with which subjects the agenda terminated, do 
not seem to have been discussed by the whole conference. 
But a convention between the United States and Japan, 
relative to the Island of Yap, was arrived at by those Powers 
outside the conference, and was signed February n, 1922. 
It appears to come under the last two subjects on the agenda. 1 


557- This conference originated in a resolution of 
January 6, 1922, approved at a meeting of the Supreme 

1 Authorities : Senate Document No. 126, 67th Congress, 2nd Session ; Papers 
published by the American Association for International Conciliation, Nos. 169 of 
December 1901 and 172 of March, 1922 ; Mark Sullivan, The Great Adventure at 
Washington, London, 1922 ; Sir John N. Jordan, Article in the Quarterly Review 
for July 1922 ; White Paper presented to Parliament [Cmd. 1627], Miscellaneous, 
No. I (1922), entitled Conference on Limitation of Armament (Treaties, Resolutions, etc.). 


Council at Cannes, to the effect that the Allied Powers were 
unanimously of opinion that an Economic and Financial 
Conference should be summoned, to which all European 
countries, including Germany, Russia, Austria, Hungary and 
Bulgaria, should be invited ; this they regarded as an urgent 
and essential step towards the economic reconstruction of 
Central and Eastern Europe, and the hope was expressed that 
the Prime Ministers of every nation would attend in person. 
Fundamental conditions were stated broadly as follows : 

1 . Nations can claim no right to dictate to each other regarding 
the principles on which they are to regulate their system of owner- 
ship, internal economy, and government. It is for every nation 
to choose for itself the system which it prefers in this respect. 

2. Before, however, foreign capital can be made available to 
assist a country, foreign investors must be assured that their pro- 
perty and their rights will be respected and the fruits of their 
enterprise secured to them. 

3. The sense of security cannot be re-established unless the 
governments of countries desiring credit freely undertake (a) that 
they will recognise all public debts and obligations which have 
been or may be undertaken by the state, by municipalities, or by 
other public bodies, as well as the obligation to restore or com- 
pensate all foreign interests for loss or damage caused to them 
where property has been confiscated or withheld ; (b) that they will 
establish a legal and juridical system which sanctions and enforces 
commercial and other contracts with impartiality. 

4. An adequate means of exchange must be available, and 
generally, there must be financial and currency conditions which 
afford sufficient security for trade. 

5. All nations should undertake to refrain from propaganda 
subversive of order and the established political system in other 
countries than their own. 

6. All countries should join in an undertaking to refrain from 
aggression against their neighbours. 

If, in order to secure the conditions necessary for the develop- 
ment of trade in Russia, the Russian Government demands official 
recognition, the Allied Powers will be prepared to accord such 
recognition only if the Russian Government accepts the foregoing 

The main purpose, it may be said, was to bring about, 
if possible, harmonious relations between Russia and the 
other nations of Europe. 

It was also agreed that the conference should meet at 
Genoa ; terms of invitation to Russia were drawn up ; and 
it was decided that invitations should be addressed to all 
European countries and to the United States. An outline of 
the agenda was approved, a committee being set up to prepare 


a more detailed programme and to draft resolutions, while 
a Press notice was issued setting out the general objects and 
conditions of the proposed conference, which included the 
establishment of a basis of stable and enduring peace, and the 
discussion of financial and economic questions, with a view 
of reaching a satisfactory settlement of all such matters. 

The invitations were issued by the Italian Government, in 
whose territory the conference was to be held, and in April 
1922 the delegates assembled at Genoa, the following countries 
taking part : Albania, Austria, Belgium, British Empire, with 
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India, 
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Germany, Greece, Holland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, 
Roumania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. 
The United States did not participate. 

At the opening meeting in the Palazzo Reale on April 10 
the chair was taken provisionally by Signer Facta, Prime 
Minister of Italy, who welcomed the representatives, and read 
a cordial message from the King of Italy. Mr. Lloyd George, 
Prime Minister of Great Britain, then proposed the appoint- 
ment of Signer Facta as president of the conference. Monsieur 
Barthou, head of the French Delegation, seconded, and the 
motion being carried unanimously, Signor Facta delivered 
his inaugural address as president, being followed by the 
representatives of all the more important states. Some little 
friction arose at this meeting between the French and Soviet 
delegates regarding the scope of the intended discussions, but 
the president closed the matter by declaring that the Cannes 
resolutions formed the basis, which the countries assembled 
had agreed to. 

Four commissions were then set up under the following 
heads : Political, Financial, Economic and Transport, to deal 
with all respective questions. These in turn set up sub- 
commissions to deal with the special items. The general 
secretariat was conducted by Italy, at whose invitation the 
conference had met. The rules of procedure were as follows, 
and show generally the manner in which the work of the 
conference was carried on : 

Art. i. Delegates. The International Economic Conference 
convened at the invitation of the Italian Government on behalf 
of the Powers represented at the Cannes Conference, consists of 
plenipotentiary delegates appointed by the states invited to attend. 
The numbers of these delegates is five for the Powers which con- 
vened the Conference, Germany and Russia, and two for the 


remaining Powers. Each delegation will have one vote only. 
Written notice of the appointment of the delegates must be sent to 
the Italian Government or to the President of the Conference. 

Art. 2. Deputies. Each state represented at the Conference 
is entitled to appoint deputies of the same number as its pleni- 
potentiary delegates. 

Art. 3. Technical Advisers. The plenipotentiary delegates 
of each state may be accompanied by technical advisers. Written 
notice of the appointment of these advisers must be sent to 
the Italian Government or to the Secretary-General of the 

Art. 4. Credentials. All plenipotentiary delegates are re- 
quested to hand in their credentials at the earliest possible moment 
to the Secretary-General's office. A committee for the verification 
of credentials, consisting of one delegate from each of the Powers 
convening the Conference, will at once proceed to verify the 
credentials of the delegates. 

Art. 5. Order of Precedence. Votes will be cast according to 
the Italian alphabetical order of the names of the Powers. 

Art. 6. Bureau of the Conference. The appointment of the 
regular President will be made at the first meeting. In the absence 
of the President, the duties of his office will be performed by the 
head of the delegation to which the President belongs. The Prime 
Minister of Italy will provisionally act as President of the Con- 
ference until the regular President has been appointed. The con- 
trol of the debates of the Conference will be exercised by the 
President. The President is empowered by the Assembly to take 
any measures which he may consider necessary for the conduct of 
the debates. The President, together with presidents of the Com- 
missions, will form the bureau entrusted with the duty of drawing 
up the agenda and with the consideration of all questions of 

Art. 7. The Secretariat. The Secretariat will be directed by 
an Italian Secretary-General, assisted by the chiefs of the secre- 
tariats of the delegations of the Powers convening the Conference. 
The Secretariat is placed under the control and authority of the 
President. The secretaries designated by the delegations to follow 
the work of the Conference and to collaborate in drafting the 
minutes will also be attached to the Secretariat. The Secretariat is 
especially entrusted with the duty of receiving communications and 
translating the documents, reports, and resolutions bearing on the 
labours of the Conference, translating the speeches delivered during 
the meetings, drafting and communicating the minutes of the meet- 
ings, and, generally, of performing any tasks which the Conference 
may see fit to assign to it. Members of the Conference will always 
have access to the records. 

Art. 8. Publicity of Proceedings. The publicity of the pro- 
ceedings will be provided for by means of official communiques 
drawn up by the Secretariat, with the approval of the President of 


the Conference. The plenary meetings only will be public, except 
when otherwise notified. Members of the public will be admitted 
on production of cards issued by the Secretariat-General. 

Art. 9. Commissions. Commissions will be formed to con- 
sider the questions on the agenda. Each delegation may appoint 
one delegate to sit on each of the commissions ; the Powers which 
have five delegates at the Conference will appoint two delegates 
each for this purpose. The same delegate may sit on several com- 
missions. All the commissions will be empowered to divide 
themselves into sub-commissions. 

Art. 10. Official Languages. The official languages of the 
Conference are Italian, French and English. Speeches delivered 
in one of these three languages will be translated into the other 
two by an interpreter attached to the Secretariat. Any delegate 
speaking in another language will have to make provision for the 
translation of his speech into Italian, French or English. All 
documents, proposals and reports communicated to members of 
the Conference by the President or by the Secretariat will have to 
be drawn up in Italian, French and English. Any delegate will 
be entitled to distribute documents written in other languages than 
Italian, French or English, but the Secretariat will not be required 
to provide for their translation and printing. 

Art. n. Documents, Proposals, etc. (i) Documents, proposals, 
etc., must be communicated in writing to the President, who 
will cause copies to be distributed to the delegates. Documents and 
proposals can only be submitted by or on behalf of a plenipotentiary 
delegate. (2) Except in the case of proposals relating to questions 
on the agenda, or which arise out of the debates, delegates who 
desire to submit proposals must hand them in twenty-four hours 
in advance in order to facilitate their discussion. Exception may, 
however, be made to this rule in the case of amendments or 
secondary questions. (3) Petitions, memoranda, and documents 
addressed to the Conference and emanating from any other person 
than a plenipotentiary delegate must be handed in to the Secretariat, 
which will communicate them to the President's bureau. All these 
papers will be preserved in the records of the Conference. 

Art. 12. Minutes of the Meetings. The provisional minutes 
of the meetings, drawn up by the Secretariat, will be distributed 
to the delegations as early as possible. The minutes, with any 
amendments and corrections which the delegates may make, must 
be returned to the Secretary-General's office within twenty-four 
hours after distribution. In order to expedite the proceedings, this 
distribution will be considered as equivalent to the reading of the 
minutes at the opening of each meeting. If no correction is asked 
for by the plenipotentiary delegates the text, as distributed, will be 
considered as having been approved and will be placed in the 
records. If a correction affecting the substance of a report is asked 
for, the President will read the proposed modification at the opening 
of the next meeting. 


The Plenary Conference met on three occasions : on 
April 10, May 3 and May 19. By the time of the second 
meeting the Financial and Transport Commissions had con- 
pleted their reports, while the Economic Commission furnished 
its report before May 19. The reports furnished by these 
committees were described by the president as real and 
positive contributions to the re-building of the world. But the 
work of the First Commission on the political questions 
involved proved more difficult, and as the findings of the 
other three commissions depended for their accomplishment 
on a solution of these questions no final results could be 
achieved at the conference. In the meantime the conclusion 
at Rapallo on April 16 of a treaty between Germany and 
Russia mutually renouncing as between themselves reparation 
claims, and agreeing to resume normal relations, clouded the 
outlook ; further difficulties developed from differences of 
view between some of the Allied Powers regarding claims for 
the restitution of privately-owned property in Russia. In such 
circumstances the conference concluded on May 19 by agreeing 
that the further consideration of the outstanding differences 
between the Soviet Government and the other governments 
represented should be delegated to a mixed commission of 
experts which would meet at The Hague in June 1922. 

At the final meeting on May 1 9 a resolution of thanks was 
adopted, on the proposal of Mr. Lloyd George, to the president 
of the conference ; to Signer Schanzer, the president of the 
political sub-commission ; and to the Italian people for their 
hospitality. 1 

The proposed mixed commission duly met at The Hague 
and sat from June 26 to July 20, 1922, without, however, 
achieving any further useful result. 


558. While the conference which assembled at Locarno 
on October 5, 1925, originated in certain proposals made by 
the German Government in a memorandum which they 
communicated to the French Government on February 9, 
I925, 2 the efforts of previous years had had an appreciable 
effect in paving the way for the entertainment of some definite 
means of bringing about a solution of the political problems 

1 Authority : J. Saxon Mills, The Genoa Conference. 

2 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. 7, 1925 ; see also 102. 


The German memorandum, in considering the various 
forms which a pact of security might take, suggested, as 
possible methods, specific engagements into which the Powers 
concerned in the inviolability of the existing territorial status 
on the Rhine might enter, coupled with treaties of arbitration 
for the peaceful settlement of disputes. 

These proposals received the careful consideration of the 
French, British and Belgian Governments, and on June 16 
the French Government addressed a reply to the German 
Government, in which, in agreement with their allies, they 
expressed a general approval of the motives underlying 
the German proposals, but asked for a fuller explanation of 
the views of that government on a number of points. In 
particular, emphasis was placed on the necessity of Germany 
entering the League of Nations, of the proposed pact in no way 
modifying the settlements made by the Treaty of Versailles, 
of Belgium being included as a party to the pact, and of the 
proposed arbitration treaties being of the most comprehensive 

The correspondence proceeded until August 27, when the 
negotiations reached a stage at which it was proposed that 
a meeting of experts of Belgium, France, Great Britain and 
Germany should be held in London, in order to afford the 
German experts an opportunity to become acquainted with 
the views of the Allied experts as regards the legal and 
technical aspects of the problems under discussion. At this 
meeting, which took place in London from September i to 4, 
views were exchanged, and, as the outcome, a note was 
addressed to the German Government on September 15, on 
behalf of Belgium, France and Great Britain, to the effect that 
it appeared to them that the nations concerned had a common 
interest in the negotiations being no longer postponed, and 
suggesting that a conference of the ministers for foreign affairs 
of the interested states should be held at an early date in 
neutral territory, preferably Switzerland. It was then arranged 
that the conference should take place at Locarno on October 5. 
The conference accordingly met at Locarno on October 5, 
and lasted until October 16. The following were the principal 
representatives of the various states : 

Germany : Dr. H. Luther, Chancellor ; Dr. C. Stresemann, 
Minister for Foreign Affairs. 

Belgium : M. E. Vandervelde, Minister for Foreign 

France : M. A. Briand, President of the Council, Minister 
for Foreign Affairs. 


Great Britain : Mr. A. Chamberlain, Principal Secretary 
of State for Foreign Affairs. 

Italy : M. B. Mussolini, President of the Council of 

Poland : M. A. Skrzynski, Prime Minister, Minister for 
Foreign Affairs. 

Czechoslovakia : Dr. E. Benes, Minister for Foreign Affairs. 

The proceedings of the conference do not appear to have 
been governed by any strict rules of formality or procedure, 
and, as a result of the consultations, there were drawn up in the 
French language and initialled : 

(1) A Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany, 
Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy. 

(2) An Arbitration Convention between Germany and 

(3) An Arbitration Convention between Germany and 

(4) An Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland. 

(5) An Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Czecho- 

The final protocol signed by the representatives on 
October 16, 1925, was as follows : 

Les representants des Gouvernements allemand, beige, britan- 
nique, francais, italien, polonais et tchecoslovaque, reunis a 
Locarno du 5 au 16 octobre 1925, en vue de rechercher d'un 
commun accord les moyens de preserver du fleau de la guerre leurs 
nations respectives, et de pourvoir au reglement pacifique des 
conflits de toute nature qui viendraient eventuellement a surgir 
entre certaines d'entre elles, 

Ont donne leur agrement aux projets de traites et conventions 

qui les concernent respectivement et qui, elabores au cours de la 

presente conference, se referent reciproquement les uns aux autres : 

Traite entre 1'Allemagne, la Belgique, la France, la Grande- 

Bretagne et 1'Italie (Annexe A). 

Convention d'arbitrage entre 1'Allemagne et la Belgique (An- 
nexe B). 

Convention d'arbitrage entre 1'Allemagne et la France (An- 
nexe C). 

Traite d'arbitrage entre 1'Allemagne et la Pologne (Annexe D). 
Traite d'arbitrage entre 1'Allemagne et la Tchecoslovaquie 

(Annexe E). 

Ces actes, des a present paraphes ne varietur, porteront la date de 
ce jour, les representants des parties interessees convenant de se 
rencontrer a Londres le i er decembre prochain, pour proceder, au 
cours d'une meme reunion, a la formalite de la signature des actes 
qui les concernent. 


Le Ministre des Affaires etrangeres de France fait connaitre qu'a 
la suite des projets de traites d'arbitrage ci-dessus mentionnees, la 
France, la Pologne et la Tchecoslovaquie ont egalement arrete, a 
Locarno, des projets d'accords en vue de s'assurer reciproquement le 
benefice desdits traites. Ces accords seront regulierement deposes a 
la Societe des Nations, mais des a present M. Briand en dent des 
copies a la disposition des Puissances ici representees. 

Le Secretaire d'fitat aux Affaires etrangeres de Grande- 
Bretagne propose qu'en reponse a certaines demandes d'explica- 
tions concernant 1'article 16 du Pacte de la Societe des Nations et 
presentees par le Chancelier et le Ministre des Affaires etran- 
geres d'Allemagne, la lettre, dont le projet egalement est ci-joint 
(Annexe F), leur soit adressee en meme temps qu'il sera precede a 
la formalite de la signature des actes ci-dessus mentionnes. Cette 
proposition est agreee. 

Les representants des Gouvernements ici representes declarent 
avoir la ferme conviction que 1'entree en vigueur de ces traites et 
conventions contribuera grandement a amener une detente morale 
entre les nations, qu'elle facilitera puissamment la solution de 
beaucoup de problemes politiques ou economiques conformement 
aux interets et aux sentiments des peuples et qu'en raffermissant 
la paix et la securite en Europe elle sera de nature a hater d'une 
maniere efficace le desarmement prevu par 1'article 8 du Pacte de 
la Societe des Nations. 

Us s'engagent a .donner leur concours sincere aux travaux deja 
entrepris par la Societe des Nations relativement au desarmement 
et a en rechercher la realisation dans une entente generale. 

Fait a Locarno, le 16 octobre I925- 1 

Signatures were appended to the treaties and conventions 
at the meeting at the Foreign Office, London, on December i, 
1925, the place and date, " Locarno, October 16, 1925," being 
preserved in the instruments signed. On the same occasion 
were also signed the treaties between France and Poland, and 
between France and Czechoslovakia, referred to in the final 
protocol, for mutual aid in the event of failure of the under- 
takings entered into by the former treaties. 

The original signed treaties and conventions were deposited 
with the League of Nations, and the deposit of ratifications was 
effected at Geneva on September 14, 1926, and recorded by 
proces-verbaux, signed by the representatives of the states 


559- O n January 17, 1925, the Swiss Government 
addressed a circular note to states parties to the Geneva Red 

1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. n, 1925. 


Cross Conventions of 1864 or 1906, asking whether they were 
prepared to participate in a conference for the revision of the 
International Red Cross Convention of 1906, as well as for the 
elaboration of a code regarding the treatment of prisoners 
of war in amplification of the rules laid down in the Hague 
Convention (No. IV) of 1907. All countries having agreed to 
these proposals, the Swiss Government then requested their 
observations upon two draft conventions, intended to serve as 
bases for the discussions that relating to the Red Cross Con- 
vention of 1906 having been adopted by the Eleventh Inter- 
national Red Cross Conference in 1923, and that relating to 
prisoners of war having been prepared by the International 
Red Cross Committee. Finally, on March 26, 1929, the Swiss 
Government announced that the conference would take place 
at Geneva on July i, and asked to be furnished with the names 
of the representatives who would attend, it being understood 
that those authorised to sign would be provided with full powers. 
It was added that two general commissions would be set up, to 
sit alternately, one for each of the two subjects to be discussed. 

On July i, 1929, the conference met at Geneva. The 
representatives of forty-seven countries attended, including 
those of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, India, the Irish 
Free State, New Zealand and South Africa. Besides the 
delegates of the respective countries parties to the conventions 
of 1864 or 1906, the League of Nations, the Sovereign and 
Military Order of Malta, and the International Red Cross 
Committee sent representatives, who participated to an extent 
in the discussions. 

The conference was opened on July i, 1929, by M. Haab, 
President of the Swiss Confederation, whose speech, welcoming 
the delegates, was followed by that of M. Boissonas, President 
of the Geneva Council of State. Then, on the proposal of 
M. Riad, the Egyptian delegate, M. Dinichert, minister 
plenipotentiary, and head of the Swiss delegation, was 
appointed president of the conference. M. Dinichert having 
delivered his inaugural address, proposed M. Doude 
van Troostwijk, the senior Dutch representative, as vice- 
president, in consideration of the great part taken by Holland 
in the Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 ; and M. Paul 
des Gouttes (formerly assistant-secretary-general at the 1906 
conference) as secretary-general, with a secretarial staff drawn 
mainly from the Swiss Foreign Office and the International 
Red Cross Committee, to which any of the delegations might 
attach one of their own secretaries. These proposals were 
adopted unanimously. 


A committee set up to examine full powers reported that 
the representatives of 28 out of the 47 countries were so pro- 
vided ; the committee was therefore maintained in existence 
in order to examine the others as received. 

The rules of procedure were as follows : 

Art. I . La Conference est formee de tous les delegues des pays 
parties aux conventions de Geneve du 22 aout, 1864, et du 6 juillet, 
1906. Ont etc, en outre, conviee a s'associer aux travaux de la 
Conference les delegues du Comite international de la Croix Rouge 
et de 1'Ordre souverain de Make. 

Art. 2. Les delegues plenipotentiaires remettent, aussitot que 
possible, leurs pleins pouvoirs au Secretariat de la Conference. 
Une commission de verification des pouvoirs, composee de huit 
membres, est elue par la Conference ; elle fait immediatement 
son rapport. 

Art. 3. Les membres des delegations peuvent tous prendre 
part aux deliberations. Dans les scrutins, chaque pays ne dispose 
que d'une voix. La Conference vote par assis et leve, sauf dans le 
cas ou elle decide que le vote doit se faire par appel nominal, ou, 
le cas echeant, au scrutin secret. Les decisions de la Conference 
et des commissions sont prises a la majorite absolue des voix. 

Art. 4. II est constitue deux commissions generales, dont 1'un 
traitera la question de la revision de la Convention de Geneve de 
1906, et 1'autre celle de 1'elaboration d'une Convention relative au 
traitement des prisonniers de guerre. Ces commissions sont 
formees par les delegues de tous les pays represented. Chaque 
commission a la faculte de constituer, a son tour, des sous-com- 
missions. Les commissions generales siegent alternativement. 

Art. 5. La Conference et chacune des commissions generales 
nomment un President et un Vice-President. Ces Presidents et 
Vice-Presidents, assistes du Secretaire-General, constituent le 
Bureau de la Conference, charge de tout ce qui concerne la marche 
generale des travaux. Le President prononce 1'ouverture, la 
cloture et, le cas echeant, la suspension des seances. II assure 
1'observation du reglement, dirige les debats, donne la parole dans 
1'ordre ou elle est demandee, declare la discussion close, met les 
questions aux voix et proclame le resultat du scrutin. Si, au cours 
de la discussion d'une question, un delegue presente une motion 
d'ordre, le President provoque une decision immediate a ce sujet. 

Art. 6. Les textes des propositions et amendements sont com- 
muniques par ecrit au President, qui en fait distribuer des exem- 
plaires aux delegues, prealablement a toute discussion. 

Art. 7. Le Secretariat de la Conference est compose d'un 
secretaire-general et de secretaires. II assure le service tant de 
la Conference que des commissions et sous-commissions. Le 
secretariat est charge de recevoir, imprimer, et communiquer les 
propositions et rapports, de rediger, imprimer et distribuer les 
proces-verbaux des seances, et, en general, d'assumer toutes les 


taches que la Conference et les commissions jugent bon de lui 

Art. 8. II est public : (i) un compte rendu in extenso des 
seances plenieres de la Conference et des seances des commissions 
generates ; (2) un compte rendu analytique des seances des sous- 
commissions. Ces comptes rendus sont imprimes et distribues aux 
delegues, autant que possible, des la seance suivante de la Con- 
ference, des commissions ou des sous-commissions. Les delegues 
qui auraient des corrections a apporter aux comptes rendus en 
informeront le secretariat dans les vingt-quatre heures qui suivront 
la distribution de ces documents. Passe ce delai, les comptes 
rendus sont consideres comme definitifs. 

Art. 9. La langue francaise est adoptee comme langue officielle 
pour les discussions et les actes de la Conference. Les discours qui 
seraient prononces dans une autre langue seront resumes en 
frangais par les soins de la delegation a laquelle appartient 1'orateur, 
le cas ecneant, avec la collaboration du secretariat. 

Art. 10. Le receuil des actes de la Conference sera public 
apres la cloture de celle-ci par les soins du Secretaire-General. 

Art. n. Le public est admis aux seances plenieres de la Con- 
ference et des commissions generates sur cartes distributes par le 
secretariat. La Conference et les commissions peuvent, cependant, 
decider que certaines seances determinees ne sont pas publiques. 

As regards Article 9, certain of the British Empire delega- 
tions having expressed the wish that, as at League of Nations 
conferences, English should also be a language of the con- 
ference, the president maintained that, apart from that 
exception, French was the language of international con- 
ferences ; arrangements would, however, be made to present 
summaries of the proceedings in English. 

The two commissions were thereupon constituted, the 
first of which was to deal with the revision of the Geneva Red 
Cross Convention of 1906, in the light of the experience 
derived from subsequent events, and the second to draw up 
the convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of 
war, in the light of similar experience. M. Dinichert was 
elected president of the first commission, and M. Scavenius, 
Danish minister at Berne, and head of the Danish delegation, 
president of the second. 

The first commission, on which Mr. G. R. Warner, 
Counsellor, of the Foreign Office, represented Great Britain, 
began its work on July 2, and between that date and July 26, 
when it completed its labours, held twenty-one sittings, a 
number of questions of detail of particular difficulty being 
dealt with by sub-committees. The new convention, entitled 
" Convention de Geneve pour 1' Amelioration du sort des 


Blesses et des Malades dans les Armees en campagne, du 
27 juillet 1929," which resulted from the discussion of the 
terms of its thirty-nine articles in their various clauses, was 
approved by the conference at its fourth plenary session on 
July 26. 

The second commission, on which Sir H. Rumbold, 
British ambassador at Berlin, represented Great Britain, met 
also on July 2, and completed its labours on July 24, after ten 
sittings, in the course of which two sub-committees were set 
up to deal with particular questions. The convention of 
ninety-seven articles resulting from the discussions, and 
entitled " Convention relative au Traitement des Prisonniers 
de Guerre, du 27 juillet 1929," was also approved at the 
fourth plenary session of July 26. 

At the fifth and final plenary session on July 27, the Final 
Act (see 617), together with the two conventions in their 
completed form, were presented for signature by the pleni- 
potentiaries. The Final Act was signed by the representatives 
of thirty-eight countries, while thirty-three signed the two 
conventions, which by their terms remained open for signature 
by the remaining countries until February i, 1930. 

The president then delivered an address and declared the 
conference closed. The French plenipotentiary expressed the 
thanks of the representatives to the Swiss Government and 
the local authorities for their hospitality, and to the president 
of the conference for his eminent services, being followed by 
the United States plenipotentiary and by those of Italy and 
Egypt. 1 

1 Authority : Actes de la Conference Diplomatique de Geneve, Juillet 1 929. 





560. INTERNATIONAL compacts or engagements embrace a 
great diversity of subjects, and are placed on record in a variety 
of shapes. Consequently, they may be classed according to 
either matter or form. 

561. The principal forms they assume may be enumerated 
as follows : 

1. Treaty. 

2. Convention. 

3. Additional Articles. 

4. Final Act. 

5. General Act. 

6. Declaration. 

7. Agreement. 

8. Protocol. 

9. Proces-verbal. 

10. Exchange of Notes. 

1 1 . Modus Vivendi. 

12. Compromis d' Arbitrage. 

13. Reversale. 

14. Ratification. 

15. Accession. 

562. Of these, the terms Treaty and Convention appear 
formerly to have been mainly employed for compacts con- 
cluded between heads of states ; now the latter term is often 
used for compacts between governments. The terms Addi- 
tional Articles and Final Act imply the existence of a treaty 
or convention, or more than one, which they supplement. 
A General Act does not differ essentially from a Treaty. 
Declarations, Agreements, Protocols, Exchanges of Notes, 


and arrangements styled Modus Vivendi ordinarily relate to 
compacts between governments. Reversales and Compromis 
d'Arbitrage may be either between heads of states or govern- 
ments. Ratification is the formal confirmation of a compact 
which has been signed, and Accession its formal acceptance 
by a non-signatory state. In this and the following chapters 
the use made of these terms will be more fully examined, and 
examples appended in each case. 

563. Which of the above forms shall be used in a particular 
case is partly a matter of usage, partly of convenience, partly 
also of choice. The treaty form is always adopted for the final 
result of peace negotiations, and for the compacts concluded 
on the occasion of marriages between members of Royal 
Families . The Treaties of Peace of 1 9 1 920, like those of 1 8 1 5, 
were supplemented by various conventions. International 
compacts relating to commerce and navigation, delimitation 
of boundaries, arbitration, extradition of criminals, and some 
other matters are found in the shape of treaties or conventions 

564. According to Garcia de la Vega, 1 it was the length 
of time for which a compact was concluded that should 
determine whether it was to be styled a treaty or a con- 
vention. But commercial arrangements are usually concluded 
for a limited number of years, yet they are frequently denomi- 
nated treaties, while instances occur in which, though there 
is no time limit, the convention or another form has been 

565. The Gum prdctica del Diplomdtico Espanol 2 classified 
treaties as treaties of peace, alliance, friendship, subsidy, 
guarantee, neutrality, cession of territory, limits, establish- 
ment, working of forests, river navigation, easements, repatria- 
tion, relief of destitute subjects, jurisdiction, extradition, 
execution of judgments, judicial assistance. But this classifi- 
cation does not correspond with present practice, for on most 
of these subjects conventions or other forms of compact have 
been concluded. 

566. A collection of treaty engagements concluded between 
various states from 1920 to 1926 shows that on the following 
subjects the arrangements made took these forms : 

Commerce : 20 treaties, 15 conventions, i treaty with a 
convention, 19 agreements. 

Arbitration : 1 1 treaties, I convention. 

Air Navigation : i treaty, 3 conventions, i agreement. 

Extradition : 5 treaties, 9 conventions. 

1 250 n. 2 de Castro y Casaleiz, i. 386. 


567. Generally speaking, it might be said that the more 
important the subject matter perhaps also the more 
numerous the provisions required to deal with it the more 
likely is it that it will be embodied in a treaty or con- 
vention, and that the relative importance decreases as we go 
down the list in 561. But at the present day it cannot be 
said that any precise rules of nomenclature exist. A treaty 
between heads of states may relate to such a matter as extra- 
dition, or an agreement between heads of states regulate the 
export of hides and bones, while a declaration between 
governments may constitute an alliance in time of war, or 
a protocol establish the Permanent Court of International 
Justice. International compacts for the delimitation of 
boundaries are to be found as treaties, conventions and 
agreements. Treaties are sometimes concluded between 
governments, and conventions are often now so concluded, 
while treaties between heads of states are sometimes amended 
by means of agreements between governments. 

568. Within modern times a great number of multilateral 
conventions have been concluded on such matters as the 
protection of literary and industrial property ; collisions at 
sea and salvage ; commercial statistics ; agriculture ; sanitary 
regime; mo tor traffic; freedom of transit ; aerial navigation ; 
radiotelegraphy ; safety of life at sea ; international exhibi- 
tions ; load-line certificates, etc. ; to say nothing of conven- 
tions aimed at the definition of rules of international law, like 
those of the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907. 
Many of these are between heads of states and many between 
governments. And conventions of a similar wide variety have 
been concluded, with the same diversity of form, under the 
auspices of the League of Nations, to which reference is made in 
Chapter XXX. 

569. While it is difficult, therefore, in present practice to 
discern any consistency in the use made of forms and titles for 
international compacts, in this and the following chapters they 
will be treated in accordance with the classification in 561. 
In the past, treaties and conventions were more particularly 
associated with compacts between heads of states, whilst agree- 
ments and other forms served for compacts between govern- 
ments, according to their respective titles, and it may be that 
a return to a more systematic procedure may yet be found on 
these lines. 

570. Originally the expression " treaty ' was applied to 
the negotiation ; the practice has prevailed of applying it to 


the final proceeding which closes the negotiation. Hence 
the complete term would be " traite et appointement " to denote 
a treaty. 1 The verb trailer means to negotiate. 

Convention is an adaptation of the Latin word conventio, 
compact, covenant. 

" Stipulate 5: and " stipulation ' are properly used with 
reference to the clauses of a contract. As is well known, 
the etymology is from stipula, a straw, which was broken 
between the parties to a bargain, and the bringing together of 
the two ends of the fracture symbolised accordance in its 
terms. It is incorrect to employ these words to denote a 
demand for a particular condition ; but anyone who wishes 
to justify their misuse can quote the passage from Rabelais 
given in Littre's Dictionary of the French Language, s.v. " stipuler." 
571. Treaties and conventions concluded between heads 
of states do not differ as regards their structure. Their 
principal parts are : 

(1) The preamble, beginning with (a) the names and titles 
of the high contracting parties ; (b] a summary of the objects 
contemplated, or, in other words, a statement of the purpose ; 
(c] the names and official designations of the plenipotentiaries 
appointed by the high contracting parties ; [d] a paragraph 
stating that the plenipotentiaries have produced their full 
powers, which were found to be in good and due form, and 
that they have agreed upon the following articles. 

(2) The various stipulations or articles, usually beginning 
with the most general, next the particular ones, and finally the 
articles, if any, providing for the means of executing them. 

(3) An article, or articles, where necessary, defining the 
application or non-application of the treaty to oversea terri- 
tories ; often this takes the form of provisions for accession and 
eventual termination. 

(4) The duration of the treaty, if, as is usual, it is to be 
subject to termination on notice being given by one or other 
party. This often takes the form of a provision that the 
treaty shall remain in force for a specified number of years, 
and that unless a year's notice (or less) of termination is given 
in advance by one or other party it shall thereafter continue 
in force pending such notice. 

(5) A provision for ratification, and for the place (normally 
that where the treaty is signed) and time of the exchange of 
ratifications (often " as soon as possible "). 

(6) Mention of the date when the treaty is to come into 

1 de Maulde-la-Claviere, i. 193. 


(7) A clause stating " In witness whereof' 1 (" En foi de 
quoi ") the respective plenipotentiaries have affixed their 
signatures and seals. 

(8) Locality and date (" Done at ... the . . . day of 

. . . ,19 . ."). 

(9) Seals and signatures. 

572. If a treaty covers more than a single sheet of paper, 
the sheets are taped together, and the ends of the tape brought 
together and imbedded in the seals of the plenipotentiaries. 
If a plenipotentiary has no special seal it is customary for the 
seal to bear his initials. 

573. As regards paragraphs (i) and (3) above, the forms 
of treaties concluded by members of the British Commonwealth 
of Nations are dealt with more fully in Chapter XXVIII. 

As regards (4) it is important to bear in mind that omission 
to provide means for the termination of a treaty may give rise 
to future difficulty. The Protocol of January 17, 1871, of the 
London Conference of that year ran : 

" Les plenipotentiaires de 1'Allemagne du Nord, de PAutriche- 
Hongrie, de la Grande-Bretagne, de 1'Italie, de la Russie, et de la 
Turquie, reunis aujourd'hui en conference, reconnaissent que c'est 
un principe essentiel du droit des gens qu'aucune Puissance ne 
peut se delier des engagements d'un traite, ni en modifier les 
stipulations, qu'a la suite de 1'assentiment des Parties contractantes, 
au moyen d'une entente amicale." 

Writers on the subject, it is true, deal with certain 
eventualities in which a treaty may be deemed to have become 
void, and tribunals have in certain instances made pronounce- 
ments on such matters. 1 But it is best, wherever called for, 
to include a provision in the treaty as to its future termination, 
on notice being given to that effect. 

Shortly before the war of 1914 an instance occurred in 
which a treaty between a foreign Power and Zanzibar having 
been terminated, that Power claimed that a former treaty on 
the same subject, which contained no provision for termination, 
thereupon revived. The outbreak of war, however, rendered 
further discussion of the matter unnecessary. 

As regards (6), unless the treaty contains a provision pre- 
scribing the time or conditions of its entry into force (a usual 
provision is that it shall take effect on the exchange of ratifica- 
tions), it is assumed that it becomes operative on the date of the 
exchange of ratifications, or, should there be no provision for 
ratification, then on the date of signature. 

1 See, e.g., Annual Digest (1925-6), 352-8 ; (1927-8), 420-3. 


Under Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 
however, every treaty or international engagement entered 
into by any member of the League shall be forthwith registered 
with the Secretariat of the League, and shall not be binding 
until so registered. 

574. International compacts between two countries are as 
a rule drawn up in two texts, viz., the languages of the respec- 
tive countries, printed in parallel columns, and are prepared in 
duplicate, in order that each country may retain a signed 
original version of the treaty instrument. Each of the two 
countries is entitled to precedence in the original retained by 
it, i.e. its language appears in the first, or left-hand, column ; 
its sovereign or president (or it may be government) and its 
plenipotentiary are named first in the preamble ; and its 
plenipotentiary signs first, above the signature of the pleni- 
potentiary of the other country ; or if the signatures are 
affixed on the same line, then on the left-hand side, which is 
the place of honour. But in ordinary practice the inconvenience 
of reprinting the preamble of a treaty for this purpose is 
avoided by giving each country precedence in its own language, 
and then, without further amendment, inverting the order of 
the two texts, as required, so that the language of each country 
appears in the left-hand column of the original retained by it. 

575- Sometimes a treaty or convention between two coun- 
tries is signed in one language only, and in this case changes 
in the preamble are necessary, so as to give the required 
precedence to each country in the original retained by it. 
This is ordinarily the case in treaties between Great Britain 
and the United States, and usually in treaties between Great 
Britain and Japan or Siam. The Agreement between China 
and the Soviet Union of May 31, 1924, for the settlement of 
pending questions, together with the declarations attached 
thereto, was signed in English alone, as was also the Con- 
vention of Friendship and Economic Co-operation between 
Japan and the Soviet Union of January 20, 1925. 

576. Other cases occur in which a treaty may be signed 
in languages which are not those of the contracting parties. 
The Treaty of Peace between Japan and Russia of August 23/ 
September 5, 1905, was signed in English and French. 

577. Sometimes again there may be more than two texts. 
The Treaty of Extradition between Great Britain and Austria- 
Hungary of December 3, 1873, was signed in English, German 
and Hungarian. Treaties concluded by Finland contain both 
Finnish and Swedish texts. The Protocol of October 7, 1929, 


between Finland and the Soviet Union regarding postal matters 
was signed in four texts, Finnish, Swedish, Russian and 

578. Where an international compact is signed in two or 
more languages, it may be presumed that much care is taken 
to effect the closest correspondence possible between the 
respective texts. But this may sometimes be difficult, more 
especially when the languages differ widely in character. In 
such cases it is desirable that it should be specified in the 
treaty which of the languages is to be regarded as authoritative, 
to provide for the possibility of a difference of opinion sub- 
sequently arising as to the precise meaning of a stipulation. 
This can, however, only be done by consent, which may be 
withheld. Sometimes indeed both texts are declared authentic, 
as in the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919 (French and 
English texts) . In the Treaty of Peace with Austria of Sep- 
tember 10, 1919 (French, English and Italian texts) it was 
agreed that the French text should (with certain exceptions) 
prevail in cases of divergence. The Treaty of Peace between 
Japan and Russia of August 23/September 5, 1905 (English 
and French) contained a similar provision. In the case of 
the Treaty between Great Britain and Persia of May 10, 1928, 
respecting Persian Tariff Autonomy (English and Persian 
texts) a French text was afterwards prepared and agreed to 
as an authoritative version. A provision occasionally em- 
ployed in a treaty is that, in the event of dispute, questions of 
interpretation and application shall be referred for settlement 
to the Permanent Court of International Justice (see also 852). 

579- When an international compact is concluded between 
more than two countries there may be one counterpart for 
each, and in this event the rules of the alternat would be 
followed and each country be given precedence in the original 
retained by it. But in modern times the ordinary practice, 
and that habitually followed when a treaty or convention is 
concluded between many heads of states, is to range their names 
and titles in the preamble in the alphabetical order of the 
countries over which they preside, and to have a single signed 
original, to which the signatures of their plenipotentiaries are 
appended in the same order, and which is then deposited in 
the treaty archives of the headquarters government, viz. that 
of the country in which the treaty is signed, each of the other 
countries being furnished by that government with a copy of 
the treaty, certified by it as correct. In the case of treaty 
arrangements signed at Geneva under the auspices of the 


League of Nations, a similar procedure is followed, the original 
treaty being deposited with the Secretariat of the League. 

580. Multilateral treaties, conventions, etc., are often signed 
in a single French text, but there is an increasing tendency to 
use both French and English texts for such compacts, as is done 
in the case of those concluded under the auspices of the League 
of Nations. While such treaties, if between heads of states, 
follow in general the form described in 571, the participation 
of many states therein often renders necessary the insertion of 
special provisions dealing with such matters as the successive 
deposits of ratifications, times and manner of entry into force 
for the respective countries, notices of termination, etc. 
Usually also provision is made for the accession of non-signatory 
states in the event of their desiring to become parties. 

581. Treaties and conventions were formerly usually ex- 
pressed as concluded between sovereigns of monarchical states, 
or between presidents of republics, or between sovereigns 
and presidents. The practice may be more clearly stated 
by saying that they were usually concluded between 
sovereigns, seeing that a republic is itself sovereign. But, as 
mentioned in 568, at the present day conventions, to which 
many countries are parties, are often concluded between 
governments. In these, the governments of the contracting 
countries are sometimes recited in alphabetical order in the 
preamble ; or, on the other hand, the preamble may be a 
simple statement that the undersigned, on behalf of their 
respective governments, have agreed as follows. In either 
case signatures are appended in the strict alphabetical order 
of the countries taking part. An instance of such a con- 
vention the International Exhibitions Convention with its 
abbreviated preamble, and its many clauses relating to 
deposits of ratifications, scope, entry into force, accessions, 
notices of termination, etc., is shown in 604. Declarations, 
agreements and protocols, on the other hand, are ordinarily 
concluded between governments. And when in such cases 
ratification is provided for, it would seem appropriate that the 
ratification should be that of the government in whose name 
the compact has been signed. The form of ratification used 
in Great Britain for such purposes is shown in 727. 

582. In a treaty or convention between heads of states, 
these are styled the high contracting parties ; if the compact 
is between governments, the latter are ordinarily referred to 
as the contracting parties. 

583. The following examples of treaties and conventions 
on the subjects of Alliance, Annexation, Arbitration, 


Boundaries, Commerce, Mutual Guarantee, Naval Armament, 
Peace, Royal Marriage, illustrate the actual forms assumed 
by these compacts in cases of a more important nature. 

584. Examples are also given in 605 of a form of compact 
styled Concordat, between the Pope and the head of a foreign 
state, which has for its purpose to safeguard the interests of the 
Roman Catholic Church in the state concerned. Post-war 
arrangements of this nature have been concluded by the 
Holy See with Bavaria, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Prussia and Roumania. 

In Chapters XXIV to XXVII examples are given of 
Declarations, Agreements, Protocols, and other forms of 

585. As shown in these various examples, international 
compacts signed by the plenipotentiaries of heads of states 
require the exhibition of full powers from the respective 
heads of states before signatures are appended to the compact. 
Compacts between governments may similarly require the 
exhibition of full powers on the part of those signing on their 
behalf. But in the case of compacts of a less important nature, 
such as are concluded by means of exchanges of notes, ex- 
pressions such as " duly authorised thereto," " on behalf of 
the government of . . .," often occur ; or an agreement of 
this nature may simply imply by its terms that it is concluded 
by the respective governments named, and is signed by their 
representatives on their behalf. In such cases full powers are 
not as a rule issued. 


586. Treaty between Austria-Hungary and Germany. Vienna, 
October 7, iSyg. 1 (German text.} 

( Translation.} 

Inasmuch as Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, King 
of Hungary, and the German Emperor, King of Prussia, consider 
it their imperative duty as monarchs to provide for the security 
of their Empires, and the peace of their subjects, under all 
circumstances ; 

Inasmuch as the two Sovereigns, as during the federal relation- 
ship formerly existing, will be enabled by the close association 
of the two Empires to fulfil this duty more easily and more 
efficaciously ; 

Inasmuch as, finally, intimate co-operation between Germany 
and Austria-Hungary can menace no one, but is rather calculated 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxi. 1014. 


to consolidate the peace of Europe as established by the Berlin 
stipulations ; 

Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, and 
the German Emperor, while solemnly promising each other never 
to allow their purely defensive agreement to develop an aggressive 
tendency in any direction, have determined to conclude an alliance 
of peace and mutual defence. 

For this purpose Their Most Exalted Majesties have designated 
as their plenipotentiaries : [names] 

Who, having met this day at Vienna and exchanged their full 
powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following 
articles : 

Art. i. Should, contrary to the hope and the sincere desire 
of the two High Contracting Parties, one of the two Empires be 
attacked by Russia, the High Contracting Parties bind themselves 
to come to the assistance of each other with the whole military 
strength of their Empire, and accordingly only to conclude peace 
in common and by mutual agreement. 

2. Should one of the High Contracting Parties be attacked 
by another Power, the other Party binds itself hereby not only to 
refrain from assisting the aggressor against its high ally, but to 
observe at least a benevolent neutral attitude towards its fellow 
contracting party. 

Should, however, the attacking party in such a case be sup- 
ported by Russia, either by active co-operation or by military 
measures which constitute a menace to the party attacked, the 
obligation of reciprocal assistance with the whole righting force 
which is stipulated in Article i of this treaty becomes equally 
operative, and the conduct of the war by the two High Contracting 
Parties shall in this case also be joint until the conclusion of a 
common peace. 

3. The duration of this treaty shall be provisionally fixed at 
five years from the date of ratification. One year before the 
expiration of this period the two High Contracting Parties shall 
consult together concerning the question whether the conditions 
serving as basis for the treaty still prevail, and shall reach an 
agreement in regard to the further continuance or possible modifica- 
tion of certain details. If, in the course of the first month of the 
last year of the treaty, no invitation has been received from either 
side to open these negotiations, the treaty shall be considered as 
renewed for a further period of three years. 

4. This treaty shall, in conformity with its peaceful character, 
and to avoid any misinterpretation, be kept secret by both High 
Contracting Parties, and only communicated to a third Power upon 
a joint understanding between the two parties and according to the 
terms of a special agreement. 

The two High Contracting Parties cherish the hope, after the 
sentiments expressed by the Emperor Alexander at the meeting 
at Alexandrowo, that the armaments of Russia will not in reality 


prove to be menacing to them, and have on that account no reason 
for making a communication at present ; should, however, this 
hope, contrary to their expectations, prove to be erroneous, the two 
High Contracting Parties would consider it their loyal obligation 
to acquaint the Emperor Alexander, at least confidentially, that 
they must consider an attack on one of them as directed against 

5. This treaty shall derive its validity from the approbation of 
the two exalted Sovereigns and shall be ratified within fourteen days 
after this approbation has been granted by Their Most Exalted 

In witness whereof the plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty 
with their own hands and affixed their seals. 

Done at Vienna, October 7, 1879. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

587. Military Convention between France and Russia. St. Peters- 
burg, August 17, 1892. 1 (French text.} 

La France et la Russie, etant animees d'un egal desir de con- 
server la paix, et n'ayant d'autre but que de parer aux necessites 
d'une guerre defensive provoquee par une attaque des forces de la 
Triple Alliance contre 1'une ou 1'autre d'entre elles, sont convenues 
des dispositions suivantes : 

1. Si la France est attaquee par l'Allemagne, ou par 1'Italie 
soutenue par 1'Allemagne, la Russie emploiera toutes ses forces 
disponibles pour attaquer 1'Allemagne. 

Si la Russie est attaquee par l'Allemagne, ou par 1'Autriche 
soutenue par l'Allemagne, la France emploiera toutes ses forces 
disponibles pour combattre 1'Allemagne. 

2. Dans le cas ou les forces de la Triple Alliance, ou d'une des 
Puissances qui en font partie, viendraient a se mobiliser, la France 
et la Russie, a la premiere annonce de 1'evenement, et sans qu'il 
soit besoin d'un concert prealable, mobiliseront immediatement et 
simultanement la totalite de leurs forces et les porteront le plus pres 
possible de leurs frond eres. 

3. Les forces disponibles qui doivent etre employees contre 
1'Allemagne seront du cote de la France, de 1,300,000 homines, du 
cote de la Russie, de 700,000 a 800,000 hommes. 

Ces forces s'engageront a fond, en toute diligence, de maniere 
que l'Allemagne ait a lutter, a la fois, a Test et a 1'ouest. 

4. Les fitats-majors des armees des deux pays se concerteront 
en tout temps pour preparer et faciliter 1'execution des mesures 
prevues ci-dessus. 

Us se communiqueront, des le temps de paix, tous les renseigne- 
ments relatifs aux armees de la Triple Alliance qui sont ou 
parviendront a leur connaissance. 

Les voies et moyens de correspondre en temps de guerre seront 
etudies et prevus d'avance. 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxi. 1079. 


5. La France et la Russie ne concluront pas la paix separement. 

6. La presente Convention aura la meme duree que la Triple 

7. Toutes les clauses enumerees ci-dessus seront tenues rigou- 
reusement secretes. 


588. Treaty of Defensive Alliance between Italy and Albania. 
Tirana, November 22, 1927. 1 (Italian and Albanian texts.} 


Italy and Albania, being desirous of solemnly re-affirming and 
strengthening the solidarity which happily exists between the two 
states, and of devoting all their efforts to the removal of any causes 
which might disturb the peace between them, and between them 
and other states, 

Recognising the benefits of close co-operation between the two 

And once more confirming the fact that the interests and the 
security of each are bound up with those of the other, 

Have decided to conclude a defensive alliance by this Treaty, 
with the sole object of stabilising the natural relations which happily 
exist between the two states and thus ensuring a policy of peaceful 

And have accordingly apointed as their plenipotentiaries : 

His Majesty the King of Italy : [name] 

His Excellency the President of the Albanian Republic : 

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed as follows : 

(Six Articles. Art. 2 provides for a defensive alliance of twenty 
years duration.) 

Art. 7. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and shall there- 
after be registered with the League of Nations. The ratifications 
shall be exchanged at Rome. 

D6*ne at Tirana, this 22nd day of November, 1927. 


589. Treaty between Japan and Corea. Seoul, August 22, igio. 2 


His Majesty the Emperor of Japan and His Majesty the Emperor 
of Corea, having in view the special and close relations between 
their respective countries, desiring to promote the common weal 
of the two nations and to assure permanent peace in the Extreme 
East, and being convinced that these objects can be best obtained 

1 League of Nations Treaty Series, Ixix. 349. 

2 Br. and For. State Papers, ciii. 992. 


by the annexation of Corea to the Empire of Japan, have resolved 
to conclude a Treaty of such annexation, and have, for that purpose, 
appointed as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say : [names] ; 

Who, upon mutual conference and deliberation, have agreed 
to the following articles : 

(Articles i to 7.) 

Art. 8. This Treaty, having been approved by His Majesty the 
Emperor of Japan and His Majesty the Emperor of Gorea, shall 
take effect from the date of its promulgation. 

In faith whereof, etc., 

[Date and signatures.] 

590. Treaty between the British Empire, France, Italy and 
Japan (the Principal Allied Powers], and Roumania, relative to 
Bessarabia. Paris, October 28, igso. 1 (French text.) 

L'Empire Britannique, la France, PItalie, le Japon, principales 
Puissances alliees, et la Roumanie, 

Considerant que dans 1'interet de la paix generale en Europe 
il importe d'assurer des maintenant sur la Bessarabie une souve- 
rainete repondant aux aspirations de la population, et y garantis- 
sant aux minorites de race, de religion ou de langue la protection 
qui leur est due ; 

Considerant que, des points de vue geographique, ethno- 
graphique, historique et economique, la reunion de la Bessarabie 
a la Roumanie est pleinement justifiee ; 

Considerant que la population de la Bessarabie a manifeste son 
desir de voir la Bessarabie reunie a la Roumanie ; 

Considerant enfin que la Roumanie a, de sa propre volonte, le 
desir de donner de sures garanties de liberte et de justice, sans 
distinction de races, de religions ou de langue, conformement au 
Traite signe a Paris le 9 decembre 1919, aux habitants de 1'ancien 
Royaume de Roumanie aussi bien qu'a ceux des territoires 
nouvellement transferes : 

Ont resolu de conclure le present Traite et ont, a cet effet, 
designe pour leurs plenipotentiaires, sous reserve de la faculte de 
pourvoir a leur remplacement pour la signature, savoir : {names etc.] 

Art. i. Les Hautes Parties Contractantes declarent recon- 
naitre la souverainete de la Roumanie sur le territoire de la 
Bessarabie compris entre la frontiere actuelle de Roumanie, la 
Mer Noire, le cours du Dniester depuis son embouchure jusqu'au 
point ou il est coupe par 1'ancienne limite entre la Bukovine 
et la Bessarabie et cette ancienne limite. 

(Arts. 2 to 8 set forth steps to be taken, and conditions to be 
observed, while Art. 9 states that the High Contracting Parties 
will invite Russia to accede to the Treaty, when there exists a 
Russian Government recognised by them.) 

Le present Traite sera ratifie par les Puissances signataires. 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxiii. 647. Ratified by the British Empire, 
France, Italy and Roumania. 


II n'entrera en vigueur qu'apres le depot de ses ratifications et a 
partir de 1'entree en vigueur du Traite signe par les principales 
Puissances alliees et associees et la Roumanie le 9 decembre, 1919. 

Le depot des ratifications sera effectue a Paris. . . . 

Fait a Paris le 28 octobre, 1920. . . . 

[Seals and signatures.] 


591. Arbitration Convention between France and Germany. 
Locarno, October 16, IQ25. 1 (French text.) 

LES soussignes dument autorises, 

Charges par leurs Gouvernements respectifs de fixer les modalites 
suivantlesquellesilsera, ainsi qu'il est prevu dans Particle 3 du traite 
conclu en date de ce jour entre I'Allemagne, la Belgique, la France, 
la Grande-Bretagne et 1' Italic, precede a la solution pacifique de 
toutes les questions qui ne pourraient etre resolues a 1'amiable 
entre 1'Allemagne et la France, 

Ont convenu des dispositions suivantes : 

Art. i er . Toutes contestations entre l'Allemagne et la France, 
de quelque nature qu'elles soient, au sujet desquelles les parties se 
contesteraient reciproquement un droit, et qui n'auraient pu etre 
reglees a 1'amiable par les precedes diplomatiques ordinaires, seront 
soumises pour jugement soit a un tribunal arbitral soit a la Cour 
permanente de Justice Internationale ainsi qu'il est prevu ci-apres. 
II est entendu que les contestations ci-dessus visees comprennent 
notamment celles que mentionne 1'article 13 du Pacte de la 
Societe des Nations. 

Cette disposition ne s'applique pas aux contestations nees de 
faits qui sont anterieurs a la presente convention et qui appartien- 
nent au passe. 

Les contestations pour la solution desquelles une procedure 
speciale est prevue par d'autres conventions en vigueur entre 
l'Allemagne et la France seront reglees conformement aux disposi- 
tions de ces conventions. 

Art. 2. Avant toute procedure arbitrale ou avant toute pro- 
cedure devant la Cour permanente de Justice internationale, la 
contestation pourra etre, d'un commun accord entre les parties, 
soumise a fin de conciliation a une commission internationale 
permanente, dite Commission permanente de Conciliation, 
constitute conformement a la presente convention. 

(Arts. 3 to 1 6 : Composition of commission, procedure, etc.) 

Art. 17. Toutes questions sur lesquelles le Gouvernement 
allemand et le Gouvernement francais seraient divises sans pouvoir 
les resoudre a 1'amiable par les precedes diplomatiques ordinaires, 
dont la solution ne pourrait etre recherchee par un jugement ainsi 
qu'il est prevu par 1'article i er de la presente convention et pour 
lesquelles une procedure de reglement ne serait pas deja prevue 
par d'autres conventions en vigueur entre les parties, seront 
1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. n (1925). 


soumises a la Commission permanente de Conciliation, qui sera 
chargee de proposer aux parties une solution acceptable et, dans 
tous les cas, de presenter un rapport. 

La procedure prevue par les articles 6 a 15 de la presente 
convention sera appliquee. 

Art. 1 8. Si, dans le mois qui suivra la cloture des travaux de la 
Commission permanente de Conciliation, les deux parties ne se sont 
pas entendues, la question sera, a la requete de 1'une ou de 1'autre 
partie, portee devant le Conseil de la Societe des Nations, qui 
statuera conformement a 1'article 15 du Pacte de la Societe. 

Art. 1 9. Dans tous les cas et notamment si la question au sujet de 
laquelle les parties sont divisees resulte d'actes deja effectues ou 
sur le point de 1'etre, la Commission de Conciliation ou, si celle-ci 
ne s'en trouvait pas saisie, le Tribunal arbitral ou la Cour per- 
manente de Justice Internationale, statuant conformement a 
Particle 4 1 de son statut, indiqueront, dans le plus bref delai possible, 
quelles mesures provisoires doivent etre prises. II appartiendra 
au Conseil de la Societe des Nations, s'il est saisi de la question, 
de pourvoir de meme a des mesures provisoires appropriees. Les 
Gouvernements allemand et franc.ais s'engagent respectivement a 
s'y conformer, a s'abstenir de toute mesure susceptible d'avoir une 
repercussion prejudiciable a 1'execution de la decision ou aux 
arrangements proposes par la Commission de Conciliation, ou 
par le Conseil de la Societe des Nations, et, en general, a ne proceder 
a aucun acte, de quelque nature qu'il soit, susceptible d'aggraver 
ou d'etendre le differend. 

Art. 20. La presente convention reste applicable entre 1'Alle- 
magne et la France encore que d'autres Puissances aient egalement 
un interet dans le differend. 

Art. 21. La presente convention sera ratifiee. Les ratifications 
en seront deposees a Geneve a la Societe des Nations en meme 
temps que les ratifications du traite conclu en date de ce jour entre 
PAllemagne, la Belgique, la France, la Grande-Bretagne et 1'Italie. 

Elle entrera et demeurera en vigueur dans les memes conditions 
que ledit traite. 

La presente convention, faite en un seul exemplaire, sera 
deposee aux archives de la Societe des Nations, dont le Secretaire 
general sera prie de remettre a chacun des deux Gouvernements 
contractants des copies certifiees conformes. 

Fait a Locarno, le 16 octobre 1925. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

592. Treaty of Conciliation and Arbitration between Belgium 
and Finland. Stockholm, March 4, 1927. 1 (French text.} 

Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges et Son Excellence M. le President 
de la Republique de Finlande, animes du desir de developper les 
relations amicales qui unissent les deux pays, decides a donner, dans 
leurs rapports reciproques, une large application aux principes 

1 Monileur Beige, December 31, 1927. 


dont s'inspire la Societe des Nations, ont resolu de conclure un 
traite de conciliation et d'arbitrage, et ont nomme a cet effet pour 
leurs plenipotentiaires, savoir : 

Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges : [name] 

Son Excellence M. le President de la Republique de Finlande : 

Lesquels, apres avoir echange leurs pleins pouvoirs reconnus 
en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes : 

Art. I. Toutes contestations entre la Belgique et la Finlande, 
de quelque nature qu'elles soient, au sujet desquelles les Parties se 
contesteraient reciproquement un droit, et qui n'auraient pu etre 
reglees a 1'amiable par les precedes diplomatiques ordinaires, 
seront soumises pour jugement a la Cour permanente de Justice 
Internationale, ainsi qu'il est prevu ci-apres. 

Cet engagement ne s'applique qu'aux contestations qui s'eleve- 
raient apres la ratification du present traite au sujet de situations 
ou de faits posterieurs a cette ratification. 

Les contestations pour la solution desquelles une procedure 
speciale est prevue par d'autres conventions en vigueur entre la 
Belgique et la Finlande seront reglees conformement aux disposi- 
tions de ces conventions. 

Art. 2. Avant toute procedure devant la Cour permanente 
de Justice internationale, la contestation pourra etre, d'un commun 
accord entre les Parties, soumise a fin de conciliation a une 
commission internationale permanente, dite Commission per- 
manente de conciliation, constitute conformement au present traite. 

Art. 3. La Commission permanente de conciliation prevue a 
1'article 2 sera composee de cinq membres, qui seront designes 
comme il suit, savoir : Le Gouvernement beige et le Gouvernement 
finlandais nommeront chacun un membre de la commission, choisi 
parmi leurs nationaux respectifs, et designeront, d'un commun 
accord, les trois autres membres de la commission parmi les res- 
sortissants de tierces Puissances ; ces trois membres de la commis- 
sion devront etre de nationalites differentes, et, parmi eux, les 
Gouvernements beige et finlandais designeront le president de la 

Les membres de la commission sont nommes pour trois ans ; 
leur mandat est renouvelable. Us resteront en fonctions jusqu'a 
leur remplacement et, dans tous les cas, jusqu'a I'achevement de 
leurs travaux en cours au moment de 1'expiration de leur mandat. 

II sera pourvu, dans le plus bref delai, aux vacances qui vien- 
draient a se produire, par suite de deces, de demission ou de quelque 
autre empechement, en suivant le mode fixe pour les nominations. 

(Then follow Arts. 4 to 14 relating to procedure.) 

Art. 15. A defaut de conciliation devant la Commission per- 
manente de conciliation, la contestation sera soumise, par voie de 
compromis, a la Cour permanente de Justice internationale, dans 
les conditions et suivant la procedure prevue par son statut. 

A defaut d'accord entre les Parties sur le compromis et apres 


un preavis d'un mois, 1'une ou 1'autre d'entre elles aura la faculte 
de porter directement, par voie de requete, la contestation devant 
la Cour permanente de Justice internationale. 

Art. 1 6. Toutes questions autres que celles visees a 
1'article premier, sur lesquelles le Gouvernement beige et le 
Gouvernement finlandais seraient divises sans pouvoir les resoudre 
a 1'amiable par les precedes diplomatiques ordinaires, et pour 
lesquelles une procedure de reglement ne serait pas deja prevue 
par un traite en vigueur entre les Parties, seront soumises a la 
Commission permanente de conciliation, qui sera chargee de 
proposer aux Parties une solution acceptable et, dans tous les cas, 
de presenter un rapport. 

La procedure prevue par les articles 5 a 14 du present traite 
sera appliquee. 

Art. 17. Si, dans le mois qui suivra la cloture des travaux 
de la Commission permanente de conciliation, les deux Parties 
ne se sont pas entendues, la question sera, a la requete de 1'une 
ou 1'autre Partie, soumise pour decision a un tribunal d'arbitrage, 
constitue, a moins d'accord special entre les Parties, conformement 
aux dispositions de 1'article 45 de la Convention de La Haye du 
1 8 octobre 1907 pour le reglement pacifique des conflits inter- 
nationaux. Ce tribunal suivra, dans la mesure ou elle s'y prete, 
la procedure prevue au titre IV, chapitre III, de ladite con- 
vention. Toutefois, si, dans un delai de six mois a dater du jour 
ou 1'une des Parties aura adresse a 1'autre une demande tendant 
a soumettre le differend a 1'arbitrage, le compromis vise par ladite 
Convention de La Haye n'a pas etc signe, il sera etabli, a la demande 
de 1'une des Parties, par le Tribunal arbitral. 

Le tribunal statuera ex cequo et bono. 

La sentence arbitrale specifiera, s'il y a lieu, les modalites 
d'execution, notamment en fixant des delais d'execution. 

(Arts. 1 8 to 21 : General provisions.) 

Art. 22. Le present traite sera ratifie par S.M. le Roi des Beiges, 
apres approbation des Chambres, et par S.E.M. le President de la 
Republique de Finlande. L'echange des ratifications aura lieu a 
Stockholm aussitot que faire se pourra. 

Le traite est conclu pour une duree de dix ans, a compter de la 
date de 1'echange des ratifications. S'il n'est pas denonce six mois 
au moins avant 1'expiration de ce terme, il demeurera en vigueur 
pour une nouvelle periode de cinq ans, et ainsi de suite. 

En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires ont signe le present traite. 

Fait a Stockholm, le 4 mars 1927. 



593- Treaty between His Britannic Majesty and the United 
States respecting Boundaries in Passamaquoddy Bay, etc. Washington, 
May 21, 191 o. 1 (English text.} 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, ciii. 319. 


His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor 
of India, and the United States of America, being equally desirous 
of fixing and defining the location of the international boundary 
line between the United States and the Dominion of Canada in 
Passamaquoddy Bay and to the middle of Great Manan Channel, 
and of removing all causes of dispute in connection therewith, have 
for that purpose resolved to conclude a Treaty, and to that end 
have appointed as their plenipotentiaries : 

His Britannic Majesty : [name] 

The President of the United States of America : [name] 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective 
full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have 
agreed to and concluded the following articles : 

(Arts, i to 3.) 

This Treaty shall be ratified by His Britannic Majesty and by 
the President of the United States, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be 
exchanged in Washington as soon as practicable. 

In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed 
this treaty in duplicate and have hereunto affixed their seals. 

Done at Washington the 2ist day of May, 1910. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

594. Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands 
respecting Boundaries in Borneo. The Hague, March 26, IQ28. 1 
(English and Dutch texts.} 

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and Her Majesty 
the Queen of the Netherlands, 

Being desirous of further delimiting part of the frontier established 
in Article 3 of the Convention signed at London on the 2Oth June, 
1891, for the delimitation of the boundary line between the States 
in the Island of Borneo which are under British protection and the 
Netherlands territory in that island, 

Have resolved to conclude a Convention for that purpose, and 
have appointed as their plenipotentiaries ; 

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, 

for Great Britain and Northern Ireland : [name] 

Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands : [names] 

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed as follows : 

(Then follow the two Articles of the Convention setting forth 
the boundary, as shown also on the signed map attached.) 

The present Convention shall be ratified and shall come into 

1 Treaty Series, No. 32 (1930). 


force three months after the exchange of the acts of ratification, 
which shall take place at The Hague as soon as possible. 

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Convention and have affixed thereto their seals. 

Done in duplicate at The Hague, the 26th day of March, 1928. 

[Seals and signatures.} 


595- Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain 
and Turkey. Angora., March i, I93O. 1 (English and Turkish 

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Excellency 
the President of the Republic of Turkey, 

Desiring to facilitate the development of the trade and com- 
merce of their respective countries, and to regulate by means of a 
treaty the commercial relations between the United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and such other territories 
under the sovereignty, protection and authority of His Britannic 
Majesty as he may desire should be bound by the treaty on the one 
side, and Turkey on the other side, 

Have resolved to conclude a treaty for this purpose, and have 
appointed as their plenipotentiaries ; 

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India ; 

for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland : [name] 

His Excellency the President of the Republic of Turkey : 

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed as follows : 

Art. i. The territories to which the present treaty applies are, 
on the part of His Britannic Majesty, the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland and the territories in respect of which 
notification of accession is given under Art. 38 or notice of applica- 
tion is given under Art. 37. 
(Arts. 2-36.) 

Art. 37. His Britannic Majesty may, through His Britannic 
Majesty's Representative in Turkey, give notice of his desire that 
the stipulations of the present Treaty shall apply to any British 
colony or protectorate or to any mandated territory administered 
by his Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland, and from the date of such notice the Treaty shall 
be in force as between Turkey and the territory specified in such 

As regards any such territory in respect of which the stipulations 
of the present Treaty shall have been made applicable under this 

1 Treaty Series, No. 40 ( 1 930) . 


Article, either of the High Contracting Parties shall have the right 
to terminate the application of the said stipulations on giving 
twelve months' notice to that effect. 

Art. 38. His Britannic Majesty may, by a notification made by 
His Britannic Majesty's Representative in Turkey, accede to the 
present Treaty in respect of any of His Majesty's self-governing 
Dominions or India. 

After the expiry of a period of four years from the coming into 
force of the present Treaty, either of the High Contracting Parties 
may, by giving twelve months' notice, terminate the application 
of the Treaty to any territory in respect of which His Majesty has 
notified his accession under paragraph i of this Article. 

Any notification made under paragraph i of this article may 
include any dependency or mandated territory administered by the 
Government of the territory in respect of which His Majesty has 
notified his accession ; and any notice of denunciation given under 
paragraph 2 shall be applicable to any such dependency or man- 
dated territory which was included in such notification of accession. 

Art. 39. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifica- 
tions shall be exchanged at Angora as soon as possible. It shall 
come into force immediately on the exchange of ratifications, and 
shall be binding during a period of five years from the date of its 
coming into force. 

In case neither of the High Contracting Parties shall have given 
notice to the other twelve months before the expiration of the said 
period of five years of its intention to terminate the Treaty, it shall 
remain in force until the expiration of one year from the date of 
such notice. 

In the absence of an express provision to that effect, such notice 
shall not affect the operation of the Treaty as between Turkey and 
any territory in respect of which notification of accession has been 
given under Art. 38. 

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Treaty and have affixed thereto their seals. 

Done at Angora, in English and in Turkish, both texts having 
equal force, the ist day of March 1930. 

[Seals and signatures.] 


596. Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany, Belgium, 
France, Great Britain and Italy. Locarno, October 16, IQ25. 1 
(French text.} 

LE President de 1'Empire allemand, Sa Majeste le Roi des 
Beiges, le President de la Republique fran9aise, Sa Majeste le Roi 
du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande et des Terri- 
toires britanniques au dela des Mers, Empereur des Indes, Sa 
Majeste le Roi d'ltalie ; 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxi. 923. 


Soucieux de satisfaire au desir de securite et de protection qui 
anime les nations qui ont eu a subir le fleau de la guerre de 1914-18 ; 

Constatant 1'abrogation des traites de neutralisation de la 
Belgique, et conscients de la necessite d'assurer la paix dans la zone 
qui a ete si frequemment le theatre des conflits europeens ; 

Et egalement animes du sincere desir de donner a toutes les 
Puissances signataires interessees des garanties complernentaires 
dans le cadre du Pacte de la Societe des Nations et des traites en 
vigueur entre elles ; 

Ont resolu de conclure un traite a ces fins et ont designe pour 
leurs plenipotentiaires, savoir : [names] 

Lesquels, apres avoir echange leurs pleins pouvoirs, reconnus en 
bonne et due forme, ont convenu les dispositions suivantes : 

Art. i er . Les hautes parties contractantes garantissent indi- 
viduellement et collectivement, ainsi qu'il est stipule dans les 
articles ci-apres, le maintien du statu quo territorial resultant des 
frond eres entre PAllemagne et la Belgique et entre 1'Allemagne et 
la France, et 1'inviolabilite desdites frontieres telles qu'elles sont 
fixees par ou en execution du Traite de Paix signe a Versailles le 
28 juin 1919, ainsi que 1'observation des dispositions des articles 
42 et 43 dudit traite, concernant la zone demilitarisee. 

(Arts. 2 to 6.) 

Art. 7. Le present traite, destine a assurer le maintien de la 
paix et conforme au Pacte de la Societe des Nations, ne pourra 
etre interprete comme restreignant la mission de celle-ci de prendre 
les mesures propres a sauvegarder efficacement la paix du 

Art. 8. Le present traite sera enregistre a la Societe des Nations 
conformement au Pacte de la Societe. II restera en vigueur 
jusqu'a ce que, sur la demande de 1'une ou de 1'autre des hautes 
parties contractantes notifiee aux autres Puissances signataires trois 
mois d'avance, le Conseil, votant a la majorite des deux tiers au 
moins, constate que la Societe des Nations assure aux hautes parties 
contractantes des garanties suffisantes, et le traite cessera alors ses 
effets a 1'expiration d'un delai d'une annee. 

Art. 9. Le present traite n'imposera aucune obligation a 
aucun des Dominions britanniques ou a ITnde, a moins que le 
Gouvernement de ce Dominion ou de PInde ne signifie qu'il accepte 
ces obligations. 

Art. 10. Le present traite sera ratifie et les ratifications seront 
deposees a Geneve dans les archives de la Societe des Nations 
aussitot que faire se pourra. 

II entrera en vigueur des que toutes les ratifications auront ete 
deposees et que I'Allemagne sera devenue membre de la Societe des 

Le present traite, fait en un seul exemplaire, sera depose aux 
archives de la Societe des Nations, dont le Secretaire general sera 
prie de remettre a chacune des hautes parties contractantes des 
copies certifiees conformes. 


En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires susnommes ont signe le 
present traite. 

Fait a Locarno, le 16 octobre 1925. 

[Seals and signatures.] 


597- Treaty between the United States, France, the British 
Empire, Italy and Japan, for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval 
Armament. London, April 22, 1930. 1 (English and French texts .} 

The President of the United States of America, the President of 
the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, 
Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of 
India, His Majesty the King of Italy, and His Majesty the Emperor 
of Japan, 

Desiring to prevent the dangers and reduce the burdens inherent 
in competitive armament, and 

Desiring to carry forward the work begun by the Washington 
Naval Conference, and to facilitate the progressive realisation of 
general limitation and reduction of armaments, 

Have resolved to conclude a Treaty for the limitation and 
reduction of naval armament, and have accordingly appointed as 
their plenipotentiaries : 

The President of the United States of America : [names] 

The President of the French Republic : [names] 

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India 

for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the 
British Empire which are not separate Members of the League of 
Nations : [names] 

for the Dominion of Canada : [names] 

for the Commonwealth of Australia : [name] 

for the Dominion of New Zealand : [name] 

for the Union of South Africa : [name] 

for the Irish Free State : [name] 

for India : [name] 

His Majesty the King of Italy : [names] 

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan : [nam^] 

Who having communicated to one another their full powers, 
found in good and due form, have agreed as follows : 

(Then follow in twenty-six articles the provisions of the Treaty, 
which in Art. 23 provides that, with certain specified exceptions, 
it shall remain in force till December 31, 1936 ; in Art. 24 that it 
shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties " in accordance 
with their respective constitutional methods, and the ratifications 
shall be deposited at London as soon as possible " ; in Art. 25 that, 
after all ratifications have been deposited, Part IV (regarding rules 
of international law concerning submarines) shall be communicated 

1 Treaty Series, No. I (1931). 


by Great Britain to all non-signatory states, inviting them to accede 
to that Part definitely and without limit of time) . 

Art. 26. The present Treaty, of which the English and French 
texts are both authentic, shall remain deposited in the archives of 
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland. Duly certified copies thereof shall be 
transmitted to the Governments of all the High Contracting Parties. 

In faith whereof, etc. 

Done at London, the 22nd day of April, 1930. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

598. It was formerly usual to preface a treaty of peace by 
a first article undertaking that it should be perpetual. Thus 
Article I of the Treaty of Versailles of September 3, 1 783 1 
(headed : 

Au nom de la Tres-Sainte et Indivisible Trinite, Pere, Fils, 
et Saint Esprit. Ainsi soit-il), 

ran thus : 

II y aura une paix Chretienne, universelle et perpetuelle, tant 
par mer que par terre, et une amide sincere et constante sera 
retablie, entre Leurs Majestes Britannique et tres Chretienne, et 
entre leurs heriders et successeurs, royaumes, etats, provinces, pays, 
sujets, et vassaux, de quelque qualite et condition qu'ils soient, 
sans exception de lieux ni de personnes ; en sorte que les hautes 
parties contractantes apporteront la plus grande attention a main- 
tenir entre elles, et leurs dits etats et sujets, cette amide et corre- 
spondance reciproque, sans permettre dorenavant que, de part ni 
d'autre, on commette aucunes sortes d'hostilites, par mer ou par 
terre, pour quelque cause ou sous quelque pretexte que ce puisse 
etre : Et on evitera soigneusement tout ce qui pourroit alterer, 
a 1'avenir, 1'union heureusement retablie, s'attachant au contraire a 
se procurer reciproquement, en toute occasion, tout ce qui pourroit 
contribuer a leur gloire, interets, et avantages mutuels, sans donner 
aucun secours ou protection, directement ou indirectement, a ceux 
qui voudroient porter quelque prejudice a 1'une ou a 1'autre des 
dites hautes parties contractantes. II y aura un oubli et amnisde 
generale de tout ce qui a pu etre fait ou commis, avant ou depuis 
le commencement de la guerre qui vient de finir. 2 

Notwithstanding, in 1793 the recently established French 
Republic declared war against Great Britain, a war which 
was carried on, with the slight intermission which followed 
on the Peace of Amiens, between France and Great Britain, 
the latter often with, sometimes without, allies, until 1815. 

1 Text in F. de Martens' Recueil, etc., xiii. 160. 2 Jenkinson, iii. 335. 


599. Treaty between Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, 
Germany, Italy, Russia and Turkey, for the Settlement of Affairs in 
the East. Berlin, July 13, iSyS. 1 (French text.} 

Au nom de Dieu Tout-Puissant. S. M. la Reine du Royaume- 
Uni de la Grande Bretagne et d'Irlande, Imperatrice des Indes ; 
le President de la Republique Francaise ; S. M. 1'Empereur 
d'Allemagne, Roi de Prusse ; S. M. 1'Empereur d'Autriche, Roi 
de Boheme, &c., et Roi Apostolique de Hongrie ; S. M. le Roi 
d'ltalie ; S. M. 1'Empereur de Toutes les Russies, et S. M. 1'Empe- 
reur des Ottomans, desirant regler dans une pensee d'ordre 
Europeen, conformement aux stipulations du Traite de Paris du 
30 mars 1856, les questions soulevees en Orient par les evenements 
des dernieres annees et par la guerre dont le Traite Preliminaire de 
San Stefano a marque le terme, ont etc unanimement d'avis que la 
reunion d'un Congres offrirait le meilleur moyen de faciliter leur 

Leurs dites Majestes et le President de la Republique Francaise 
ont en consequence nomme pour leurs Plenipotentiaires, savoir : 

Lesquels, suivant la proposition de la Cour d'Autriche-Hongrie 
et sur 1'invitation de la Gour d'Allemagne, se sont reunis a Berlin 
munis de pleins pouvoirs qui ont etc trouves en bonne et due 

L'accord s'etant heureusement etabli entre eux, ils sont convenus 
des stipulations suivantes : 


Le present traite sera ratifie, et les ratifications en seront 
echangees a Berlin dans un delai de trois semaines, ou plus tot si 
faire se peut. 

En foi de quoi, etc. 

[Place, date.] [Signatures.] 

600. Treaty between the United States and Spain for the Con- 
clusion of Peace. Paris, December 10, i8g8. 2 (English and 
Spanish texts.} 

The United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen 
Regent of Spain, in the name of Her august son, Don Alfonso XIII, 
desiring to end the state of war now existing between the two 
countries, have for that purpose appointed as plenipotentiaries : 
The President of the United States : [names] 
And Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain : [names] 
Who, having assembled in Paris, and having exchanged their 
full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have, 
after discussion of the matters before them, agreed upon the 
following articles : 
(Arts, i to 1 6.) 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, Ixix. 749. 2 Ibid., xc. 382. 


(Art. 1 7 provided for the exchange of ratifications at Washington 
" within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if possible.") 

In faith whereof, etc. 

Done in duplicate at Paris, the loth day of December, in the 
year of our Lord 1898. 

[Seals and Signatures. ] 

60 1. Treaty of Peace between Japan and Russia. Portsmouth 
(U.S.A.], August 23 /September 5, I9O5. 1 (English and French 

Sa Majeste 1'Empereur du Japon, d'une part, et Sa Majeste 
1'Empereur de Toutes les Russies, d'autre part, etant animes du 
desir de retablir les bienfaits de la paix pour leurs pays et pour 
leurs peuples, ont decide de conclure un Traite de Paix, et ont 
nomine a cet effet leurs plenipotentiaires, savoir : 

Sa Majeste 1'Empereur du Japon : [names] 

Sa Majeste 1'Empereur de Toutes les Russies : [names'] 

Lesquels, apres avoir echange leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouves 
en bonne et due forme, ont conclu les Articles suivants : 

Art. i. II y aura a 1'avenir paix et amitie entre Leurs Majestes 
1'Empereur du Japon et 1'Empereur de Toutes les Russies, ainsi 
qu'entre leurs Etats et sujets respectifs. 

(Then follow the other Articles of the Treaty, Art. 14 providing 
for ratification within at most fifty days after the date of signature 
of the Treaty, the formal exchange to take place at Washington as 
soon as possible.) 

Art. 15. Le present Traite sera signe en double, en langues 
anglaise et franchise. Les deux textes sont absolument con- 
formes ; mais, en cas de divergence d'interpretation, le texte 
frangais fera foi. 

En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires respectifs ont signe et scelle 
de leurs sceaux le present Traite de Paix. 

Fait a Portsmouth (New Hampshire) le 5 e jour du g e mois de 
la 38 e annee de Meiji, correspondant au 23 aout/5 septembre de 
1'an 1905. 

[Signatures and seals.'] 

602. Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers 
and Germany. Versailles, June 28, 1919. 2 (English and French 

The United States of America, the British Empire, France, 
Italy and Japan, 

These Powers being described in the present Treaty as the 
Principal Allied and Associated Powers, 

Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, 
Guatemala, Haiti, the Hedjaz, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, xcviii. 735. 2 Ibid., cxii. 7. 


Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, the Serb-Groat- 
Slovene State, Siam, Czechoslovakia and Uruguay, 

These Powers constituting with the Principal Powers mentioned 
above the Allied and Associated Powers, of the one part ; 

And Germany, of the other part ; 

Bearing in mind that on the request of the Imperial German 
Government an armistice was granted on November 1 1 , 1918, 
to Germany by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in order 
that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded with her, and 

The Allied and Associated Powers being equally desirous that 
the war in which they were successively involved directly or 
indirectly and which originated in the declaration of war by Austria- 
Hungary on July 28, 1914, against Serbia, the declaration of war 
by Germany against Russia on August I, 1914, and against France 
on August 3, 1914, and in the invasion of Belgium, should be 
replaced by a firm, just and durable peace, 

For this purpose the High Contracting Parties represented as 
follows : 

(Here follow the names of the plenipotentiaries, of which the 
chief are given below.) 

The President of the United States of America, by the Hon. 
Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, acting in his own 
name and by his own proper authority : . . . 

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor 
of India, by the Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George, M.P., First Lord of 
His Treasury and Prime Minister. . . . 

for the Dominion of Canada, by the Hon. Charles Joseph 
Doherty, Minister of Justice. . . . 

for the Commonwealth of Australia, by the Rt. Hon. William 
Morris Hughes, Attorney-General and Prime Minister. . . . 

for the Union of South Africa, by General the Rt. Hon. Louis 
Botha, Minister of Native Affairs and Prime Minister. . . . 

for the Dominion of New Zealand, by the Rt. Hon. William 
Ferguson Massey, Minister of Labour and Prime Minister. . . . 

for India, by the Rt. Hon. Edwin Samuel Montagu, M.P., His 
Secretary of State for India ; Major-General H.H. Maharaja Sir 
Ganga Singh Bahadur, Maharaja of Bikaner, G. C.S.I., etc. 

The President of the French Republic, by M. Georges Clemen- 
ceau, President of the Council, Minister of War. . . . 

His Majesty the King of Italy, by Baron S. Sonnino, Deputy. . . . 

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, by Marquis Saionzi, formerly 
President of the Council of Ministers. . . . 

His Majesty the King of the Belgians, by M. Paul Hymans, 
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister of State. . . . 

(Continuing for the other Allied and Associated Powers in the 
order named.) 

Germany, by Mr. Hermann Miiller, Minister for Foreign 
Affairs of the Empire. . . . 


Acting in the name of the German Empire and of each and 
every component state. 

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed as follows : 

From the coming into force of the present Treaty the state of 
war will terminate. From that moment and subject to the pro- 
visions of this Treaty official relations with Germany, and with any 
of the German states, will be resumed by the Allied and Associated 

(Then follows, as Part I of the Treaty, the Covenant of the 
League of Nations. The remainder of the Treaty, which consists 
in all of 440 articles, is divided into the following parts : (2) Bound- 
aries of Germany ; (3) Political Clauses for Europe ; (4) German 
rights and interests outside Germany ; (5) Military, Naval, and 
Air clauses ; (6) Prisoners of War and Graves ; (7) Penalties ; 
(8) Reparation ; (9) Financial Clauses ; (10) Economic Clauses ; 
(n) Aerial Navigation; (12) Ports, Waterways and Railways; 
(13) Labour ; (14) Guarantees ; (15) Miscellaneous provisions.) 

The present Treaty, of which the French and English texts are 
both authentic, shall be ratified. 

The deposit of ratifications shall be made at Paris as soon as 

Powers of which the seat of government is outside Europe will 
be entitled merely to inform the Government of the French Republic 
through their diplomatic representative at Paris that their ratifica- 
tion has been given ; in that case they must transmit the instrument 
of ratification as soon as possible. 

A first proces-verbal of the deposit of ratifications will be drawn 
up as soon as the Treaty has been ratified by Germany on the one 
hand, and by three of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers 
on the other hand. 

From the date of this first proces-verbal the Treaty will come 
into force between the High Contracting Parties who have ratified 
it. For the determination of all periods of time provided for in the 
present Treaty this date will be the date of the coming into force 
of the Treaty. 

In all other respects the Treaty will enter into force for each 
Power at the date of the deposit of its ratification. 

The French Government will transmit to all the signatory 
Powers a certified copy of the proces-verbaux of the deposit of 

In faith whereof the above-named plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Treaty. 

Done at Versailles, the 28th day of June, 1919, in a single copy, 
which will remain deposited in the archives of the French Republic, 
and of which authenticated copies will be transmitted to each of 
the signatory Powers. 

(The Treaties of Peace with Austria, 1 signed at St. Germain-en- 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxii. 317. 


Laye, September 10, 1919 ; with Bulgaria, 1 signed at Neuilly, 
November 27, 1919 ; and with Hungary, 2 signed at Trianon, 
June 4, 1920, were drawn on similar lines, being prefaced in each 
case by the Covenant of the League of Nations, and were signed 
by the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, 
Belgium, and other Allied and Associated Powers. The ratifica- 
tions of the Treaties with Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary, 
were duly deposited with the French Government from January 10, 
1920, onwards, by the countries on whose behalf they were signed, 
with the exception of the United States, Ecuador and the Hedjaz, 
which did not ratify. A Treaty of Peace with Turkey 3 was not 
finally reached till July 24, 1923, when it was signed at Lausanne. 
Unlike the others, it was not prefaced by the Covenant of the League 
of Nations.) 


603. Treaty for the Marriage of H.M. the King of Spain with 
H.R.H. Princess Victoria Eugenie Julia Ena. London, May 7, 
igo6. 4 (English and Spanish texts.} 

Be it known to all men by these Presents that whereas His 
Catholic Majesty Alfonso XIII, King of Spain, has judged it 
proper to announce his intention of contracting a marriage with 
H.R.H. Princess Victoria Eugenie Julia Ena, niece of H.M. 
Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of 
India, and daughter of H.R.H. the Princess Beatrice Mary Victoria 
Feodore (Princess Henry of Battenberg), in order therefore to treat 
upon, conclude and confirm the Articles of the Treaty of the said 
marriage, His Britannic Majesty on the one part, and His Catholic 
Majesty on the other part, have named as their plenipotentiaries, 
that is to say ; 

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor 
of India : [name] 

And His Majesty the King of Spain : [name] 

Who, after having communicated to each other their full powers, 
found in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the 
following Articles : 

Art. i. (For the solemnisation of the marriage at Madrid.) 

Art. 2. (Annual grant to the bride, and annual grant in case 
of widowhood. The private settlements to be made on either side 
to be agreed upon and expressed in a separate contract, which shall 
be deemed to form an integral part of the present treaty.) 

Art. 3. (Forfeiture by the bride of all hereditary rights of 
succession to the Crown and Government of Great Britain and 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxii. 781. 2 Ibid., cxiii. 486. 

3 Ibid., cxvii. 543. 4 Treaty Series, No. 6 (1906). 


Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of 
the same). 

The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall 
be exchanged at London as soon as possible. 

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed 
the same, and have affixed thereto the seal of their arms. 

Done in duplicate at London, the yth day of May, in the year 
of Our Lord 1906. 

[Seals and signatures.] 


604. International Convention relative to International Exhibitions. 
Paris, November 22, I928. 1 (French text.} 

( Translation.} 

THE undersigned, plenipotentiaries of the Governments here- 
inafter enumerated, having met in conference at Paris from 
November 12 to 22, 1928, have, by common consent and subject 
to ratification, agreed as follows : 

(Then follow thirty-two Articles under the heads of Definitions, 
Frequency of Exhibitions, International Exhibitions Bureau, 
Obligations of an Inviting Country and of Participating Countries, 

Art. 33. The present convention shall be subject to ratification : 

(a) Each Government, as soon as it is ready to take part in 

a deposit of ratifications, shall so notify the French 
Government. As soon as seven Governments shall have 
so declared themselves ready, the deposit of ratifications 
shall take place, on a day appointed by the French 
Government, within a month of the date of the receipt 
by that Government of the last notification. 

(b) The ratifications shall be deposited in the archives of the 

French Government. 

(c) The deposit of ratifications shall be verified by a proces- 

verbal signed by the representatives of the Governments 
taking part therein and by the Minister for Foreign 
Affairs of the French Republic. 

(d) The Governments of signatory countries which have not 

been ready to deposit their ratifications under the condi- 
tions set forth in paragraph (a) of the present article, 
may do so subsequently by means of a written notifica- 
tion addressed to the Government of the French Republic 
and accompanied by the instruments of ratification. 

(e) Certified copies of the proces-verbal of the first deposit of 

ratifications, and of the notifications referred to in the 
preceding paragraph, shall be immediately transmitted, 

1 Treaty Series, No. 9 (1931). 


through the intermediary of the French Government, 
by the diplomatic channel to the Governments which 
have signed the present convention or have acceded 
thereto. In the case of notifications received under the 
preceding paragraph, the French Government shall also 
state the dates on which they have been received. 
Art. 34. (a) The present convention applies ipso facto to the 
metropolitan territories only of the contracting countries. 

(b) If a country desires the convention to apply to its colonies, 
protectorates, overseas territories, and territories under suzerainty 
or mandate, a statement to that effect shall be included in its 
ratification, or form the subject of a notification addressed in writing 
to the French Government. Any such notification shall be 
deposited in the archives of that Government. 

If the latter procedure is adopted, the French Government shall 
transmit to the Governments of signatory or acceding countries 
a certified copy of such notification, showing the date at which it 
was received. 

(c) Exhibitions which include only the products of a metro- 
politan country and of its colonies, protectorates, overseas terri- 
tories and territories under suzerainty or mandate shall be con- 
sidered as national exhibitions, and, in consequence, not subject 
to the present convention, whether or not the convention may be 
in force in such territories. 

Art. 35. (a) At any time after the coming into force of the 
present convention any non-signatory country may accede thereto. 

(b} Such accession may be effected by a notification in writing 
transmitted through the diplomatic channel to the French Govern- 
ment. Such notifications of accession shall be deposited in the 
archives of that Government. 

(c) The French Government shall transmit immediately to 
the Governments of all signatory and acceding countries certified 
copies of any such notifications, showing the dates on which they 
were received. 

Art. 36. The present convention shall come into force, in 
respect of the countries which have taken part in the first deposit 
of ratifications, one month after the date of the proces-verbal thereof. 
In the case of countries which ratify subsequently or accede thereto, 
and in respect of colonies, protectorates, overseas territories and 
territories under suzerainty or mandate not included in ratifications, 
the convention shall take effect one month after the date of receipt 
of the notifications provided for in articles 33, paragraph (d] ; 34, 
paragraph (b) ; 35, paragraph (b}. 

Art. .37. The present convention shall not be capable of being 
denounced until a period of five years has elapsed since the date 
of its coming into force. 

Thereafter notifications of denunciation may be addressed to 
the Government of the French Republic and shall take effect 
one year after the date of their receipt. Certified copies of such 


notifications, showing the date on which they were received, shall 
be immediately transmitted by the Government of the French 
Republic to the Governments of all countries which have signed or 
acceded to the present convention. 

The provisions of the present article apply also to colonies, 
protectorates, overseas territories and territories under suzerainty 
or mandate. 

Art. 38. If, by reason of denunciations, the number of con- 
tracting countries is reduced to less than seven, the Government of 
the French Republic shall immediately summon an international 
conference to consider what measures shall be taken. 

Art. 39. The Government of the French Republic shall com- 
municate to the International Bureau copies of all ratifications, 
accessions and denunciations. 

Art. 40. The present convention shall remain open for signa- 
ture at Paris until the 3Oth April, 1929. 

In faith whereof the undermentioned plenipotentiaries have 
signed the present convention. 

Done at Paris on the 22nd November, 1928, in one copy which 
shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the French 
Republic, and of which certified copies shall be transmitted through 
the diplomatic channel to the Governments of all countries repre- 
sented at the Conference of Paris. 

[Signatures of plenipotentiaries of the 
respective Governments of the 
countries participating, which 
follow in alphabetical order in 


605. Concordat between the Holy See and Poland. Rome, 
February 10, I925- 1 

Au nom de la Tres-Sainte et Indivisible Trinite. 

Sa Saintete le Pape Pie XI et le President de la Republique 
de Pologne, M. Stanislas Wojciechowski, 

Animes du desir de determiner la situation de 1'eglise catholique 
en Pologne et d'etablir les regies qui regiront d'une maniere digne 
et stable les affaires ecclesiastiques sur le territoire de la Republique, 

Ont decide a ces fins de conclure un concordat. 

En consequence Sa Saintete le Pape Pie XI et le President de 
la Republique de Pologne, M. Stanislas Wojciechowski, ont nomme 
leurs plenipotentiaires respectifs : [names] 

Les plenipotentiaires susnommes, apres 1'echange de leurs 
pleins pouvoirs, ont arrete les dispositions suivantes, auxquelles 
desormais les hautes parties contractantes s'engagent a se conformer. 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 835. 


Art. i er . L'eglise catholique, sans distinction de rites, jouira 
dans la Republique de Pologne d'une pleine liberte. L'fitat 
garantit a 1'eglise le libre exercice de son pouvoir spirituel et de sa 
juridiction ecclesiastique, de meme que la libre administration et 
gestion de ses affaires et de ses biens, conformement aux lois 
divines et au droit canon. 

(Arts. 2 to 26.) 

Art. 27. Le present concordat entrera en vigueur 2 mois 
apres Pechange des actes de sa ratification. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

Concordat between the Holy See and Italy. Rome, February n, 


In the name of the Most Holy Trinity. 

Whereas from the commencement of the negotiations between 
the Holy See for the settlement of the " Roman question," the 
Holy See itself proposed that the treaty relating to that question 
should be accompanied, as a necessary complement, by a concordat 
for the regulation of the conditions governing religion and the 
Church in Italy ; 

And whereas the treaty for the settlement of the " Roman 
question " has this day been concluded and signed : 

His Holiness Pius XI, the Supreme Pontiff, and His Majesty 
Victor Emmanuel III, King of Italy, have resolved to conclude a 
concordat, and for that purpose have appointed the same pleni- 
potentiaries who were delegated for that treaty, viz. : [names], who, 
having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in 
good and due form, have agreed on the following articles : 

Art. I. In accordance with Article i of the treaty, Italy shall 
assure to the Catholic Church the free exercise of spiritual power 
and the free and public exercise of worship, as well as of its juris- 
diction in ecclesiastical matters, in accordance with the provisions 
of the present concordat. Where it is necessary Italy shall afford 
to ecclesiastics the protection of her authorities for the acts of their 
spiritual ministry. 

Having regard to the sacred character of the Eternal City, the 
Episcopal See of the Supreme Pontiff, the centre of the Catholic 
world and the goal of pilgrimages, the Italian Government shall 
adopt measures to prevent in Rome all that may conflict with that 

(Arts. 2 to 44.) 

Art. 45. The present concordat shall enter into operation on 
the exchange of ratifications, at the same time as the treaty con- 
cluded between the same high parties for the elimination of the 
" Roman question." . . . 

Rome, the nth February, 1929. 

[Seals and Signatures.] 



606. These are sometimes appended to a treaty in relation 
to some subsidiary matter, or in qualification of a provision 
in the main instrument, and signed at the same time as the 
latter. At the Congress of Vienna, Additional Articles were 
signed on May 30, 1814, and November 2, 1815, each to the 
effect that it " aura la meme force et valeur que s'il etait insere 
mot-a-mot au traite de ce jour. II sera compris dans la 
ratification dudit traite." 1 

607. Occasionally they are incorporated in the treaty 
itself. The Protocol of October 13, 1921, between Austria 
and Hungary, relative to Western Hungary, has an Additional 
Article included within, and signed with, the Protocol. 2 More 
often they form a subsidiary compact, signed with, and 
regarded as an integral part of, the main instrument, and 
subject to like conditions as to ratification. They are even 
to be found styled " Annex," as in the example appended, 
but this is unusual, for most annexes to a treaty are referred to 
in the body of the treaty itself, and are attached to it in virtue 
of such reference. 

608. Additional Article to the Extradition Treaty of January 19, 
1922, between the United States and Venezuela. Caracas, January 2 1 , 

The undersigned [names of plenipotentiaries] have agreed upon the 
following Additional Article to the Treaty of Extradition signed by 
the aforesaid on the i gth instant : 

It is agreed that all differences between the Contracting Parties 
relating to the interpretation or execution of this treaty shall be 
decided by arbitration. 

In witness whereof they have signed the above Article, and 
have hereunto affixed their seals. 

Done in duplicate at Caracas, this 2ist day of January, ig22. 3 

[Seals and signatures.] 

609. Annex to Provisional Agreement between Great Britain and 
the Netherlands relating to Air Navigation. The Hague, July n, 


I . For the purpose of flights within the limits of and above its 
own territory each of the contracting parties has the right to refuse 
to recognise certificates of competency and licences granted to one 
of its nationals by the other contracting state. 

2. It is agreed that the establishment of a regular service to and 

1 Brit, and For. State Papers, i. 172 ; iii. 292. 2 Ibid., cxiv. 624. 

3 Ibid., cxviii. 1 141. 


from one of the contracting states and within that state may be 
made subject to special regulations by that state. 

3. The present Annex shall be considered as an integral part of 
the above agreement. 1 

610. Additional Articles are sometimes concluded at 
a later date, as agreements between Governments, and 
occasionally styled Additional Act, in amplification or modifi- 
cation of the provisions of a former treaty ; in this event they 
may or may not provide for ratification. More often, however, 
these objects are accomplished by means of supplementary 
conventions, agreements or protocols, though in the case of 
postal, telegraphic or monetary Agreements, when these are 
modified, the term Additional Articles is frequently applied. 

611. Additional Articles to the Franco-Danish Commercial Con- 
vention of February 9, 1842. Copenhagen, February 9, 1910. 

Les Soussignes [names and official designations] , dument autorises a 
cet effet, sont convenus des articles additionnels suivants a la Con- 
vention de Commerce et de Navigation, signee a Paris, le 9 fevrier, 

(Articles i and 2.) 

3. Les presents articles auront la meme force et valeur que s'ils 
faisaient partie integrate de la Convention precitee du 9 fevrier, 
1842 ; ils seront appliques dans les memes limites geographiques 
et cesseront leurs effets en meme temps que ladite Convention en 
cas ou celle-ci viendrait a etre denoncee. 

4. Les presents articles, expedies en double, entreront en 
vigueur un mois apres leur signature. 2 

[Place, date.] [Seals and signatures.] 

6 1 2. Additional Act to the Italo-Swiss Fishery Convention of 
June 13, 1906. Rome, February 8, 1911. 


Allo scopo di risolvere alcune questioni sorte nella applicazione 
della convenzione fra 1'Italia e la Svizzera, conclusa a Lugano il 
13 giugno 1906 e le cui ratifiche furono scambiate il 27 luglio 
1906 in Roma, per 1'esercizio della pesca nelle acque comuni ai 
due Stati, 

i sottoscritti, in nome dei loro governi, e debitamente all'uopo 
autorizzati, hanno convenuto quanto segue : 

(Articles i to 8.) 

9. II presente atto addizionale sara ratificato e le ratifiche 
saranno scambiate il piu presto possibile. 

Fatto a Roma, in doppio esemplare, 1'8 febbraio 191 1. 3 

[Official designations and signatures.'} 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxix. 453. 2 Ibid., ciii. 417. 

3 Nouveau Recueil Central, 3 me Serie, vii. 867. 


613. Additional Act to the British-Bolivian Convention of April 5, 
1920, respecting False Indications of Origin. La Paz, March 14, 

Whereas certain errors have been found to exist in the text of 
the Convention respecting false indications of origin as signed 
between Great Britain and the Republic of Bolivia on the 5th April, 
1920, [names of plenipotentiaries'] having met together at the 
Ministry for Foreign Affairs at La Paz, have agreed upon the 
following corrections to be made in the text of the said Convention : 

(Two corrections.) 

In faith whereof the undersigned, duly authorised to this effect, 
have signed the present Additional Act in the City of La Paz, this 
1 4th day of March, 1921, and have affixed thereto their respective 
seals. 1 

[Seals and signatures.] 


614. Final Act (Acte Final) is usually a formal statement or 
summary of the proceedings of a congress or conference, 
enumerating the treaties or conventions drawn up as the result 
of its deliberations, with, it may be, certain recommendations, 
or " voeux," deemed to be desirable. The signature of an 
instrument of this kind commits the signatories to no more 
than it contains, and does not in itself entail acceptance of the 
treaties or conventions so enumerated, which require separate 
signature, as, e.g., the Acte Final of the Lausanne Conference 
concerning the Turkish Peace Settlement, signed at Lausanne, 
July 24, 1923. At the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 it 
was debated whether the instrument in which the results were 
to be summed up should be styled Acte, Protocole, or Proces-Verbal 
Final ; the phrase Acte Final was eventually preferred. 2 

615. Final Act of the First International Peace Conference held 
at The Hague, 1899. 

(The Preamble relates how the Conference was invited, and how 
it met. 

Then follow the names of the delegates representing each 
Power taking part. 

Enumeration of the Conventions and Declarations annexed, 
which remained open for signature until December 31, 1899. 

Resolution adopted : That the Conference considered the 
limitation of the charges which lay heavy on the world greatly to 
be desired for the increase of the material and moral welfare of 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxiv. 189. 

2 Satow, International Congresses, 20. 


Six recommendations (voeux) ) . 

" En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires ont signe le present acte, 
et y ont appose leurs cachets. 

" Fait a La Haye le 29 juillet, 1899, en un seul exemplaire, qui 
sera depose au Ministere des Affaires fitrangeres, et dont des 
copies, certifiees conformes, seront delivrees a toutes les Puissances 
representees a la Conference." 

6 1 6. The Final Act of the Second Peace Conference at 
The Hague in 1907 was drawn up in precisely the same form. 

617. Final Act of the Geneva Conference, 1929, regarding the 
Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, and the Treatment of 
Prisoners of War. 

The Preamble states the purpose of the Conference, viz. : the 
revision of the Red Cross Convention of 1906, and the elaboration 
of a code relating to prisoners of war. 

Then follows a list of the countries represented, with the names 
of the delegates and their staffs, a short recital of the proceed- 
ings, viz. : the appointment of a president, the formation of two 
commissions to deal with the respective subjects, together with the 
names of those who presided over them, and the fact that the 
second commission divided into two sub-divisions, with the names 
of their presidents. 

A statement that the Conference has drawn up for signature by 
the plenipotentiaries two conventions, bearing to-day's date 
(July 27, 1929), with their titles. (These Conventions by their 
terms remained open for signature until February i, 1930.) 

Six recommendations (vaeux). 

" En foi de quoi les delegues ont signe le present Acte final. 

" Fait a Geneve, le 27 juillet 1929, en un seul exemplaire, qui 
sera depose aux archives de la Confederation Suisse, et dont des 
copies, certifiees conformes, seront remises a tous les Pays represented 
a la Conference." x 


6 1 8. But sometimes, as in the case of the Acte Final of the 
Congress of Vienna, 1815, the instrument may itself become 
a treaty by declaring that the separate treaties and conventions, 
which are annexed, have the same force as if they were 
textually included. Or, as in the Acte General of the Berlin 
Conference of 1885, concerning African matters (spoken of as 
the Acte Final, until in the course of the ninth protocol its 
designation was changed), the various declarations, etc., are 
incorporated in a single instrument and styled " General Act." 
Such a General Act does not differ essentially from a treaty. 

1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. 7 (1931). 

2 A 


619. Further instances of the use of the term are the 
General Act of the Brussels Conference of 1890 relative to the 
African Slave Trade, and the General Act of the Algeciras 
Conference of 1 906 relative to the Affairs of Morocco ; while 
a recent one is the General Act of September 26, 1928, for the 
Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, prepared under 
the auspices of the League of Nations, and providing, not for 
signature by plenipotentiaries, but for accessions thereto, to 
the extents set out therein, and subject, if necessary, to certain 
specified reservations. 1 

1 Treaty Series, No. 32 (1931). 





620. THE term Declaration is used in various senses. It 
may relate to communications made by states as " an explana- 
tion and justification of a line of conduct pursued by them in 
the past, or an explanation of views and intentions concerning 
certain matters " ; or to such acts as declarations of war, or 
of neutrality, or concerning contraband, etc. 1 
Here it is used as 

" the title of a body of stipulations of a treaty according to which 
the parties undertake to pursue in future a certain line of 
conduct." 1 

" The attempt to distinguish fundamentally between a ' declara- 
tion ' and a ' convention ' by maintaining that, whereas a ' con- 
vention ' creates rules of particular international law between the 
contracting states only, a ' declaration ' contains the recognition, 
on the part of the best qualified and most interested Powers, of 
rules of universal international law, does not stand the test of 
scientific criticism." 2 

621. International compacts involving matters of high 
importance are sometimes recorded in the form of a Declara- 
tion. The Declaration of Paris, 1856, the Declaration of 
St. Petersburg, 1868, and the Declaration of London, 1909, are 
notable instances of Declarations aimed at the definition of 
rules of international law. 

Of equal importance are the Declaration between the 
British and French Governments of April 8, 1904, relating to 
Egypt and Morocco, and the Declaration between the British, 
French and Russian Governments of September 5, 1914, 
undertaking not to conclude peace separately. 

1 Oppenheim, i. 487. 2 Ibid., i. 508. 


622. Declaration of Paris, April 16, 1856. 

Les Plenipotentiaires qui ont signe le Traite de Paris du 30 mars 
1856, reunis en Conference, 

Considerant : 

Que le droit maritime, en temps de guerre, a ete pendant long- 
temps 1'objet de contestations regrettables : 

Que 1'incertitude du droit et des devoirs en pareille matiere, 
donne lieu, entre les neutres et les belligerants, a des divergences 
d'opinion qui peuvent faire naitre des difficultes serieuses et meme 
des conflits ; 

Qu'il y a avantage, par consequent, a etablir une doctrine 
uniforme sur un point aussi important ; 

Que les Plenipotentiaires assembles au Congres de Paris ne 
sauraient mieux repondre aux intentions dont leurs Gouvernements 
sont animes, qu'en cherchant a introduire dans les rapports 
internationaux des principes fixes a cet egard ; 

Dument autorises, les susdits Plenipotentiaires sont convenus 
de se concerter sur les rnoyens d'attendre ce but ; et etant tombes 
d'accord ont arrete la Declaration solennelle ci-apres : 

1. La course est et demeure abolie. 

2. Le pavilion couvre la marchandise ennemie, a 1'exception 
de la contrebande de guerre. 

3. La marchandise neutre, a 1'exception de la contrebande de 
guerre, n'est pas saisissible sous pavilion ennemi ; 

4. Les blocus, pour etre obligatoires, doivent etre effectifs, c'est- 
a-dire, maintenus par une force suffisante pour interdire reellement 
1'acces du littoral ennemi. 

Les Gouvernements des Plenipotentiaires soussignes s'engagent a 
porter cette Declaration a la connaissance des Etats qui n'ont pas ete 
appeles a participer au Congres de Paris, et a les inviter a y acceder. 

Convaincus que les maximes qu'ils viennent de proclamer ne 
sauraient etre accueillis qu'avec gratitude par le monde entier, les 
Plenipotentiaires soussignes ne doutent pas que les efforts de leurs 
Gouvernements pour en generaliser 1'adoption ne soient couronnes 
d'un plein succes. 

La presente Declaration n'est et ne sera obligatoire qu'entre 
les Puissances qui y ont ou qui y auront accede. 

Fait a Paris, le 16 avril, 1856. 

Extract from Protocole No. 24 

Seance du 16 avril, 1856. 

Sur la proposition de M. le Comte Walewski, et reconnaissant 
qu'il est de 1'interet commun de maintenir 1'indivisibilite des 
quatre principes mentionnes a la Declaration signee en ce jour, 
MM. les Plenipotentiaires conviennent que les Puissances qui 
1'auront signee ou qui y auront accede, ne pourront entrer, a 
1'avenir, sur 1'application du droit des neutres en temps de guerre 
en aucun arrangement qui ne repose a la fois sur les quatre principes 
objet de la dite Declaration. 


623. Declaration between Great Britain and France respecting 
Egypt and Morocco. London, April 8, igc^. 1 

Art. i. His Britannic Majesty's Government declare that they 
have no intention of altering the political status of Egypt. 

The Government of the French Republic, for their part, declare 
that they will not obstruct the action of Great Britain in that 
country by asking that a limit of time be fixed for the British occupa- 
tion or in any other manner, and that they give their assent to the 
draft Khedivial Decree annexed to the present Arrangement, con- 
taining the guarantees considered necessary for the protection of 
the interests of the Egyptian bondholders, on the condition that, 
after its promulgation, it cannot be modified in any way without 
the consent of the Powers Signatory of the Convention of London 
of 1885. 

It is agreed that the post of Director-General of Antiquities in 
Egypt shall continue, as in the past, to be entrusted to a French 

The French schools in Egypt shall continue to enjoy the same 
liberty as in the past. 

Art. 2. The Government of the French Republic declare that 
they have no intention of altering the political status of Morocco. 

His Britannic Majesty's Government, for their part, recognise 
that it appertains to France, more particularly as a Power whose 
dominions are conterminous for a great distance with those of 
Morocco, to preserve order in that country, and to provide assist- 
ance for the purpose of all administrative, economic, financial, and 
military reforms which it may require. 

They declare that they will not obstruct the action taken by 
France for this purpose, provided that such action shall leave intact 
the rights which Great Britain, in virtue of Treaties, Conventions, 
and usage, enjoys in Morocco, including the right of coasting trade 
between the ports of Morocco, enjoyed by British vessels since 1901. 

(Arts. 3 to 8, relating to French treaty rights in Egypt, com- 
mercial liberty in Egypt and Morocco, French officials in Egypt, 
Suez Canal, Straits of Gibraltar, Spanish interests in Morocco.) 

Art. 9. The two Governments agree to afford to one another 
their diplomatic support, in order to obtain the execution of the 
clauses of the present Declaration regarding Egypt and Morocco. 

In witness whereof his Excellency the Ambassador of the 
French Republic at the Court of His Majesty the King of the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty's 
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, duly authorised 
for that purpose, have signed the present Declaration and have 
affixed thereto their seals. 

Done at London, in duplicate, the 8th day of April, 1904. 

[Seals and signatures.] 
1 Treaty Series, No. 6 ( 1 905) . 


624. Declaration between the French, Russian and British Govern- 
ments after the Outbreak of War. London., September 5, igi^ 1 

The undersigned, duly authorised thereto by their respective 
Governments, hereby declare as follows : 

The French, Russian and British Governments mutually engage 
not to conclude peace separately during the present war. 

The three Governments agree that when terms of peace come 
to be discussed no one of the Allies will demand conditions of peace 
without the previous agreement of each of the other Allies. 

In faith whereof the undersigned have signed this Declaration, 
and have affixed thereto their seals. 

Done at London in triplicate, this 5th day of September, 1914. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

(Japan acceded to this declaration by an exchange of notes, 
October 19, 1915. A declaration was signed by the representatives 
of the above four Powers and of Italy, in quintuplicate, November 30, 
1915, containing the same undertaking.) 

625. Declaration recognising the Right to a Flag of States having 
no Sea Coast. Barcelona, April 20, i92i. 2 

The undersigned, duly authorised for the purpose, declare that 
the states which they represent recognise the flag flown by the 
vessels of any state having no sea coast which are registered at some 
one specified place situated in its territory ; such place shall serve 
as the port of registry of such vessels. 

Barcelona, the soth April, 1921, done in a single copy, of which 
the English and French texts shall be authentic. 

[Signatures. ] 

(The above simple declaration was signed by the representatives 
of thirty-one countries, and was ratified, and acceded to, though 
there is no actual provision in it for either formality.) 

626. Declarations are often appended to a treaty or con- 
vention, to form a subsidiary compact, or to place on record 
some understanding reached, or some explanation given. 
The Treaty of Peace with Turkey, signed at Lausanne, 
July 24, 1923, is supplemented by four Declarations, relating 
respectively to amnesties, Moslem properties in Greece, 
sanitary matters, and administration of justice, in addition to 
a number of conventions and protocols on other matters. 

627. Declaration annexed to " L'Acte preliminaire de Paix ' : 
between Turkey and Greece of September 6/18, 1897. 3 

En procedant a la signature des Preliminaires de Paix en date 
de ce jour, S.E. le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres de S.M.I, le 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cviii. 365. 2 Ibid., cxvi. 544. 3 Ibid., xc. 549. 


Sultan declare que dans la pensee du Gouvernement Ottoman la 
mediation qui vient d'etre exercee par les Six Grandes Puissances 
pour le retablissement de la paix et pour la fixation de la base des 
relations futures entre la Turquie et la Grece ne doit en rien influer 
sur le mandat d'arbitre que les Representants des dites Puissances 
peuvent etre appeles eventuellement a remplir en vertu de 
1'Article IX de ces Preliminaires de Paix, et en consequence les 
arbitres auront, comme de regie, la plus parfait plenitude d'appre- 
ciation des points ou des questions qui leur auront etc soumis par 
les Parties. 

LL. EE. les Ambassadeurs prennent acte de cette observation 
et reconnaissent qu'elle est conforme au sens de 1'Article IX. 


628. Declaration between Germany and Poland on the Exchange 
of Ratifications of the Convention of May 15, 1922, relative to Upper 
Silesia. Oppeln, June 3, I922. 1 

Au moment de proceder a 1'echange des ratifications sur la 
Convention germano-polonaise relative a la Haute-Silesie, faite 
a Geneve le 15 mai 1922, le representant du gouvernement 
polonais et le representant du gouvernement allemand, dument 
autorises a cet effet, declarent d'un commun accord, que le principe 
enonce au 3 de 1'Article I de ladite Convention du maintien en 
vigueur de lois allemandes posterieures a Pentree en vigueur du 
Traite de Versailles, lorsque ces lois ont regu 1'assentiment tacite 
de la Commission interallied, s'applique seulement aux lois dont 
le maintien en vigueur, conformement aux dispositions du 3, 
alinea 3, de 1'annexe a 1'article 88 du Traite de Versailles, a 
fait I'objet d'un decret regulierement pris par la Commission 
interallied, et promulgue par elle au "Journal Officiel " de la 

La presente declaration constitue partie integrante de la Con- 
vention precitee, et, par consequent, est comprise dans les ratifica- 
tions respectives, sous reserve de 1'approbation ulterieure par les 
autorites competentes de chaque Etat. 

Fait a Oppeln, en double expedition, le 3 juin, 1'an 1922. 


629. Declaration appended to the Treaty of Commerce between 
Great Britain and Austria. London, May 22, I924- 2 

It is understood that nothing in the Treaty signed this day can 
be invoked by Austria to support a claim for exemption from the 
following disabilities to which Austrian nationals (in common with 
the nationals of other Powers with which His Britannic Majesty 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxviii. 585. 

2 Ibid., cxix. 336. 


was at war) are subject by Acts of Parliament of the United 
Kingdom, so long as those Acts remain in force, namely : 

(Three clauses.) 

Done at London in duplicate, in English and German texts, 
the 22nd May, 1924. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

630. Declaration annexed to the Treaty of Commerce and Navi- 
gation between Great Britain and Greece. London, July 16, 

It is well understood that the Treaty of Commerce and Naviga- 
tion between Great Britain and Greece of to-day's date does not 
prejudice claims on behalf of private persons based on the pro- 
visions of the Anglo-Greek Commercial Treaty of 1886, and that 
any differences which may arise between our two Governments as 
to the validity of such claims shall, at the request of either Govern- 
ment, be referred to arbitration, in accordance with the provisions 
of the Protocol of November 10, 1886, annexed to the said treaty. 

Done at London, the 1 6th July, 1926. 


631. The title Declaration is also frequently given to 
agreements between governments regarding some minor matter, 
and has been used in this way for a considerable number of 
agreements on such subjects as modification of a former con- 
vention, execution of letters of request, recognition of tonnage 
certificates, fishery regulations, etc. These may or may not 
provide for ratification. 

632. Declaration modifying the North Sea Fisheries Convention 
of May 6, 1882. The Hague, February i, i88g. 2 

Les Gouvernements signataires de la Convention conclue a La 
Haye le 6 mai 1882, pour regler la police de la peche dans la Mer 
du Nord, en dehors des eaux territoriales, ayant juge utile de 
modifier la teneur du paragraphe 5 de 1'article 8, sont convenus 
de ce qui suit : 

Art. i. Le paragraphe 5 de 1'article 8 de la Convention du 
6 mai 1882 est remplace par la disposition suivante : 

Art. 2. La date de 1'entree en vigueur de la presente declara- 
tion sera fixee lors du depot des ratifications, qui aura lieu a La 
Haye aussitot que faire se pourra, et de la meme maniere dont 
s'est effectue le depot des ratifications de la Convention du 6 mai 

En foi de quoi, les Plenipotentiaires respectifs ont signe la 
presente Declaration et y ont appose leur cachets. 

Fait a la Haye, le i er fevrier 1889 en six exemplaires. 2 

[Seals and signatures.] 

1 Treaty Series, No. 2 (1927). 

2 Nouveau Recueil Central, 2 me s6rie, xv. 568. 


633. Declaration regarding the Delimitation of the Frontier 
between the Cameroons and French Equatorial Africa. Paris, 
September 28, 1912. 1 

Le Gouvernement de S.M. 1'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi de 
Prusse [in the German text " Die Kaiserlich Deutsche Regierung "], 
et le Gouvernement de la Republique Francaise, desirant, en vue 
de 1'Execution de la Convention signee a Berlin le 4 novembre 1911, 
determiner la frontiere entre le Cameroun et 1'Afrique fiquatoriale 
Frangaise, preciser les conditions de la remise des territoires echanges 
et regler certaines questions connexes, ainsi qu'il a ete prevu par les 
articles 3 et 5 de la convention du 4 novembre 1911 precitee, sont 
convenus de ce qui suit : 

[Consisting of 

(i) Arrangement relatif a la delimitation entre le Cameroun 
et 1'Afrique Equatoriale Frangaise conformement a 1'accord du 
4 novembre 1911 (37 articles in 4 chapters) ; (2) Arrangement 
relatif a la remise des territoires a echanger entre le Cameroun et 
1'Afrique Equatoriale Frangaise (20 articles) ; (3) Convention 
relative au regime des concessions (50 articles).] 

En foi de quoi les Soussignes ont dresse la presente Declaration 
qu'ils ont revetue de leur sceau. 

Fait a Paris, en double exemplaire, le 20 septembre 1912. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

634. Declaration by Great Britain and France respecting Oyster 
Fisheries outside Territorial Waters in the English Channel. Paris, 
September 29, 1 923.2 

The Government of His Britannic Majesty and the Government 
of the French Republic, desiring to regulate the period for Oyster 
dredging outside territorial waters in the English Channel, have 
agreed upon the following provisions : 

(Arts, i to 4.) 

5. It is understood that the foregoing stipulations are also 
applicable to the Irish Free State, the Government of which has 
given its assent thereto. 

6. The present declaration shall come into force on the 
ist October, 1923. It shall be read as one with the regulations for 
the guidance of fishermen prepared in pursuance of Art. 2 of the 
Convention of 1839 above referred to. 

In witness whereof the undersigned have signed the present 
declaration in duplicate, and have affixed thereto their seals. 
Done at Paris the 2gth September, 1923. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

1 Nouveau Recueil Central, 3 me serie, vii. 135-88. 
* Br. and For. State Papers, cxvii. 311. 


635. Declaration between Austria and France regarding Trans- 
mission of Legal Documents, and Execution of Letters of Request. 
Paris, March 4, IQ25. 1 

Le Gouvernement de la Republique francaise et le Gouverne- 
ment de la Republique d'Autriche ayant resolu de conclure un 
accord au sujet de la transmission des actes judiciaires et de 1'execu- 
tion des commissions rogatoires en matieres civile et commerciale, 
les soussignes, dument autorises a cet effet, sont convenus des 
dispositions suivantes : 

(Arts, i to 7.) 

8. Toutes les difficultes resultant de la presente declaration 
seront reglees par la voie diplomatique. 

9. La presente declaration entrera en vigueur i mois apres 
sa signature. Ses effets cesseront a 1'expiration d'un delai de 
6 mois a partir de la denonciation notifiee par 1'une ou 1'autre 
par tie contractante. 

En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires soussignes ont signe la 
presente declaration et y ont appose leurs cachets. 
Fait a Paris, le 4 mars 1925, en double exemplaire. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

636. Declaration between Denmark and Sweden for the Reci- 
procal Recognition of Tonnage Certificates. Stockholm, November 2 1 , 

( Translation} . 

We, the undersigned, thereto duly empowered by our respective 
Governments, have jointly agreed to the following declaration 
concerning the reciprocal recognition of Swedish and Danish 
tonnage certificates issued on the basis of the rules for ship measure- 
ment adopted in Sweden and Denmark, in Sweden the so-called 
German rule, and in Denmark the so-called British rule. 

(Arts, i to 7.) 

In witness whereof we have signed this declaration and affixed 
thereto our seals. 

Done in duplicate at Stockholm, the 2ist November, 1925. 

[Seals and signatures^ 

637. Declaration between Great Britain, with the Irish Free 
State, and France, regarding French Fisheries in Granville Bay. London, 
December 20, ig28. 3 

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Free State on 
the one hand, and the Government of the French Republic on the 
other hand, 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 81 , 2 Ibid., cxxii. 405. 

s Treaty Series, No. 2 (1929). 


Considering that since the time of conclusion of the Anglo- 
French Convention of the 2nd August, 1839, and the Regulations 
of the 24th May, 1843, concerning the fisheries in the waters 
situated between the coasts of France and the coasts of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland and of the Irish Free State, changes 
have occurred in the condition of the places in which are situated 
the marks used to define the limiting line of the zone reserved for 
French fishers in Granville Bay, 

Considering that, in consequence, it is necessary to re-define the 
bearings employed to determine the various salient points of this 
limiting line, 

Have agreed to substitute for Article I (paragraphs 2 and 
following) of the Convention of the 2nd August, 1839, and for 
Article 4 (paragraphs 3 and following) of the Regulations of the 
24th May, 1843, the subjoined text : 

(Bearings specified.) 

The present declaration shall come into force on the 2Oth 
January, 1929. 

It shall be incorporated with the said articles of the Convention 
of the 2nd August, 1839, and of the Regulations of the 24th May, 
1843, enacted to carry that Convention into effect. 

In witness whereof the undersigned have signed the present 
declaration in triplicate, and have affixed thereto their seals. 

Done at London, the 2Oth December, 1928. 

[Seals and signatures.} 


638. The same absence of strict formality is to be found 
in international compacts entitled Agreements, or sometimes 
Arrangements. The former term might seem to imply an 
undertaking somewhat more definite than the latter, but this 
is not apparent. What in English is styled Agreement may 
be Accord or Arrangement in French. In international compacts 
concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations, where 
both English and French texts have equal validity, " arrange- 
ment " in the French text is usually rendered " agreement 3: 
in the English text. In German, Vereinbarung is used for both, 
also Abkommen. In Spanish, arrangement is rendered proto- 
colo ; convenzione in Italian, and convenio in Spanish are found 
as equivalents of the English " agreement," though doubtless 
a more accurate translation for both would be " convention." 

639. Agreements are ordinarily concluded between govern- 
ments ; occasionally between heads of states. General agree- 
ments, to which many states are parties, have been concluded 
on such subjects as false indications of origin of goods ; sup- 
pression of obscene publications ; public health ; pharma- 
copceial formulas ; venereal disease, etc. ; while similar 


agreements, some of which are between heads of states, have 
been concluded, under the auspices of the League of Nations, 
concerning such matters as the manufacture of and trade in 
prepared opium ; export of hides, skins and bones ; transit 
cards for emigrants, etc. 

640. International Agreement regarding False Indications of 
Origin on Goods. The Hague, November 6, I925- 1 

Les Soussignes, dument autorises par leurs Gouvernements 
respectifs, ont, d'un commun accord, arrete le texte suivant, qui 
remplacera 1'arrangement de Madrid du 14 avril 1891, revis6 a 
Washington le 2 juin 1911, savoir : . 

(Arts, i to 5.) 

Art. 6. Le present Acte sera ratifie et les ratifications en seront 
deposees a La Haye au plus tard le i er mai 1928. 

II entrera en vigueur, entre les pays qui 1'auront ratifie, un mois 
apres cette date et aura la meme force et duree que la Convention 
generale. Toutefois, si auparavant il etait ratine par six pays au 
moins, il entrerait en vigueur, entre ces pays, un mois apres que 
le depot de la sixieme ratification leur aurait etc notifiee par le 
Gouvernement de la Confederation suisse et pour les pays qui rati- 
fieraient ensuite, un mois apres la notification de chacune de ces 

Le present Acte remplacera, dans les rapports entre les pays qui 
1'auront ratifie, 1' Arrangement conclu a Madrid le 14 avril 1891 et 
revise a Washington le 2 juin 1911. Ce dernier restera en vigueur 
dans les rapports avec les pays qui n'auront pas ratifie le present 

En foi de quoi, les Plenipotentiaires respectifs ont signe le 
present Arrangement. 

Fait a La Haye, en un seul exemplaire, le 6 novembre 1925. 

[Signatures in alphabetical order of countries.] 

641. Agreements are occasionally appended to treaties or 
conventions, in completion of their stipulations. The Treaty of 
Alliance between Great Britain and Iraq of October 10, 1922, 
was accompanied by four agreements, subsidiary to Articles 
2, 7, 9 and 15, and relating to British officials, military, judicial 
and financial arrangements, which were signed by the pleni- 
potentiaries of the respective heads of states, and were included 
in the ratifications exchanged on December 19, 1924. The 
Treaty of Friendship between Germany and the Soviet Union 
of October 12, 1925, comprised seven agreements, relating to 
conditions of residence and business, economic, railway, 
navigation and fiscal matters, commercial courts of arbitration, 
and protection of industrial property ; these agreements, with 

1 Treaty Series, No. 15 (1928). 


the general clauses of the treaty, constituting a single whole, 
so that the expression " treaty " included the agreements. The 
International Convention for the Abolition of Import and 
Export Prohibitions and . Restrictions, signed at Geneva, 
November 8, 1927, has appended to it an agreement also 
between heads of states, signed at Geneva, July 11, 1928, 
intended to supplement and to form an integral part of it. 

642. The Agreement form is that commonly used for 
compacts between governments, and may relate to any matter 
not sufficiently important to be enshrined in a treaty or con- 
vention. But exceptional cases occur, and among these must 
be included the Agreement between Great Britain and Japan 
of July n, 1911, extending the provisions of the alliance 
concluded in 1902, and renewed in 1905. The preliminaries 
of peace between Italy and Turkey in 1912 took the form of 
an agreement between heads of states. 

Agreements between governments sometimes provide for 
ratification, but more often do not. 

643. Agreement between Great Britain and Japan relative to 
China, Eastern Asia and India. London, July 13, 191 1. 1 

The Government of Great Britain and the Government of Japan, 
having in view the important changes which have taken place in the 
situation since the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of 
the 1 2th August, 1905, and believing that a revision of that Agree- 
ment responding to such changes would contribute to general 
stability and repose, have agreed upon the following stipulations 
to replace the Agreement above mentioned, such stipulations having 
the same object as the said Agreement, namely : 

(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in 
the regions of Eastern Asia and of India ; 

(b) The preservation of the common interests of all Powers in 
China by insuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese 
Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce 
and industry of all nations in China ; 

(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the High Con- 
tracting Parties in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India, and the 
defence of their special interests in the said regions : 

(Arts, i to 5.) 

Art. 6. The present Agreement shall come into effect imme- 
diately after the date of its signature, and remain in force for ten 
years from that date. 

In case neither of the High Contracting Parties should have 
notified twelve months before the expiration of the said ten years 
the intention of terminating it, it shall remain binding until the 
expiration of one year from the day on which either of the High 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, civ. 173. 


Contracting Parties shall have denounced it. But if, when the date 
fixed for its expiration arrives, either ally is actually engaged in 
war, the alliance shall, ipso facto, continue until peace is concluded. 

In faith whereof the undersigned, duly authorised by their 
respective Governments, have signed this Agreement, and have 
affixed thereto their Seals. 

Done in duplicate at London, the i3th day of July, 1911. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

644. Agreement between Italy and Turkey for the Preliminaries 
of Peace. Lausanne, October 15, 191 2. l 

S.M. le Roi d'ltalie et S.M. 1'Empereur des Ottomans, animes 
par un egal desir de faire cesser 1'etat de guerre existant entre les 
deux Pays et en vue de la difficulte d'y parvenir, provenant de 
1'impossibilite pour 1'Italie de deroger a la loi du 25 fevrier 1912 
qui a proclame sa souverainete sur la Tripolitaine et sur la Cyre- 
naique, et pour I'Empire Ottoman de formellement reconnaitre 
cette souverainete, 

ont nomme Leurs Plenipotentiaires : [names] 

lesquels, apres avoir echanges leurs pleins pouvoirs respectifs, 
trouves en bonne et due forme, sont convenus du modus procedendi 
secret suivant 

(Arts, i to 7.) 

8. Les deux Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent a main- 
tenir secret le present Accord. 

Toutefois les deux Gouvernements se reservent la faculte de 
rendre public cet Accord au moment de la presentation du Traite 
public (Annexe n. 4) aux Parlements respectifs. 

Le present Accord entrera en vigueur le jour meme de sa 

9. II est bien entendu que les Annexes mentionnees dans le 
present Accord en forment partie integrante. 

En foi de quoi les Plenipotentiaires ont signe le present Accord 
et y ont appose leurs cachets. 

Fait a Lausanne en deux exemplaires, le 15 octobre 1912. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

645. Political Agreement between France and Poland. Paris, 
February 19, 

Le Gouvernement polonais et le Gouvernement frangais, egale- 
ment soucieux de sauvegarder, par le maintien des traites qui ont 
etc signes en commun ou qui seront ulterieurement respectivement 
reconnus, 1'etat de paix en Europe, la securite et la defense de leur 
territoire ainsi que leurs interets mutuels politiques et economiques, 
ont convenu ce qui suit : 

(Arts, i to 4.) 

1 Nouveau Recueil Gfafral, vii. 3. 2 Br. and For. State Papers, cxviii. 342. 


Le present Accord n'entrera en vigueur qu'apres la signature 
des accords commerciaux actuellement en negotiation. 
Paris, le 1 9 fe vrier, 1 92 1 . 


646. Agreement between Great Britain and the United States for 
the Renewal of the Arbitration Convention of April 4, 1 908. Washing- 
ton, June 23, 1 923.! 

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor 
of India, and the President of the United States of America, being 
desirous of extending for another five years the period during which 
the Arbitration Convention concluded between them on the 
4th April, 1908, extended by the Agreement concluded between the 
two Governments on the 3ist May, 1913, and further extended by 
the Agreement concluded between the two Governments on the 
3rd June, 1918, shall remain in force, have respectively authorised 
the undersigned, to wit : [names], to conclude the following 
Articles : 

(Art. i.) 

2. The present Agreement shall be ratified by His Britannic 
Majesty, and by the President of the United States, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and it shall become 
effective upon the date of the exchange of ratifications, which shall 
take place at Washington as soon as possible. 

Done in duplicate this 23rd day of June, 1923. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

647. Commercial Agreement between Germany and Spain. 
Madrid, July 25, 1 924.2 


The Government of the German Reich and the Government of 
His Majesty the King of Spain, desirous of fostering commercial 
relations between the two countries and of placing them on a more 
solid basis, have decided to replace the modus vivendi in force up 
to the 3Oth June, 1924, by a commercial agreement, and have 
appointed for this purpose as their plenipotentiaries : [names] 

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good 
and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions : 

(Arts, i to 8.) 

9. The present agreement shall be ratified and the instru- 
ments of ratification shall be exchanged at Madrid as soon as the 
formalities prescribed by the legislation of the two states have 
been complied with. 

The agreement shall come into force on the date of the exchange 
of the instruments of ratification and shall be operative until the 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxvii. 372. 2 Ibid., cxxii. 768. 


expiry of a period of three months from the date of its denunciation 
by either of the contracting parties. 

In faith whereof the plenipotentiaries of the two parties have 
signed the present agreement and have thereto affixed their seals. 

Done at Madrid in duplicate, one copy in Spanish and the 
other in German, the 25th July, 1924. 

[Seals and signatures.] 

648. Agreement between Latvia and Norway respecting Tonnage 
Certificates. Riga, June 10, IQ25. 1 

Considerant que la methode anglaise pour le jaugeage des 
navires (systeme Moorsom) est en vigueur tant en Norvege qu'en 
Lettonie, les soussignes, dument autorises a conclure un arrange- 
ment relatif a la reconnaissance mutuelle des certificats de jaugeage 
entre les deux pays, sont convenus de ce qui suit : 


Le present arrangement entrera en vigueur a partir de la date 
de sa signature. 

Chacune des deux parties contractantes pourra en tout temps 
denoncer le dit arrangement en donnant un preavis de 6 mois. 

En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires ont signe le present 

Fait en double, a Riga, le 10 juin, 1925. 


649. Agreement between Great Britain and Nejd regarding the 
Transjordan-Nejd Frontier. Bahra, November 2, IQ25. 2 

The High British Government on its own part and H.H. 
'Abdu'1-Aziz ibn 'Abdu'r-Rahman-al-Faisal Al Sa'ud, Sultan 
of Nejd and its dependencies, on behalf of the Government 
of Nejd, on his part, in view of the friendly relations which exist 
between them, being desirous of fixing the frontier between Nejd 
and Transjordan and of settling certain questions connected there- 
with, the High British Government have named and appointed 
Sir Gilbert Clayton, K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., as their commissioner 
and plenipotentiary, to conclude an agreement for this purpose 
with Sultan 'Abdu f l-Aziz ibn 'Abdu'r-Rahman-al-Faisal Al Sa'ud 
on behalf of Nejd. 

In virtue of which the said Sultan 'Abdu f l-Aziz ibn'Abdu'r- 
Rahman-al-Faisal Al Sa'ud and the said Sir Gilbert Clayton have 
agreed upon and concluded the following articles : 

(Arts. 1-13.) 

Art. 14. This agreement will remain in force for so long as 
H.B.M. Government are entrusted with the mandate for Trans- 

Art. 15. The present agreement has been drawn up in two 
languages, English and Arabic, and each of the High Contracting 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 913. a Ibid., cxxi. 818. 


Parties shall sign two English copies and two Arabic copies. Both 
texts shall have the same validity, but in case of divergence between 
the two in the interpretation of one or other of the articles of the 
present agreement, the English text shall prevail. 

The present agreement will be known as " the Hadda Agree- 


Signed at Bahra Gamp on the 2nd November, 1925 (corre- 
sponding to the 1 5th Rabi Thani 1344). 


650. Agreement between Great Britain and Germany respecting 
Air Navigation. Berlin, June 29, 

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and the President 
of the German Reich, desiring to enter into an agreement relating 
to air navigation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 
the one hand and Germany on the other, have appointed as their 
plenipotentiaries for this purpose : 

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, for Great Britain 
and Northern Ireland : [name] 

The President of the German Reich : [name] 

who, after having communicated to each other their full powers, 
found in good and due form, have agreed as follows : 

Art. i .... For the purpose of the present Agreement the term 
" territory " means Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the one 
hand and Germany on the other including in both cases the terri- 
torial waters adjacent thereto, and the term " aircraft " means civil 
aircraft (including State aircraft used exclusively for commercial 
purposes) duly registered in the territory of either of the High 
Contracting Parties. 

(Arts. 2 to 21.) 

Art. 22. The present Agreement shall be ratified, and the 
instruments of ratification shall be exchanged in Berlin, as soon as 
possible. This Agreement shall come into force on the day on 
which the instruments of ratification are exchanged. 

In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Agreement and have affixed thereto their seals. 

Done at Berlin in duplicate, in the English and German lan- 
guages, which are equally authentic, the 2gth June, 1927. 

[Seals and signatures.] 
1 Treaty Series, No. i (1928). 

2 B 






651. THE word Protocol is derived from the Low-Latin 
protocollum, Gr. TrpcuroKoXXov, the " first glued-in " to the 
book ; originally a register in which public documents were 
stuck. It then came to mean the form used in drawing up 
such documents, and in diplomacy the register in which the 
minutes of a conference are kept. It is also employed to 
signify the forms to be observed in the official correspondence 
of the minister for foreign affairs, and in the drafting of 
diplomatic documents, such as treaties, conventions, declara- 
tions, full powers, ratifications, letters of credence and other 
letters addressed by one head of state to another. In France 
le bureau du protocole is the sub-department charged with the 
preparation of such papers and the regulation of ceremonial 
in all such matters. In Great Britain it is the Treaty Depart- 
ment of the Foreign Office. 

652. Used to denote the form taken by an international 
compact, the word is regarded as describing the record of an 
agreement less formal than a treaty or convention. 

653. But in present practice international compacts of the 

highest importance may be cast in this form. No treaty could 

be of greater importance than the Protocol of December 16, 

1920, establishing the Permanent Court of International 


654. Another Protocol of high importance is that con- 
cluded between " States " at Geneva on September 24, 1923, 
regarding the validity of agreements to submit to arbitration 
differences in connection with contracts concerning com- 
mercial matters, or any other matter capable of settlement by 
arbitration. This protocol is supplemented by a convention 


between heads of states, signed at Geneva on September 26, 
1927 ; probably a unique combination of forms. 

655. The Covenant of the League of Nations has been 
amended in various articles by a series of protocols, in which 
" the undersigned, being duly authorised, declare that they 
accept, on behalf of the Members of the League which they 
represent, the above amendment." 

656. The Air Navigation Convention between heads of 
states, signed at Paris, October 13, 1919, has been amended 
by a similar series of protocols, in which " the undersigned, 
duly authorised, declare their acceptance, on behalf of the 
states which they represent, of the foregoing amendment, 
which is proposed for the definitive approval of the contracting 

657. Protocol establishing the Permanent Court of International 
Justice. Geneva, December 16, I92O. 1 

The Members of the League of Nations, through the under- 
signed, duly authorised, declare their acceptance of the adjoined 
Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, which 
was approved by a unanimous vote of the Assembly of the League 
on the 1 3th December, 1920, at Geneva. 

Consequently, they hereby declare that they accept the juris- 
diction of the Court in accordance with the terms and subject to 
the conditions of the above-mentioned Statute. 

The present Protocol, which has been drawn up in accordance 
with the decision taken by the Assembly of the League of Nations 
on the 1 3th December, 1920, is subject to ratification. Each Power 
shall send its ratification to the Secretary-General of the League of 
Nations ; the latter shall take the necessary steps to notify such 
ratification to the other signatory Powers. The ratifications shall 
be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of the League of 

The said Protocol shall remain open for signature by the 
Members of the League of Nations and by the states mentioned in 
the Annex to the Covenant of the League. 

The Statute of the Court shall come into force as provided in 
the above-mentioned decision. 

Executed at Geneva, in a single copy, the French and English 
texts of which shall both be authentic. 

December 16, 1920. 


Optional Clause 

The undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, further declare, 
on behalf of their Government, that, from this date, they accept as 
compulsory, ipso facto and without special Convention, the jurisdiction 

1 Treaty Series, No. 23 (1923). 


of the Court in conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the 
Statute of the Court, under the following conditions : . . . 

658. Protocol for the Revision of the Statute of the Permanent 
Court of International Justice. Geneva, September 14, igsg. 1 

1 . The undersigned, duly authorised, agree, on behalf of the 
Governments which they represent, to make in the Statute of the 
Permanent Court of International Justice the amendments which 
are set out in the Annex to the present Protocol and which form 
the subject of the resolution of the Assembly of the League of 
Nations of September i4th, 1929. 

2. The present Protocol, of which the French and English 
texts are both authentic, shall be presented for signature to all the 
signatories of the Protocol of December i6th, 1920, to which the 
Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice is annexed, 
and to the United States of America. 

(Arts. 3 to 7, providing for ratification, entry into force, etc.) 
Done at Geneva, the I4th day of September, 1929, in a single 
copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of 
the League of Nations. The Secretary-General shall deliver 
authenticated copies to the Members of the League of Nations and 
to the states mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant. 

[Signatures in alphabetical order of countries in French.'} 

659. Protocol regarding the Accession of the United States to the 
Protocol establishing the Permanent Court of International Justice. 
Geneva, September 14, 1 929.2 

The states signatories of the Protocol of Signature of the Statute 
of the Permanent Court of International Justice, dated Decem- 
ber 1 6th, 1920, and the United States of America, through the 
undersigned duly authorised representatives, have mutually agreed 
upon the following provisions regarding the adherence of the United 
States of America to the said Protocol subject to the five reservations 
formulated by the United States in the resolution adopted by the 
Senate on January 27th, 1926. 

(Arts, i to 6.) 

Art. 7. The present Protocol shall be ratified. Each state shall 
forward the instrument of ratification to the Secretary-General of 
the League of Nations, who shall inform all the other signatory 
states. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited in the 
archives of the Secretariat of the League of Nations. 

The present Protocol shall come into force as soon as all states 
which have ratified the Protocol of December i6th, 1920, and also 
the United States, have deposited their ratifications. 

(Art. 8.) 

Done at Geneva, the 1 4th day of September, 1 929, in a single copy, 
of which the French and English texts shall both be authoritative. 

[Signatures in alphabetical order of countries in French.'} 
1 Treaty Series, No.ji4 (1930). a Treaty Series, No. 13 (1930). 


660. It may happen that on the conclusion of a multi- 
lateral treaty or convention, it is found desirable to supply 
simultaneously observations, declarations and agreements 
elucidatory of the text, and that these are recorded in a 
Final Protocol (Protocol Final, Schluss-Protokoll, or Protocole de 
Cloture} which becomes part of the compact. 

66 1 . Protocole de Cloture, annexed to the International Industrial 
Property Convention, signed at Washington, June 2, 191 1. 1 

Au moment de proceder a la signature de 1'Acte conclu a la 
date de ce jour, les Plenipotentiaires soussignes sont convenus de 
ce qui suit : . . . 

Le present Protocole de cloture, qui sera ratine en meme temps 
que 1'Acte conclu a la date de ce jour, sera considere comme 
faisant partie integrante de cet Acte, et aura meme force, valeur 
et duree. 

En foi de quoi, etc. 

662. Protocol of Signature of the International Convention 
regarding Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation. 
Paris, November 27, 1 925.2 

At the moment of signing the Convention of to-day's date 
relating to the measurement of vessels employed in inland naviga- 
tion, the undersigned, duly authorised, have agreed as follows : 

(Arts, i to 6.) 

The present Protocol shall have the same force, effect and 
duration as the Convention of to-day's date of which it is to be con- 
sidered as an integral part. 

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries hereinafter named have 
signed the present Protocol. 

Done at Paris, the 27th day of November, 1925, in a single copy 
which will remain deposited with the Secretariat of the League of 
Nations ; certified copies will be transmitted to all the States 
represented at the Conference. 


663. Protocol of Signature of the International Convention 
relating to Economic Statistics. Geneva, December 14, ig28. 3 

At the moment of signing the Convention of this day's date, 
the undersigned Plenipotentiaries declare that they have agreed 
on the interpretations of the various provisions of the Convention 
set out hereunder in the first part of this Protocol, and that they 
accept the reservations made in virtue of the first paragraph of 
Article 1 7 of the said Convention which are set out in the second 
part of this Protocol. 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, civ. 1 16. 2 Treaty Series, No. 26 (1927). 

3 Treaty Series, No. 43 (1930). 


(Parts i and 2.) 

In faith whereof the undersigned have affixed their signatures 
to the present Protocol. 

Done at Geneva this I4th day of December, 1928, in a single 
copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of 
the League of Nations, and of which authenticated copies shall be 
delivered to all Members of the League of Nations and non-Member 
states represented at the Conference. 


664. Similarly, in the case of a bilateral treaty, protocols 
are often appended, supplementing, amending or qualifying 
the treaty. 

665. Additional Protocol to the Treaty between Germany and 
Austria, respecting Air Navigation. Vienna, May 19, I925- 1 

( Translation.} 

When signing the treaty concluded this day between the German 
Reich and the Austrian Republic relating to Air Navigation, the 
undersigned, being duly authorised by their Governments, have 
made the following concordant statements : 

(Arts, i to 3.) 

The present Additional Protocol, which is done in duplicate, 
shall form an integral part of the treaty, and shall enter into force 
at the same time. 

Done at Vienna, May 19, 1925. 


666. Protocol amending the Extradition Treaty of November n, 
1924, between Great Britain and Czechoslovakia. London, June 4, 

It being considered necessary to amend Article 12 of the 
Extradition Treaty between His Majesty the King of the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions 
beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and the President of the 
Czechoslovak Republic, which was signed at London on Novem- 
ber II, 1924, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have agreed that 
that Article shall be amended to read as follows : . . . 

The present Protocol shall have the same force and duration 
as the Extradition Treaty of November 1 1, 1924, to which it relates. 
It shall be ratified at the same time as that Treaty, of which it shall 
be regarded as an integral part. 

In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Protocol and have affixed thereto their seals. 

Done in duplicate at London, the 4th June, 1926. 

[Seals and signatures.} 
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 87. 2 Treaty Series, No. 31 (1926). 


667. Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Commerce and Navi- 
gation between Great Britain and Panama. Panama, September 25, 

At the moment of signing the Treaty of Commerce and Naviga- 
tion of this day's date the undersigned Plenipotentiaries of His 
Britannic Majesty and of the Republic of Panama agree as follows : 

The said Treaty of Commerce and Navigation shall not apply 
to the Canal Zone ; nor shall the most-favoured-nation provisions 
of the said Treaty be invoked by His Britannic Majesty in respect 
of stipulations agreed to or which may in the future be agreed to 
between Panama and the United States of America for the con- 
struction, maintenance, operation, sanitation or protection of the 
Panama Canal. 

The present Protocol shall be ratified and the ratifications shall 
be exchanged at Panama at the time of the ratification of the said 
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation or as soon as possible there- 
after. It shall come into force immediately on ratification. 

In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Protocol and have affixed thereto their seals. 

Done at Panama in duplicate, in the English and Spanish 
languages, the 25th day of September, 1928. 

{Seals and signatures.] 

668. Protocols relating to subsidiary matters are also often 
attached to treaties. To the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, 
signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923, are appended six protocols 
on various matters, as well as a number of conventions, 
declarations, etc., concluded at the same time as the main 

669. Compacts between two governments in regard to some 
particular matter are sometimes styled " protocols," though 
differing in no other respect from those styled agreements. 
The form has been used to conclude an armistice (Protocol 
between the United States and Spain, August 12, 1898 ; 
between Poland and Lithuania, November 29, 1920) ; to 
interpret the provisions of a former treaty (Protocol between 
the Argentine Republic and Brazil, October 22, 1878 ; 
between the United States and Venezuela, February 27, 1915) ; 
to provide for the delimitation of a boundary (Protocol between 
Germany and Belgium Congo-German East Africa June 25, 
1911) ; to record the work of a Boundary Commission (Protocol 
of August 5, 1924 Tanganyika-Ruanda Urundi approved 
by exchange of notes between Great Britain and Belgium, 
May 17, 1926) ; to re-establish diplomatic relations (Protocol 
between the Netherlands and Venezuela, April 19, 1909) ; 

1 Treaty Series, No. 12 (1929). 


to prolong an alliance (Protocol between Germany and Austria, 
June i, 1902) ; to regulate some matter of commerce (Protocol 
between Germany and Italy, October 12, 1926) ; as well as 
for a great variety of other matters. 

670. Protocol for Renewal of Diplomatic Relations between 
Germany and Bolivia. La Paz, July 20, I92I. 1 


His Excellency Frederick-Charles von Erckert, Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Germany in Chile, 
specially authorised for this purpose by his Government, and 

His Excellency M. Alberto Gutierrez, Minister of Foreign 
Affairs of Bolivia, specially authorised for this purpose by his 

Having met at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in the City of 
La Paz on the soth July, 1921, declared that the Governments of 
Bolivia and the German Reich, being desirous of resuming the 
friendly relations which formerly existed between the two countries, 
agree to appoint as soon as possible their respective diplomatic 
and consular representatives. 

In faith whereof they sign the present Protocol in duplicate. 


671. Protocol prolonging the Defensive Alliance of April 23, 
1921, between Czechoslovakia and Roumania. Prague, May 7, 

Les resultats de la Convention d'alliance defensive du 23 avril 
1921, ayant etc reconnus comme bienfaisants pour la cause de la 
paix et son maintien juge ainsi necessaire, les plenipotentiaires 
soussignes, munis des pleins pouvoirs respectifs du President de la 
Republique Tchecoslovaque et de Sa Majeste le Roi de Roumanie, 
trouves en bonne et due forme, sont convenus de ce qui suit ; 

(Provisions prolonging former Conventions.) 

Le present Protocole sera communique a la Societe des Nations 
(Pacte de la Societe des Nations). 

Le present Protocole sera ratifiee, et les ratifications seront 
echangees a Prague le plus tot possible. 

En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires 1'ont signe et y ont appose 
leurs sceaux. 

Fait a Prague, en double expedition, le 7 mai, 1923. 

[Seals and signatures.} 


672. This term is applied to a formal record of proceedings. 
During a congress or conference the minutes of meetings of 
plenipotentiaries are sometimes styled protocol or proces-verbal 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxvi. 776. * Ibid., cxviii. 119. 


indifferently ; the latter is the more suitable term for this 

673. When a treaty or convention is signed between a 
number of states, or when ratifications are deposited, a formal 
record of the proceedings is often prepared and signed. For 
such a record as a simple statement of fact, the term proces- 
verbal is appropriate, but if it embodies provisions or con- 
ditions which constitute a further agreement between the 
parties, it becomes a subsidiary compact, and would better 
be styled protocol. It cannot be said, however, that the 
distinction is closely observed in practice. 

674. Proces-Verbal recording Amendment made on Exchange of 
Ratifications of the Commercial Convention of October 23, 1922, 
between Poland and Yugoslavia. Warsaw, April 5, I924- 1 

Les soussignes s'etant reunis au Ministere des Affaires etran- 
geres a Varsovie, pour proceder a 1'echange des ratifications de 
S.E. le President de la Republique polonaise et de Sa Majeste le 
Roi des Serbes, Creates et Slovenes sur la convention commer- 
ciale entre la Pologne et le Royaume des Serbes, Creates et Slovenes, 
signee a Varsovie le 23 octobre, 1922, les instruments ont ete pro- 
duits et ayant ete apres examen trouves en bonne et due forme, 
1'echange en a ete opere. 

Les pleiaipotentiaires soussignes croient necessaire de constater 
que, par 1'echange de notes entre la Legation de Pologne a Beograd, 
en date du 27 fevrier, et le Ministere des Affaires etrangeres a 
Beograd, en date du 2 juin, 1923, 1'amendement a ete apporte au 
texte de la premiere partie de 1'article i de la convention com- 
merciale, en remplacant le mot " nationaux " dudit article par la 
formule " ressortissants de la nation la plus favorisee." Ainsi la 
redaction definitive de 1'article en question est la suivante : 


En foi de quoi les soussignes, dument autorises a cet effet, ont 
dresse le present proces-verbal et y ont appose leurs cachets. 

Fait a Varsovie en double exemplaire, le 5 avril, 1924. 

[Seals and signatures.'] 

675. Proces-Verbal de Signature. Treaty of Friendship between 
Bulgaria and Turkey. Angora, October 18, 1 925.2 

Les soussignes delegues plenipotentiaires turc et bulgare se sont 
reunis cejourd'hui le 18 octobre 1925, au Ministere des Affaires 
etrangeres a Angora pour proceder a la signature des actes qui ont 
ete negocies entre les deux gouvernements, a savoir : . . . 

Reconnaissant Futilite de mieux preciser le sens de 1'article (D) 
du protocole annexe et ne laisser aucun doute sur la bonne volonte 
reciproque de leurs gouvernements, ils declarent, au nom de ceux-ci, 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 1044. * Ibid., cxxii. 216. 


que la restitution des biens prevue dans les clauses de ce para- 
graphe sera effectuee sans qu'il soit eleve de part et d'autre aucune 

Le present proces-verbal a ete dresse en deux exemplaires. 


676. Prods-Verbal. Deposit of Ratifications of the International 
Convention of April 24, 1926, respecting Motor Traffic. Paris, 
October 24, I92Q. 1 

Conformement aux dispositions de 1'article 1 1 de la Convention 
Internationale relative a la circulation automobile, signee a Paris le 
24 avril 1926, les soussignes representants de la Belgique, de la 
Bulgarie, de 1'Espagne, de la Finlande, de la France, de la Grande- 
Bretagne et de 1'Irlande du Nord, de la Grece, de la Hongrie, de 
1'Italie, de 1'Etat libre d'Irlande, du Luxembourg, du Maroc, du 
Monaco, de la Norvege, des Pays-Bas, de la Pologne, du Portugal, de 
la Roumanie, du Territoire du Bassin de la Sarre, de la Tunisie, 
Puissances liees par la Convention Internationale relative a la circu- 
lation automobile de 1909 anterieurement a la date du 24 avril 
1926, se sont presentes aujourd'hui au Ministere des Affaires 
etrangeres de la Republique Franaise et ont depose les instru- 
ments de ratification de leurs Souverains ou Chefs d'fitats sur cet 
acte international. 

D'autre part, les soussignes representants de Cuba, de 1'figypte, 
de 1'Estonie, de la Lettonie, du Siam, de 1'Uruguay, de 1'Union des 
Republiques Socialistes Sovietistes et de la Yougo-Slavie ont 
accompli ce meme jour la meme formalite. 

Ces instruments ayant ete, apres examen, trouves en bonne et 
due forme, ont ete confies au Gouvernement de la Republique 
Francaise pour rester deposes dans ses archives. 

En execution de 1'article 15 de la Convention du 24 avril 1926 
chacun des representants des fitats signataires de la Convention du 
ii octobre 1909 declarent denoncer cette derniere Convention. 

Une expedition authentique du present proces-verbal sera 
adressee aux Puissances contractantes. 

En foi de quoi, les soussignes ont dresse le present proces-verbal 
qu'ils ont revetu de leurs cachets. 

Fait a Paris, le 24 octobre 1929. 


677. Proces-Verbal. Deposit of Ratifications of the International 
Treaty of April 22, 1930, for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval 
Armament. London, October 27, I93O. 2 

The undersigned, having met together for the purpose of pro- 
ceeding to the deposit of ratifications of the Treaty for the Limita- 
tion and Reduction of Naval Armament, signed at London, the 
22nd day of April, 1930 ; 

1 Treaty Series, No. n (1930). 2 Treaty Series, No. I (1931). 


Having produced the instruments whereby the said Treaty has 
been ratified by the President of the United States of America, by 
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, in respect of the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all 
parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the 
League of Nations, of the Dominion of Canada, of the Common- 
wealth of Australia, of the Dominion of New Zealand, of the Union 
of South Africa, and of India ; and by His Majesty the Emperor 
of Japan ; 

And the respective ratifications of the said Treaty having been 
carefully compared and found to be in due form, the said deposit 
in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 (i) of the Treaty 
took place this day in the customary form. 

The representative of the United States of America declared 
that the instrument of ratification of the United States of America 
was deposited subject to the distinct and explicit understandings 
set forth in the resolution of the 2ist July, 1930, of the Senate of 
the United States of America advising and consenting to ratification, 
that there are no secret files, documents, letters, understandings or 
agreements which in any way, directly or indirectly, modify, change, 
add to, or take from any of the stipulations, agreements or statements 
in said Treaty ; and that, excepting the agreement brought about 
through the exchange of notes between the Governments of the 
United States, Great Britain and Japan, having reference to 
Article 19, there is no agreement, secret or otherwise, expressed 
or implied, between any of the parties to said Treaty as to any 
construction that shall hereafter be given to any statement or 
provision contained therein. 

In witness whereof they have signed this proces-verbal, and have 
affixed thereto their seals. 

Done at London, the 2yth day of October, 1930. 

[Seals and signatures.] 


678. Agreements on topics of minor importance are 
frequently concluded by means of formal notes exchanged 
between the minister for foreign affairs, acting on behalf of 
his government, and the resident diplomatic agent of the other 
country, similarly authorised. It is not usual to exhibit full 
powers for such exchanges of notes. 

679. Agreements in this form sometimes result from oral 
discussion of the subject matter, but are more often the outcome 
of a correspondence in which the proposal has been put 
forward and discussed in advance. Usually the notes ex- 
changed recording the agreement bear the same date, in 
which case, unless they provide otherwise, the agreement has 


effect from that date. If they bear different dates, that of the 
last note, or at any rate the date of its receipt, is the governing 
date (unless it is otherwise provided), since the agreement 
cannot be regarded as completed until it is plain that it has 
been accepted on both sides. Sometimes several notes may 
pass before a final agreement is reached ; in this case " corre- 
spondence " is a more suitable term than exchange of notes. 

680. Agreements concluded in the form of an exchange of 
notes range over a great variety of matters, such as the estab- 
lishment or prolongation of a commercial modus vivendi, 
renewal of an arbitration or other convention, confirmation of 
the work of a boundary commission, recognition of tonnage 
certificates, exemption from double taxation, recognition of 
trade marks, commercial travellers' samples, to mention but 
a few. 

68 1. The following examples show in general the form 
adopted in an exchange of notes constituting a simple 
agreement : 

Exchange of Notes between Germany and Bolivia regarding Pro- 
tection of Trade Marks. La Paz, February 20, I925- 1 

(Translation.} (i) 

La Paz, February 20, 1925. 

I have the honour, on behalf of the German Government, to 
declare to Your Excellency that the following rules shall be valid 
in future as regards the reciprocal protection of trade marks in the 
German Reich and in Bolivia. 

(Three articles.) 

4. The present agreement shall come into force on the expira- 
tion of three months from to-day and shall remain in force until the 
expiration of six months after its denunciation by either of the 
two states. 

I avail myself, etc. 


La Paz, February 20, 1925. 


In conformity with your note of to-day's date I have the honour 
to inform you that my Government agrees to apply the following 
rules in future as regards the reciprocal protection of trade marks 
in Bolivia and in the German Reich. 

(Arts, i to 4 as in German note.) 

I avail myself, etc. 

682. Notes renewing the Arbitration Convention between Great 
Britain and the Netherlands of February 15, 1905. London, July 12, 

I925- 2 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 199. 2 Treaty Series, No. 36 (1925). 



Foreign Office, 
London, July 1 2, 1 925. 


I have the honour to state that His Britannic Majesty's Govern- 
ment are prepared to renew for a further period of five years from 
the present date the Arbitration Convention signed at London on the 
1 5th February, 1905, and successively renewed by Conventions 
signed at London on the i6th December, 1909, the 25th March, 
1915, and the ist June, 1920. 

2. It is understood, however, that in place of reference to the 
Permanent Court of Arbitration as provided for in articles I and 2 
of the aforesaid Convention of the i5th February, 1905, the refer- 
ence shall in any case arising be made to the Permanent Court 
of International Justice, in accordance with the procedure laid 
down in the Statute of that Court and the Rules of Court adopted 

3. If this proposal is agreeable to the Netherlands Government, 
the present note and the reply in similar terms will be regarded as 
giving legal validity to and as placing on record the understanding 
between the respective Governments in the matter. 

I have, etc. 


Legation neerlandaise, 

Londres, le 12 juillet 1925. 


En reponse a la note que votre Excellence a bien voulu m'adresser 
ce jourd'hui, j'ai 1'honneur de porter a sa connaissance que le 
Gouvernement neerlandais est pret a renouveler une fois de plus, 
pour une periode de cinq ans a partir du 12 juillet 1925, la Con- 
vention d'Arbitrage signee a Londres le 15 fevrier 1905, renouvelee 
successivement par les Conventions signees a Londres le 1 6 decembre 
1909, le 25 mars 1915 et le i er juin 1920. 

(Paragraph 2 as in British note.) 

3. II est convenu que la note de votre Excellence et la presente 
reponse seront considerees comme etablissant et constatant 1'accord 
entre les Gouvernements respectifs dans cette matiere. 

Veuillez agreer, etc. 

683. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and Portugal, con- 
firming the Protocol defining a Section of the Boundary between 
Angola and Rhodesia, Lisbon, November 3, IQ25. 1 


His Britannic Majesty's Embassy, 

Lisbon, November 3, 1925. 

His Britannic Majesty's Government have received the ori- 
ginal signed version, in the English and Portuguese texts, of the 

1 Treaty Series, No. 55 (1925). 


Protocol, with its accompanying map, which was signed at Cape 
Town on the 5th March, 1915, by the commissioners appointed by 
our respective Governments to carry out, in accordance with the 
arbitration award of His Majesty the King of Italy, the delimitation 
of the frontier between the Portuguese colony of Angola and 
Rhodesia, from the intersection of the 24th meridian east of 
Greenwich and the Congo-Zambesi watershed to the intersection 
of the 22nd meridian east of Greenwich and the " bord oriental du 
lit des hautes eaux du Kwando (Cuando)." 

I have the honour to inform your Excellency that I am autho- 
rised by His Britannic Majesty's Government to confirm on their 
behalf this Protocol, as set forth in the accompanying printed copy 
and map, duly certified by me, and to state that they would be 
glad to receive a similar assurance on the part of the Portuguese 

It is understood that with a view to exact conformity between 
the map and article 41 of the Protocol, the boundary pillar marked 
" M. i " on the map is to be regarded as marked " L. 25~M. i ' 
referred to in the said article 41. 

The present Note and your Excellency's reply in identic terms 
will constitute the agreement between the British and Portuguese 
Governments in the matter. 

I avail, etc. 



Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 

Lisbon, November 3, 1925. 

The Government of the Portuguese Republic have received the 
original text, in Portuguese and English, of the Protocol with its 
respective map annexed, which was signed at Cape Town on the 
5th March, 1915, by the commissioners appointed by our respective 
Governments to carry out, in accordance with the arbitration award 
of His Majesty the King of Italy, the delimitation of the frontier 
between the Portuguese colony of Angola and Rhodesia, from the 
point of contact of the 24th meridian east of Greenwich with the 
line of division of the waters Congo-Zambesi to the point of contact 
of the 22nd meridian east of Greenwich with " le bord oriental du 
lit des hautes eaux du Kwando (Cuando)." 

(Paragraphs 2 and 3 in terms similar to British note.) 

The present note and your Excellency's reply in identic terms 
will constitute the agreement between the Portuguese and British 
Governments on the subject. 

I avail, etc. 

684. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and Spain for the 
Reciprocal Recognition of Proof Marks on Fire-arms, Madrid, 
September 8, IQ27. 1 

1 Treaty Series, No. 27 (1927) 



British Embassy, 

San Sebastian, September 8, 1927! 

I have the honour to state, on behalf of His Britannic Majesty's 
Government in Great Britain, that they agree to the following 
provisions, as constituting an Agreement on a reciprocal basis 
between them and the Spanish Government : 
(Three articles.) 

4. Subject to the right of termination above mentioned, this 
Agreement shall remain in force for a period of three years. If 
neither of the Governments shall have notified the other not less than 
six months before the expiration of the said period of three years 
of its intention to terminate the Agreement, this Agreement shall 
continue in force for a further period of three years, and so forth 
for further periods of three years in the same manner. 

5. His Britannic Majesty's Government in Great Britain and 
the Spanish Government reserve the right to add, by mutual con- 
sent, such modifications to this Agreement as experience may show 
to be useful. 

The present note and your Excellency's reply of the same date 
in a similar sense shall be regarded as placing on record the under- 
standing arrived at between the two Governments. 

I avail, etc. 



Ministry of State, 
Madrid, September 8, 1927. 

I have the honour to inform your Excellency that, as a result 
of the communications exchanged between your Excellency and this 
Ministry of State, and in the last instance your note of this date, 
His Catholic Majesty's Government agree to the following pro- 
visions, as constituting an Agreement with His Britannic Majesty's 
Government for the reciprocal recognition of proof marks on 
fire-arms : 

(Five articles as in British note.) 

The present note and your Excellency's note of the same date 
in a similar sense shall be regarded as concluding the present 
Agreement between the two Governments. 

I avail, etc. 

685. Notes exchanged between the Union of South Africa and 
Portugal confirming the Report of the Boundary Commission appointed 
to define a Portion of the Boundary between the Union and Mozam- 
bique. Lisbon, October 6, 1927. a 

l Treaty Series, No. 8 (1928). 



His Britannic Majesty's Embassy, 

Lisbon, October 6, 1927. 

His Britannic Majesty's Government in the Union of South 
Africa have received the original signed versions in the English and 
Portuguese texts of the report, with its accompanying annex and 
maps, which was signed on the i8th February, 1926, by the Commis- 
sioners appointed to define by beacons that portion of the boundary 
line between the territories of the Union of South Africa and of 
the Province of Mozambique which lies between a point a few 
kilometres north of the Singwetsi River and the junction of the 
Limpopo and Pafuri Rivers. 

I have the honour to inform your Excellency that I am now 
authorised to confirm, on behalf of His Britannic Majesty's Govern- 
ment in the Union of South Africa, the aforesaid report as set forth 
in the accompanying printed copies and maps duly certified by me 
and to state that they will be glad to receive a similar assurance on 
the part of the Portuguese Government. 

In order to remedy certain minor defects in the signed report of 
the 1 8th February, 1926, it is understood that 

(List of corrections.) 

The present Note and your Excellency's reply in a similar sense 
will be regarded as giving validity to, and as placing on record, the 
understanding between the respective Governments in the matter. 

I avail, etc. 



Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 

Lisbon, October 6, 1927. 

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has received 
the original text, in Portuguese and English, of the report, with 
its accompanying annex and maps, which were signed on the 
1 8th February, 1926, by the Commissioners appointed to define 
by beacons that portion of the boundary line between the territories 
of the Union of South Africa and the Province of Mozambique 
which lies between a point a few kilometres north of the Singwetsi 
River and the junction of the Limpopo and Pafuri Rivers. 

(Continuing in similar terms to the above note.) 

The present Note and your Excellency's reply in identical 
terms will validate and constitute the agreement between the two 
respective Governments in the matter. 

I avail, etc. 

686. Notes extending the Extradition Treaty between Great 
Britain and Belgium to Mandated Territories. London, June 28 / 
July 2, 1928.' 

1 Treaty Series, No. 20 (1928). 



Foreign Office, 

June 28, 1928. 

By the Convention signed at London on the 8th August, 1923, 
the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and 
Belgium of the sgth October, 1901, and the Conventions supple- 
mentary thereto of the 5th March, 1907, and the 3rd March, 1911, 
were extended to the Belgian Congo and certain named British pro- 
tectorates. It was further provided that if, after the signature of 
that Convention, it was considered advisable to extend its provisions 
to British protectorates other than those mentioned, or to territories 
in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has 
been accepted by His Britannic Majesty, then, after agreement 
arrived at between the respective Governments, its provisions 
should apply also to these other protectorates, or to such territories, 
from the date prescribed in the notes to be exchanged for the purpose 
of effecting such extension. 

2. It is the desire of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain 
that the provisions of the Convention of the 8th August, 1923, should 
now be extended to Palestine (excluding Transjordan) , Tanganyika 
Territory, the British Cameroons, and the British sphere of Togo- 
land, in respect of which mandates on behalf of the League of 
Nations have been accepted by His Britannic Majesty, and to 
Nauru. His Majesty's Governments in the Commonwealth of 
Australia, in New Zealand, and in the Union of South Africa, 
respectively, desire that the provisions of the said Convention 
should similarly be extended to the mandated territories of New 
Guinea, to Western Samoa, and to South-West Africa. It is 
accordingly agreed by the present exchange of notes that the pro- 
visions of the said Convention shall apply to the above-mentioned 
territories as from the ist August, 1928. 

3. It is further agreed by the present exchange of notes that as 
from the ist August, 1928, the provisions of the Extradition Treaty 
of the 29th October, 1901, and the Conventions supplementary 
thereto of the 5th March, 1907, and the 3rd March, 1911, shall 
apply to the territories of Ruanda-Urundi, in respect of which a 
mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by 
His Majesty the King of the Belgians, subject to the same conditions 
as those set forth in Articles 2 and 3 of the aforesaid Convention of 
the 8th August, 1923. 

I have, etc. 


Ambassade de Belgique, Londres, 
le 2 juillet 1928. 


Par la Convention signee a Londres, le 8 aout 1923, les disposi- 
tions du Traite d'Extradition du 29 octobre 1901 entre la Belgique 
et la Grande-Bretagne, ainsi que les Conventions additionnelles 

2 c 


audit Traite, des 5 mars 1907 et 3 mars 1911, ont etc etendues au 
Congo beige et a certains protectorats britanniques designes nomi- 
nativement. II avait, de plus, etc entendu que si, apres la signature 
de cette Convention, il etait considere comme desirable d'etendre 
ses dispositions a des protectorats britanniques autres que ceux qui 
sont mentionnes, ou a des territoires au sujet desquels un mandat 
de la part de la Societe des Nations a ete accepte par Sa Majeste 
britannique, ses dispositions, apres accord entre les Gouvernements 
respectifs, s'appliqueraient aussi a ces autres protectorats ou a ces 
territoires, a partir de la date fixee dans les notes devant etre 
echangees en vue de realiser pareille extension. 

(Continuing as in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above note.) 

Je saisis, etc. 

687. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and the Soviet Union 
on the Occasion of the Resumption of Diplomatic Relations, London, 
December 20, 1929.! 


Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics, London, December 20, 1929. 


By clause 7 of the protocol signed on the 3rd October last by 
the Soviet Ambassador in Paris on behalf of the Government of 
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and His Majesty's Principal 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on behalf of His Majesty's 
Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland, both Governments engaged themselves to confirm the 
pledge with regard to propaganda contained in Article 16 of the 
General Treaty signed on the 8th August, 1 924, between the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics and Great Britain and Northern 

The terms of that article were as follows : 

" The contracting parties solemnly affirm their desire and 
intention to live in peace and amity with each other, scrupu- 
lously to respect the undoubted right of a State to order its 
own life within its own jurisdiction in its own way, to refrain 
and to restrain all persons and organisations under their direct 
or indirect control, including organisations in receipt of financial 
assistance from them, from any act overt or covert liable in 
any way whatsoever to endanger the tranquillity or prosperity 
of any part of the territory of the British Empire or the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics, or intended to embitter the rela- 
tions of the British Empire or the Union with their neighbours 
or any other countries." 

It was further agreed that effect should be given to this clause 

1 Treaty Series, No, 2 (1930), 


of the aforesaid protocol not later than the day on which the 
respective ambassadors presented their credentials. 

Having this day presented to His Royal Highness the Prince 
of Wales the letters accrediting me as Ambassador of the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics to His Majesty the King, I have the 
honour, by the direction of the People's Commissary for Foreign 
Affairs and on behalf of the Government of the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics, to confirm the undertaking contained in the 
article quoted above, and to inform you that the Government of 
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regard that undertaking 
as having full force and effect as between themselves and His 
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Northern Ireland and the Government of India. 

I am instructed to add that the Government of the Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics will be happy to receive, in accordance 
with clause 7 of the protocol of the 3rd October, a corresponding 
declaration from His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of 

I have, etc. 


Foreign Office, 

London, December 20, 1929. 

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note, dated 
to-day, in which your Excellency confirms, on behalf of the Govern- 
ment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the pledge regard- 
ing propaganda contained in Article 16 of the General Treaty 
signed on the 8th August, 1924, between Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 

2. In taking due note of this declaration, I have the honour to 
inform your Excellency that, in accordance with the understand- 
ing between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom 
and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 
as recorded in the protocol of the 3rd October, 1929, His Majesty's 
Ambassador in Moscow has been instructed to inform the Govern- 
ment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that His Majesty's 
Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of India, 
for their part, also regard the undertaking contained in Article 16 
of the treaty signed on the 8th August, 1924, as having full force 
and effect as between themselves and the Government of the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics. 

I have, etc. 

688. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and Liberia re- 
garding the Boundary between Sierra Leone and Liberia. Monrovia, 
January 16/17, IQ3O. 1 

1 Treaty Series, No. 17 (1930). 



British Legation, Monrovia, 

January 16, 1930. 


I have the honour to refer to your note of the i6th December 
last informing me that the Government of Liberia are prepared to 
agree to the following proposals of His Majesty's Government for 
adjusting the situation on the Sierra Leone-Liberian boundary 
between the Mauwa and Moro rivers : 

1. His Majesty's Government undertake to withdraw from the 

area in Liberian territory which has been incorrectly 
regarded as forming part of the Sierra Leone Protectorate. 

2. In order to prevent the recurrence of any such mistake, His 

Majesty's Government will arrange as soon as possible for 
a redemarcation of the boundary between the Mauwa and 
Moro rivers, and will bear the whole cost of this work, 
including the expenses of a representative of the Liberian 

3. The inhabitants of the area in question shall be given the 

option of moving into Sierra Leone territory not later than 
the 3Oth June, 1930, taking with them their portable 
property and harvested crops. 

I have the honour to inform your Excellency that I have now 
been authorised by His Majesty's Government to confirm on their 
behalf this agreement, and to state that they would be glad to 
receive a similar confirmation on the part of the Government of 

The present note on behalf of His Majesty's Government and 
your Excellency's reply in similar terms on behalf of the Govern- 
ment of Liberia will accordingly be regarded as placing on record 
the agreement arrived at between our respective Governments in 

the matter. 

I avail, etc. 

Department of State, Monrovia, Liberia, 

January 17, 1930. 


I have the honour to acknowledge your note of the i6th instant 
informing me that His Majesty's Government are prepared to 
agree to the following proposals for adjusting the situation on the 
Sierra Leone-Liberian boundary between the Mauwa and Moro 
rivers : 

(As set forth above.) 

I have the honour to inform you that I am authorised to confirm 
on behalf of the Government of Liberia this agreement, and to say 
that they regard the present note and the Legation's note of the 
1 6th January, 1930, as placing on record the agreement arrived at 
between our respective Governments in this matter. 

With sentiments of high consideration, 

I have, etc.