Skip to main content

Full text of "A guide to diplomatic practice"

See other formats


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

Membre de 1'Institut de Droit International, 

Whewell Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge, 

Honorary Member of the Royal Academy of Jurisprudence at Madrid, 

Corresponding Member of the American Institute of International Law. 


The next Volume to be published in the Series 
DIPLOMACY " will be 




of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, formerly 
Whewell International Law Scholar in the University 
of Cambridge, and Scholar of Trinity College. 






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








THE idea of editing a series of contributions to Inter- 
national Law and Diplomacy was conceived some years 
ago, and arrangements were made accordingly with 
intending contributors. The outbreak of the great war 
jeopardized the whole undertaking, and it became doubt- 
ful whether the plan would ever be realized. However, 
Sir Ernest Satow, in spite of the troubled times, has 
succeeded in completing the present work on Diplomacy 
which he had undertaken to write for the series, and there 
is also ready for the press a monograph on " International 
Conventions and Third States," by Mr. Roxburgh, which 
will be published presently. Further, there is hope that 
a work on Private International Law, treating the matter 
on a rational and comparative basis, may be published 
in 1918 from the pen of Dr. John Pawley Bate. A 
volume on Diplomatic History, by Mr. G. G. Butler, 
Fellow and Lecturer of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 
and other contributions are in preparation. 

Concerning the present work, it is not for me to extol 
its value. But I may be permitted to say that it is 
unique with regard to the method of treatment of the 
subject, as well as the selection of the topics discussed 
and in the amount of original research which it em- 
bodies. The intention was to produce a work which 
would be of service alike to the international lawyer, 
the diplomatist, and the student of history. For this 
reason not only the legal side of diplomacy, but also its 
practical side had constantly to be kept in view, an out- 
line of all the important congresses and conferences had 


to be included, and the different kinds of international 
compacts had to be treated in some detail. If regarded 
from the legal standpoint there is no difference either 
between congresses and conferences, or between the 
different kinds of international compacts. The former 
are formal meetings of agents of several States for the 
discussion and, if possible, the settlement of matters 
of international interest; the latter are international 
agreements, and their binding force upon the parties is 
the same, whatever be their name. Yet the practice of 
diplomacy would seem to make a distinction between 
congresses and conferences as well as between different 
kinds of international compacts, and an attempt had 
therefore to be made to discover on what grounds these 
distinctions are based. 

As many people believe that in consequence of the 
conduct of the present war the whole of International 
Law is in jeopardy or even has disappeared altogether, 
they will no doubt likewise consider a series of volumes 
on International Law and Diplomacy as out of date. 
Instead of answering this argument myself, I prefer to 
reprint below some lines which were written on August i, 
1889, twenty-five years previous to the outbreak of the 
present war, by the late William Edward Hall, the 
author of the well-known treatise on International 
Law. The lines are to be found in the second part of 
the preface to the third edition of Hall's treatise, and 
are the following 

" Looking back over the last couple of centuries we see 
international law at the close of each fifty years in a more 
solid position than that which it occupied at the beginning of 
the period. Progressively it has taken firmer hold, it has 
extended its sphere of operation, it has ceased to trouble itself 
about trivial formalities, it has more and more dared to 
grapple in detail with the fundamental facts in the relations 
of States. The area within which it reigns beyond dispute 
has in that time been infinitely enlarged, and it has been 
greatly enlarged within the memory of living men. But it 


would be idle to pretend that this progress has gone on with- 
out check. In times when wars have been both long and 
bitter, in moments of revolutionary passion, on occasions 
when temptation and opportunity of selfishness on the part 
of neutrals have been great, men have fallen back into dis- 
regard of law and even into true lawlessness. And it would 
be idle also to pretend that Europe is not now in great likeli- 
hood moving towards a time at which the strength of inter- 
national law will be too hardly tried. Probably in the next 
great war the questions which have accumulated during the 
last half century and more, will all be given their answers 
at once. Some hates moreover will crave for satisfaction ; 
much envy and greed will be at work ; but above all, and at 
the bottom of all, there will be the hard sense of necessity. 
Whole nations will be in the field; the commerce of the 
world may be on the sea to win or lose ; national existences 
will be at stake ; men will be tempted to do anything which 
will shorten hostilities and tend to a decisive issue. Conduct 
in the next great war will certainly be hard ; it is very doubt- 
ful if it will be scrupulous, whether on the part of belligerents 
or neutrals ; and most likely the next war will be great. But 
there can be very little doubt that if the next war is un- 
scrupulously waged, it also will be followed by a reaction 
towards increased stringency of law. In a community, as 
in an individual, passionate excess is followed by a reaction 
of lassitude and to some extent of conscience. On the whole 
the collective seems to exert itself in this way more surely 
than the individual conscience; and in things within the 
scope of international law, conscience, if it works less im- 
pulsively, can at least work more freely than in home affairs. 
Continuing temptation ceases with the war. At any rate 
it is a matter of experience that times, in which international 
law has been seriously disregarded, have been followed by 
periods in which the European conscience has done penance 
by putting itself under straiter obligations than those which 
it before acknowledged. There is no reason to suppose that 
things will be otherwise in the future. I therefore look for- 
ward with much misgiving to the manner in which the next 
great war will be waged, but with no misgiving at all as to 
the character of the rules which will be acknowledged ten 
years after its termination, by comparison with the rules 
now considered to exist." 

L. O. 

January 2, 1917. 


DIPLOMATIC privileges and practices, the classification 
of diplomatic agents, the position of Sovereigns and of 
property owned by them in foreign countries, the frame- 
work of treaties and conventions, ratifications, and other 
subjects treated of in the following chapters, may be 
considered as forming a part of International Law, and 
most treatises on that science deal with them. But it 
was thought that their fuller discussion might be of 
practical utility, not only to members of the services, 
but also to the general public and to writers who occupy 
themselves with international affairs. Hence the origin 
of the present work, believed to be the earliest of its 
kind published in England. 

It has had its forerunners in other languages. Amongst 
them must be mentioned, in the first place, the well- 
known Guide Diplomatique of Charles de Martens, of 
which the latest edition, by F. H. Geffcken, came out in 
1866, and the Cours de Droit Diplomatique of Pradier- 
Fodere, containing lectures delivered by him at the 
University of Lima from 1877 to 1879. Vol. iii of 
Garden's Traite Complet de Diplomatic, published 
anonymously in 1833, includes various documents of 
importance. The Guide Pratique des Agents Politiques 
of Garcia de la Vega (Brussels, 1873), and the Guia Prdc- 
tica del Diplomdtico Espanol, by de Castro y Casaleiz, 
of which a second edition appeared in 1886, are useful 
for Belgian and Spanish practice and documentary 
forms. In German we have vol. ii of Schmelzing's 
Systematischer Grundriss des praktischen Volker-Rechtes, 


1819, Das Europdische Gesandtschaftsrecht, by A. Miruss, 
1847, and Dr. Alt's Handbuch des Europdischen Gesandt- 
schafts-Rechtes (Berlin, 1870). Wicquefort's L'Ambassa- 
deur et ses Fonctions, nouvelle edition, 1730, gives a full 
account of the practice of his day, but much of it is 
now out of date. The same is partly true of Callieres' 
De la Maniere de negocier avec les Souverains, but his 
little essay is a mine of political wisdom. Lastly, J. W. 
Foster's The Practice of Diplomacy as illustrated in the 
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1906, must on no 
account be neglected. From all of these productions 
much information has been derived, and embodied in 
these pages. 

Something must also be said about the plan of the 
present publication. Instead of placing the documents 
from which quotations are made in an appendix, as is 
perhaps more usual, it has been judged better for the 
immediate purpose to cite them in the course of the 
chapter which they are severally intended to illustrate. 
Those who do not care to examine such documents may 
skip them judiciously. 

The second volume, which treats of Congresses and 
Conferences, of Treaties, Conventions, Declarations and 
other forms of international compacts (all equally bind- 
ing on the parties, whether concluded under the authority 
conferred by special full-powers, or merely in virtue of 
the powers inherent in the office held by the negotiators), 
may doubtless be found dull reading by those who do 
not desire to study these subjects in much detail. But 
those who are officially concerned with negotiations need 
to have a thorough knowledge of forms. For this reason 
the accounts of such transactions are given in mere 
outline, the actual substance being generally left out of 
account. Thus the manner of conducting Congresses 
and Conferences, and of framing treaties and the like, 
alone is analysed in the majority of instances. Fuller 
particulars of an historical character are, however, 


offered with regard to Good Offices and Mediation, 
which, though often confounded, require to be carefully 
distinguished from each other. 

On the whole, also, it has been considered preferable 
to quote treaties and other State-papers in the language 
of the originals, instead of attempting translations into 
English, which do not always reproduce with faithful- 
ness the exact thought of the writer. In the earlier part 
of the first volume such endeavours have been made, 
but, it is to be feared, not always to the satisfaction of 
the accurate student. Instead of merely summarizing 
the opinions of text-writers, it has been thought fairer 
in most cases to give their ipsissima verba, where they 
are cited in support of statements advanced on their 
authority. The foreign languages of the various State- 
papers are mainly those with which a diplomatist may 
be expected to have become acquainted in the course 
of his career, and if the general reader is induced by 
curiosity to extend his knowledge of other European 
languages than his own, that will be a result not devoid 
of evident advantage. " Plus on se familiarise avec les 
langues etrangeres, plus disparaissent ces preventions, ces 
haines nationales que la difference des langues ne contribue 
que trop a entretenir." 

Considerable difficulty has been encountered in conse- 
quence of the variation in the spelling of names both of 
persons and places found in authors of diverse nation- 
alities. This is particularly the case with Russian 
names, which are not written uniformly by French, 
German and English writers. The plan followed has 
been to adhere to the orthography which occurs in the 
original quoted from. This may have its inconveniences, 
but it has seemed safer than to aim at one consistent 
transliteration of the Russian alphabet. English teachers 
and professors of the language have not yet agreed upon a 
single method, but are divided between at least two schools, 
one of which would employ an invariable equivalent 



for each letter of that alphabet, regardless of pronun- 
ciation, while the other advocates a phonetic system 
which often would be no guide to the original Russian 

At the end of the second volume will be found lists : 
first, of v/orks quoted, secondly, of treatises on Inter- 
national Law which may be found useful by diplomatists, 
and thirdly, of a selection of works, chiefly historical and 
biographical, which are recommended for perusal. 

Diplomatic incidents which have arisen since the 
actual outbreak of the present war, such as those relating 
to persona non grata, safe-conduct of envoys, or matters 
of privilege, have not been discussed in the following 
pages, for the simple reason that sufficient information 
is not as yet available. 

The preparation of these volumes would have been 
almost impossible but for the ready assistance received 
from former colleagues of the Diplomatic Service and 
Foreign Office and for the loan of books, made especially 
by Mr. E. C. Blech, the Librarian of the Foreign Office, 
and his immediate predecessors in that post. For these 
helps the most sincere gratitude is tendered to all those 
friends. The toil of proof-reading has been shared by 
the writer's brother, Mr. S. A. M. Satow, a Master of the 
Supreme Court of Judicature. 

December 75, 1916. 





i. Definition 2. Derivation and history of the word 
3. Celebrated diplomatists 4. The term includes 
Foreign Office functionaries 5. Critics of diplomacy . i 



6. Exemption from civil and criminal jurisdiction 
7. Foreign sovereign travelling incognito 8. Duke 
of Cumberland 9. President of a republic 10. Real 
property of a sovereign in a foreign state u. Sove- 
reign suing in courts of a foreign state 12. Deposed 
and abdicated sovereigns, and ex-presidents ... 5 



13. Minister for Foreign Affairs, his duties 14. His 
powers 15. In the United States 16. Combined 
with minister-president 17. In England, history of 
the office 18. In other countries 19. Archives 
20. Title of, in different countries .... 8 



21. Precedence of sovereigns as fixed by Pope Julius II 
22. Bull of Leo X 23. Claims to precedence of 
various sovereigns 24. Portugal and England 
25. Suggestion of principle of relative antiquity 
26. French claim to precedence over Spain 27. 
Fracas between Spanish and French ambassadorial 




coaches in London in 1661 28. Dispute between 
French and Russian ambassadors Footnote, State 
entry of Nicolo Tron, London, 1715 29. Czernichew 
and du Chatelet-Lomon 30. Russian and French 
equality established by Peace of Tilsit 31. Pombal's 
attempt to regulate precedence 32. Settlement at 
Vienna in 1815 33. Alternat 34. Dispute between 
France and Sweden in 1631 35. Other cases 36. 
Elaborate arrangements in 1718 37. Reglement at 
Cambray in 1724 38. Arrangement at Teschen in 
1779 39. Expedient sometimes adopted in signature 
of treaties 40. Modern practice 13 


41. The title of " Majesty " 42. Controversy between 
German Emperor and Tsar of Moscow 43. Titles of 
the Pope and other exalted personages 44. Titles of 
Empresses, Queens and others 45. Titles of various 
sovereigns Footnote, " Emperor of Germany," not 
correct 46. Altesse 47. " Erlaucht " 48. Cour- 
tesy titles of sovereigns who have ceased to reign 
49. Titles of republics and presidents 50. 
Designations of certain sovereigns granted by the 
Pope 51. Assumption of a new title 52. By the 
Tsars of Russia Footnotes, Lord Whitworth's speech to 
Peter the Great, and Reversale given to Prussia 
53. Recognition of Peter the Great as Emperor by 
various states 54. Recognition by France and Spain 
55. Dispute in Peter Ill's time 56. Dispute in 
the time of Catherine II 57. Catherine II's declara- 
tion 58. French counter-declaration 59. Russian 
frotest in 1765 against omission of "' imperiale " 
60. Assumption of kingly title by the Elector of 
Brandenburg 61. Ditto by various electors 62. 
Assumption of titles at Vienna in 1815 63. Refusal 
of kingly title to Elector of Hesse-Cassel in 1818 
64. Title of King of Italy 65. Assumption of im- 
perial title by Napoleon III 66. Assumption of. 
kingly title by Balkan sovereigns 67. Grand titre, 
titre may en and petit titre 68. Address of " Monsieur 
mon Frere " 69. Refusal of this form to Louis 
Napoleon by the Emperor of Russia 70. Examples 
of variation 71. Titles of heirs-presumptive 72. 
Precedence among sovereigns no rule exists 73. 
Precedence of princes at Inauguration of Leopold II 
in 1865 74. At Queen Victoria's Jubilee in 1897 
75. Correspondence of sovereigns 76. Coronation 
of sovereigns 77. Exchange of decorations 78. 
Position of an ex-president travelling abroad . . 26 





79. Protocol of November 21, 1818, signed at Aix-la- 
Chapelle 80. Man-of-war with royal personage 
arriving at foreign port 81. Salutes to diplomatic 
officials, English rules 82. National fetes, salutes 
may be fired 83. Visits of men-of-war to foreign 
ports 84. Salutes by H. M. ships to foreign Sove- 
reigns and Presidents 85. Salutes to members of 
foreign royal families 86. Salutes to members of the 
Royal Family 87. Salutes on occasion of foreign 
national fetes 88. Salutes to foreign officials. . . 52 



89. Former use of Latin, French and Spanish 90. 
Language used in treaties 91. Use of the French 
language not to prejudice right of the parties to use 
any other 92. French attempt to impose their 
language on English commissioners in 1753 93. 
Treaties with Turkey 94- Present practice as to 
treaties 95. British regulations as to correspondence 
96. Bismarck's anecdote 97. Forms of diplo- 
matic written communications 98. Despatch to 
agent for communication 99. Canning's refusal to 
hear despatch read, unless copy left with him 100. 
Example of Note in the third person (refusal to ratify) 
101. Recognition of annexation 102. Note Ver- 
bale 103. Memoire, memorial, memorandum or pro- 
memorid 104. Note Collective, example of, and reply 
105. Proposed Note to Spain in 1822 106. Note 
identique 107. Formal parts of a Note 108. Fox 
and Talleyrand correspondence in 1806, forms used 
109. French usage since 1900 no. Belgian usage 
in. Spanish usage 112. English usage 113. 
German usage 114. Lettres de Chancellerie and 
Lettres de Cabinet 115. Spanish Carta de Cancilleria 
116. Lettres de Cabinet 117. United States usage 
1 1 8. Spanish reply to letter of a Spanish-American 
President 58 



119. Credentials, English example 120. Mr. S. J. Reid 
on Lord Durham's credentials to Russia 121. 
French credentials in 1834 122. Letters of recall, 
addressed to a Sovereign 123. Ditto, addressed to 



a President 124. Recredential (Recreance, Recreditif) 
125. From a Republic to a King 126. Full- 
power 127. Exchange of full-powers 128. Lan- 
guage used for full-powers 129. Full-power in Latin 
- 130. Full-power in French 131. Mediation of 
Austrian and Russian plenipotentiaries in 1783 
132. The Emperor's full-power 133. Full-power of 
the King of Spain 134. Latin full-powers of England 
and Holland in 1784 135. Napoleon's full-power to 
General Clarke in 1806 136. Modern examples : 
Belgian 137. Spanish 138. English . . . 100 



139- Callidres on necessary qualities for a diplomatist 
140. Lord Malmesbury's advice to a young man 
destined for the profession 141- Callieres on the 
style of despatches 142. On Gallicisms and other 
vulgar expressions 143. Use of bribery Schmelzing 
and Schmalz on 144. Callieres' story of D. Estevan 
de Gamarra 145. Callieres on seeing things from 
the point of view of the other party 146. Garden on 
unvarnished official reports 147. Duties of a diploma- 
tist to his resident countrymen 148. Passports and 
fees 149. On training the juniors 150. Should 
not have local pecuniary interests 151. Reports of 
official conversations should be verified before they are 
despatched 152. Should not publish writings on 
international politics 153. Use of foreign languages 
154. Reserve in communicating official papers 
155. Palmerston and Jarnac 156. Palmerston and 
the coup d'etat of 1851 157. Caraman, indiscretions 
at Vienna 158. Secret diplomacy 159. Minister 
for foreign affairs should have personal knowledge of 
his agents 160. Diplomatist must protect the dignity 
of his country 161. Difficulty of withdrawal from a 
wrong course publicly announced 162. False economy 
in telegrams 163. Carefulness about conversation at 
table 164. Do not hurry signature of treaties 165. 
Do not rashly say " jamais " 166. Your post is not 
always the centre of policy 167. Telegraphs leave 
no time for reflection ng 



168. Ultimatum 169. Russia to Turkey in 1826 
170. Austria to Piedmont in 1849 171. Palmerston 
in the Don Pacifico case 172. Menschikoff to Turkey 
in 1853 173. Hague Convention No. 3 of 1907 
174. Austria to Servia, 1914 175. Germany and 



France 176. Germany to Russia 177. Germany 
to Belgium 178. Great Britain to Germany 
179. Other uses of the term 180. In the course of 
a negotiation 181. La Chetardie's threat to cease 
all communication 182. Used to describe pre- 
liminary agreement 183. Offer to make peace on 
terms 184. To describe conditions of consent to a 
marriage 185. Thiers' use 186. Peace terms 
formulated by Austria in 1855 187. The Vienna 
note 188. Uti possidetis and Statu quo 189. Ad 
referendum and Sub spe rati 190. Ne varietur 
191. Sine qua non 192. Casus belli and Casus 
fcederis 193. Quos Ego. FRENCH TERMS: 194. 
Demarche 195. Fin de non recevoir 196. Prendre 
Acte and Donner Acte 197. Donner la main 
198. Denoncer 199. National (sb.) and ressortissant 146 





200. Sir Henry Wotton's witticism 201. His advice 
to Milton 202. Izaak Walton's anecdote of Wotton 
203. Various opinions concerning diplomatists, 
by Massinger, Frederick the Great, Lady Mary Wortley 
Montagu, Torci, La Bruyere, Louis XI, E. Ollivier, 
Guizot, Brewer 204. De Martens on diplomatists 
205. Diplomatic agent or public minister 206. His 
duties 168 



[Fr. Droit de legation, ou d'ambassade, actif et passif ; 
Ger. Gesandtschaftsrecht, actives und passives, i. e. the right 
to send and the right to receive diplomatic agents.] 

207. Right of every independent state 208. Semi- 
independent states 209. Who has the right in each 
state 210. Right of a regent 211. Of a monarch 
who is prisoner-of-war 212. In civil war or revolu- 
tion 213. Delegatus non potest delegare 214. 
Right of the Holy See 215. Only one diplomatic 
agent usual 216. In war-time, agent of friendly neu- 
tral protects subjects of other belligerent 217. May 
be accredited to more than one country 218. Deter- 
mination of the class of agent to be sent 219. What 
states may appoint ambassadors 220. Continuous 
residence of agent not a matter of strict right . 175 





221. Methods adopted in various countries 222. Diplo- 
matists' wives 223. British Royal Commission of 
!g I4 224. Qualifications desirable in a diplomatist 
225. Schmelzing's opinion 226. Schmalz's 
opinion 227. Age of diplomatists 228. Callieres 

T Q T 

on age 



229. Right of refusing a diplomatic agent 230. Sub- 
mission of name for approval 231. Instances of re- 
fusal Stratford Canning case 232. Keiley 233. 
Blair 234. United States practice 235. Other 
cases 236. Subject of the State to which he is ac- 
credited 237. Pozzo di Borgo, Count de Bray, Count 
Rossi, Sir Patrick Lawless, Cardinal Hohenlohe 
Wicquefort 238. United States Law Burlingame 
Camacho 188 



239. What he will find there, and take with him 240. 
Passport 241. Instructions Hon. Henry Legge's 
in 1748 242. Delegate to a Congress or Conference 
receives full-powers 243. Former practice of formal 
entry 244. Proceedings on arrival 245. Until 
credentials presented, no formal visits 246. Speech 
on presenting credentials! 247. Segur's audience of 
Catherine the Great 248. Chateaubriand's speech 
to the Conclave 249. Language of the speech 
250. Examples of speeches 251. Examples of a 
Sovereign's reply 252. Speech of Spanish Ambas- 
sador to French President 253. .President's reply 
254. Reception of Ambassador by Head of the 
State 255. Reception of an Envoy 256. Cere- 
mony at Washington 257. Audiences of members 
of reigning family 258. Reception of Envoy where 
there are no ambassadors 259. Ceremonial at the 
Vatican 260. At the court of Russia 261. At the 
Court of Great Britain 262. In Peru . . . 200 





263. Division into classes 264. Derivation of " ambas- 
sador " 265. Legates and Nuncios 266. To 
what capitals appointed 267. Origin of permanent 
diplomatic missions 268. Meaning of envoy e 
269. Of " extraordinary " 270. Internonce and 
internuncius 271. Regulation of Vienna, 1815 
272. Additional regulation of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1818 
273. Precedence in signature 274. Seniority 
275. Agent and Consul-general 276. Their relative 
ran k 277. Representative character of ambassadors 229 



278. Definition 240 



279. Inviolability 280. Couriers 281. Case of Gyllen- 
borg and Gortz 282. Cellamare 283. Bruneau 
284. Independence 285. Immunity from local 
criminal jurisdiction 286. Case of Pantaleon de Sa 
287. Case of Italian secretary who committed 
suicide in London 288. Immunity from local civil 
jurisdiction 289. Exceptions 290. Statute of 
7 Anne, c. 12 191. Practice in other countries 
292. Case of the Baron de Wrech 293. Berlin 
house-owner against United States Minister in 1839 
294. Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin 
295. Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate 
296. Taylor v. Best 297. Immunities of wife and 
children, members of the mission and servants 
298. Case of Carlos Waddington 299. Tchitcherine 
300. Errembault de Dudzele 301. Jurisdiction 
of the agent over members of the suite 302. 
Marriages in a diplomatic house 303. Early at- 
tempts to exercise criminal jurisdiction Sully's case 
304. Wartensleben 305. Lucien Bonaparte 
306. Distinction between offences committed within 
and without envoy's residence 307. Case of Sun 
Yat Sen 308. Evidence of diplomatic agent, mode 
of obtaining 309. Case of refusal by Netherlands 
minister 310. United States service regulation 
311. Opinions of text-writers 242 





312. Summary 313. Exemption from Customs duties, 
Callieres on 314. Bismarck on 315. On the agent's 
arrival at his post, and other taxes 316. Russian 
practice 317- In Great Britain 318. Spain 
319. France, and other countries 320. Exemption 
from billeting of soldiers 321. Legation building not 
exempt from property tax 322. Parochial rates in 
Great Britain 323. United States, conditions of reci- 
procity 324. Octroi, reciprocity not always possible 
325. Rights of the members of the mission . . .274 



326. Cannot be entered by local authority 327. Case 
of Mickilchenkoff 328. Admiral Apodaca's servant 
3 2 9- Gallatin's coachman 330. Right of Asylum, 
Ullmann on 331. Hall's opinion 332. In South- 
American republics 333. Pradier-Fodere's view 
334. Convention between certain South-American 
States 335. Practice of other Powers Balmaceda 
case 336. French ambassador at Venice in 1540 
337- French ambassador at Copenhagen in 1702 
338- Case of Ripperda 339. Springer's case 
340. Franchise du Quartier 341. French case at 
Rome in 1660, Due de Crequi 342. French case at 
Madrid in 1680 343. Renunciation of the right by 
various Powers 344. French case at Rome in 1687 
345. At Genoa in 1759 346. Domicile of diplomatic 
agent 282 




347. Chapel within the Agent's Residence . . . .314 




348. When passing through in time of peace 349. 
Diplomatic agents accredited to the Holy See 
350. Case of Rincon and Fregoso in 1541 351. 
Maret and Semonville in 1793 352. Soule in 1854 
353- Venezuelan envoy to France, served with pro- 
cess at New York 354. Action against same envoy 
commenced in London 355. When passing through 



enemy territory 356. Case of Marechal Belleisle 
357. Holdernesse case 358. When the agent is 
accredited to a state at war with the state he is 
traversing. Case of Marquis de Bonnac 359. 
Agent's situation with regard to other states 360. 
Case of Marquis de Monti 361. Van Hoey's case 
362. Agent accredited to a belligerent, in territory 
invaded by the other belligerent 363. Case of Count 
de Broglie 364. Agent in invaded territory, privi- 
leges may be restricted 365. Diplomatists in Paris 
during the siege 366. Mr. Washburne's position 
367. Canning's view in 1823 ... 3 1 ? 



368. Its constitution 369. The doyen and his functions 
370. The doyenne 371. Precedence among heads 
of missions 372. Russian re'glement regarding pre- 
cedence 373. Precedence of Diplomatic Body in 
different countries 374. Precedence not altered by 
reason of new credentials on death of sovereign 
375- Councillor of Embassy with rank of Minister 
plenipotentiary 376. Charge d'Affaires en litre and 
ad interim distinguished 377. In doubtful cases, 
the Court Regulations are decisive 378. Obsolete 
ancient rules regarding the first visit 379. Case of 
Cardinal Savelli in 1647 380. Negotiators without 
official character 381. Boundary and other commis- 
sioners 382. Wives of diplomatists, their privileges, 
etc. 383. " Giving the hand " (la main, die Ober- 
hand) 384. Intercourse of diplomatic agents of 
belligerents at a neutral court 385. Instructions to 
Hautefort in 1750 386. Precedence at personal 
meetings 387. In signing treaties, etc. 388. In 
a diplomatic house 389. Title of " Excellency " 
390. English practice 391. Callieres on this subject 

392. Envoys and ministers not strictly speaking 
entitled 393. Spanish practice 394. Peruvian rules 
395- Dispute in 1737 between France and Portugal 

396. Decorations and presents 397. Queen 
Elizabeth's objections 398. English rules in Queen 
Victoria's reign 399. Relaxed in 1911, and rules of 
1914 400. French, Belgian and Spanish rules 
401. Agreement between Denmark and Sweden and 
Norway 402. United States rule 403. English lule 
of 1834 as to presents, and earlier practice 404. 
Foreign instances 405. Presents distributed at Con- 
gress of Vienna 406. At the Congress of Teschen 
407. Place of honour at Court festivities 408. 
Absence from Court festivities 409. Visits to col- 
leagues on fete-days 339 





410. Termination in general, and its various causes 
411. Persona non grata; cases 412. Genest 
413. Gouverneur Morris 414. Pinckney 415. 
Jackson 416. Poinsett 417. Jewett 418. Segur 
419. Catacazy 420. Dupuy de Lome 421. Casa 
Yrujo 422. Wise 423. Bulwer 424. Poussin 
425. Marcoleta 426. Crampton 427. Russell 
428. Sackville 429. Mendoza 430. Aubespine 
431. Inojosa and Coloma 432. Le Bas 433. 
Bestoujew-Rioumine 434. Palm 435. Rasou- 
moffsky 436. Casa F16rez 437. Dismissal of 
French and Belgian agents by Venezuela in 1895 
438. General observations 365 






Page 13, line 4 from bottom, read Brittany for Britanny. 
Page 15, last line, read Affonso/or Alfonso. 
Page 22, line 21, read consentit /or consentit. 
Page 27, line 12, read in Prussia for of Prussia. 
Page 32, line 12, read F. de Martens, vol. i.forG. F. de Martens. 
Page 78, last line but one, read grands for gran. 
Page 335, line 8, read toutesfor toute. 
Page 390, line 9, read 1584 for 1654. 
Page 390, line 12 is not a part of the quotation. 
Page 391, line 10 from bottom, read Throkmortons for Throck- 

Page 391, footnote 3 , read 264 for 263. 

Page 393, footnote 1 , read 337 and 338 for 263. 

it sysieme entier des mterets qui naissent 
des rapports etablis entre les nations : elle a pour objet leur 
surete, leur tranquillite, leur dignite respectives ; et son but 
direct, immediat, est, ou doit etre au moms, le maintien de 
la paix et de la bonne harmonic entre les puissances" (same 
author) . 

VOL. I. B 





4IO Termination in general, and ._?*> 
4 s'/H P^ona non grata, cases ^ 4 

! IS! Gonverneur M^fVlxV Jewett-- 418- 
S Jackson- 416- Pol ff 2 %^ 4 puy deL6me-42i. 
Ls 419. Catacazy f ;J W er-- 424- Poussm 





i. Definitions 2. Derivation and history of the word 
3. Celebrated diplomatists 4. The term includes Foreign 
Office functionaries 5. Critics of diplomacy. 

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 depuis 
un certain nombre d'annees, la science des rapports exterieurs, 
laquelle a pour base les dipldmes ou actes ecrits emane's des sou- 
verains" (Flassan). " La science des relations exteYieures ou 
affaires etrangeres des Etats, et, dans un sens plus determine, 
la science ou 1'art des negociations " (Ch. de Martens). " La 
science des rapports et des interets respectifs 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 negociations ; elle a pour 
etymologic le mot grec SiVAoyia, duplicata, double ou copie 
d'un acte emane du prince, et dont la minute est restee " 

" 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, immediat, est, ou doit etre au moins, le maintien de 
la paix et de la bonne harmonic entre les puissances" (same 

VOL. i. B 


L'ensemble des connaissances et des principes qui sont 
necessaires pour bien conduire les affairs publiques entre les 
etats " (de Cussy, Dictionnaire du Diplomate et du Consul). 

" La science des relations qui existent entre les divers 
Etats, telles qu'elles resultent 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 ' 1'ensemble des connais- 
sances et principes necessaires pour bien conduire les affaires 
publiques entre les Etats.' La diplomatie eveille en effet 
1'idee de gestion des affaires Internationales, de maniement 
des rapports exterieurs, d'administration des interets nation- 
aux 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 mundlichen oder schriftlichen Verhandelungen mit 
fremden Staaten gehorigen Grundsatze, Maximen, Fertig- 
keiten und Formen " (Schmelzing, Systematischer Grundnss 
des Volkerr edits). 

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

ist. La science et 1'art de la representation des Etats et 
des negociations. 

2nd. On emploie le meme mot . . . pour exprimer une 
notion complexe, comprenant soit 1'ensemble de la representa- 
tion 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 nierite de la diplomatie frangaise a certaines 
epoques, de la diplomatie russe, autrichienne. 

3rd. Enfin, on entend encore par diplomatie la carriere ou 
profession de diplomate. On se voue a la diplomatie, comme 
on se voue a la magistrature, au barreau, a 1'enseignement, 
aux armes. 1 

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 
diTiAcojua (dinhow, to double) from the way in which 
they were folded. A diploma is understood to be a 

1 Principes du droit des gens. Paris, 1896, vol. ii. 432. (The 
author was a Swiss consul-general, and professor at Brussels.) 


document by which a 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 
Diplomaticus , Dumont in 1726 the Corps universel 
Diplomatique du Droit des Gens. Both were collec- 
tions 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 
' diplomatique " as " having to do with international 
relations." Hence the application also to the officials 
connected with such matters. Diplomatic body 1 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 negotiations. The terms diplomat, diplo- 
mate, 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 inter- 
course of any kind (New English Dictionary). La diplo- 
matique is used in French for the art of deciphering 
ancient documents, such as charters and so forth. 

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, 


3. The words, then, are comparatively modern, but 
diplomatists existed long before the words were em- 
ployed to denote the class. Machiavelli (1469-1527) is 
perhaps the most celebrated of men who discharged 
diplomatic functions in early days. D'Ossat (1536-1604), 
Kaunitz (1710-1794), Metternich (1773-1859), Pozzo di 
Borgo (1764-1842), the first Lord Malmesbury (1764- 
1820), Talleyrand (1754-1838), Lord Stratford de Red- 
cliffe (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 " ought, however, to be understood 
as including all the public servants employed in diplo- 
matic affairs, whether serving at home in the department 
of foreign affairs, or abroad at embassies, legations or 
diplomatic agencies. Strictly speaking, the head of the 
foreign department ^s also a diplomatist, as regards his 
function of responsible statesman conducting the relations 
of his country with other states. This he does by dis- 
cussion with their official representatives or by issuing 
instructions to his agents in foreign countries. Sometimes 
he is a diplomatist by training and profession, at others he 
is merely a political personage, who may or may not be 
possessed of special knowledge fitting him for the post. 

5. When we speak of the " diplomacy " of a country 
as 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 ignor- 
ance of the organization of public business. The proper 
person to blame is the Secretary of State, or Minister for 
Foreign Affairs. Sometimes, in autocratic governments, 
the responsibility lies on the sovereign. 



6. Exemption from civil and criminal jurisdiction 7. Foreign 
sovereign travelling incognito 8. Duke of Cumberland 
9. President of a republic 10. Real property of a 
sovereign in a foreign state n. Sovereign suing in courts 
of a foreign state 12. Deposed and abdicated sovereigns, 
and ex-presidents. 

6. A SOVEREIGN * within the territory of a foreign 
sovereign, so long as he is there in his capacity of sovereign, 
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. The movables he carries with him are also 
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 any jurisdiction 
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 native of the country 
who takes refuge with him, but must surrender him on 
demand. He must not ignore administrative regulations 

1 Hall, 168; UUman, 158. 2 Phillimore, ii 123. 



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 
territories 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 holds 
good if he enters the service of another sovereign; he 
can only recover his rights by resigning the service in 
which he is engaged. 

8. The case of the Duke of Cumberland, who was a 
peer of the realm in great Britain, and King of Hanover, 
seems peculiar. It is conceived that if he had come to 
England as Duke, he could only become entitled to be 
treated as a sovereign in England by returning to Han- 
over and coming again in his capacity of King. He could 
not, we think, put on and lay down either title at his 
simple will and pleasure. 

9. Nothing seems to have been decided as to the 
position of the President of a Republic, when in the terri- 
tories of another State. It cannot, however, be doubted 
that no Head of a Republic would expose himself to the 
risk of being refused the immunities accorded to a sove- 
reign, and that on the rare occasions when a president 
visits a foreign State he either expects to receive, or has 
been promised beforehand, treatment in all respects the 
same as that of a sovereign. 

10. If a sovereign privately owns real property in a 
foreign state, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the local 
tribunals. Hall holds, 1 with justice in our opinion, that 
this applies also to personalty, not coming within the 
categories previously mentioned, owTied in a foreign state. 
This seems also to be Ullmann's 2 view. Execution of a 
judgment in respect of contract or tort might in practice 
encounter difficulties. The practice of the English courts, 
1 170. 2 159 and footnote. 


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. 1 

ii. If he appeals in a civil matter to the courts of a 
foreign State, he must submit to cross-proceedings being 
taken against him, 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. 2 

12. A sovereign who has been lawfully deposed by 
his people, or who has abdicated, and whose deposition 
or abdication has been recognized 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 accorded 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. 3 

1 Phillimore, ii. 125-6. 2 Ibid., ii. 132. 3 Ibid., ii. 131. 



13. Minister for Foreign Affairs, his duties 14. His powers 
15. In the United States 16. Combined with minister- 
president 17. In England, history of the office 18. 
In other countries 19. Archives 20. Title of, in different 

13. THE Minister for Foreign Affairs is the regular 
intermediary between the state and foreign countries. 
His functions are regulated by domestic legislation and 
traditions. Art. II. Sect. 2. 2 of the Constitution of the 
United States declares that " The President shall nomi- 
nate and, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers 
and consuls." In the Argentine Republic the President 
appoints envoys with the consent of the senate. 

Foreign governments address themselves to the Minister 
for Foreign Affairs either through their own diplomatic 
agents or through the diplomatic agent who represents 
his sovereign or government at the capital of the 
foreign Power. He signs the Notes and other com- 
munications concerning relations with other countries. 
Under his orders are drawn up documents connected 
with foreign relations, drafts of treaties and conventions, 
statements of fact and law, manifestoes, declarations 
of war. He proposes to the Head of the State the 
nomination of diplomatic agents, he draws up their 
credentials and full powers, and gives them their in- 
structions. He also advises the Head of the State as 
to the acceptance of persons who have been proposed 
to be accredited to him. He issues the exequaturs of 



foreign consular officers. The consular service receives 
its orders from him. On taking office, he informs the 
diplomatic agents of foreign states, as well as the agents 
of his own country accredited abroad. Foreign repre- 
sentatives address themselves to him in order to obtain 
an audience of the Head of the State. 1 

14. The powers of the Minister for Foreign Affairs vary 
according to the political organization of different states. 
In Great Britain, for example, it is the custom to submit 
to the sovereign drafts of all the most important instruc- 
tions addressed to the diplomatic agents abroad, to 
furnish to him printed copies of reports from the agents 
in other countries as well as Notes presented by foreign 
diplomatic agents in London. The negotiation of treaties 
rests with the Minister, and he watches over their execu- 
tion. The ratifications of treaties are exchanged by him 
or his agents, without submission to the legislature, except 
when money clauses form part of the instrument, for 
which provision must be made by Parliament. Neither 
the sovereign nor Parliament can give orders directly to 
the diplomatic agents. 

15. In the United States the Minister for Foreign 
Affairs, who is entitled " the Secretary of State," is also 
keeper of the seals. But the authority of the President 
predominates in foreign affairs (as in all other matters). 

16. In some countries the functions of Foreign 
Secretary are combined with those of Minister-President 
of the Cabinet. 2 

17. The earliest mention in England of a secretary to 
the sovereign occurs in 1253, and a second appears to 
have been appointed in 1433, from which appointment 
arose the term Principal, Chief, or First Secretary. In 
1539 the office of King's principal secretary was divided 
between two persons having equal rank and similar 
duties, and their functions extended over what were called 
the Northern and Southern Departments respectively. 

1 Cf. Rivier, i. 426, cited in Nys, ii. 332. 2 Ullmann, 161. 


The former included the Low Countries, Germany, 
Denmark, Sweden, Poland and Russia; the latter com- 
prised France, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal and 
Turkey. The title Principal Secretary of State first 
occurs in 1601. In 1708 a third Secretary of State was 
appointed for Scotland, in consequence of the union of 
the two kingdoms, but this office ceased to exist in 1746. 
There were two separate offices, an arrangement which 
caused much inconvenience. A third secretary was 
appointed again in 1768, " for the colonies," but was abol- 
ished in 1782. The terms Northern and Southern, though 
apparently connected in some manner with the division 
between the two offices of business relating to northern 
and southern Europe respectively, must not be under- 
stood as excluding other business. These Secretaries of 
State also superintended affairs relating to Ireland and 
the Colonies, as well as Home Affairs. In 1782 the 
terms Northern and Southern were dropped, and the 
duties divided between the Home and Foreign Depart- 
ments, the affairs of Ireland and the colonies devolving 
on the former. Since 1782, therefore, the Secretaryship 
of State for Foreign Affairs has always been entrusted 
to a single person. In 1794, a Principal Secretary of 
State for War was appointed, and the business of the 
colonies was transferred to him. In 1854, a separate 
secretary for the colonies was created, and finally, in 
1858, a Secretary of State for India. 1 The office of 
Secretary for Scotland was created in 1885, but the 
holder of it is not a Secretary of State. 

When Pitt became Secretary of State, in 1761, the 
Southern department included English and Irish affairs, 
India, the Colonies and the Board of Trade. Naval 
affairs were managed by the Board of Admiralty, Finance 
by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor 
of the Exchequer. 3 

18. It was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that 
1 Hertslet, 2 Ruville, ii. 72. 


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 Henri II, 
the department of Secretaries of State was founded. 
There were four 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) Germany and Switzerland. 
In 1589 a single ministry for foreign affairs was formed, 
and all foreign correspondence was committed 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 

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

19. In most countries special care has been devoted 
to the preservation of public documents. At Rome there 
are the Vatican archives, now thrown open to students. 
Philip Augustus is said to have started the French col- 
lection of archives. In more ancient times public docu- 
ments were kept at the aQ%eiov, whence our modern 
word. In England, from the fourteenth century, papers 

1 Masson, F., 56. 


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 Office. It appears that in 
former times, before the formation of a regular diplomatic 
service of the Crown, it was the habit of English ambas- 
sadors and other diplomatic agents to appropriate the 
despatches they had received and the drafts of those 
they had sent during their term of office, so that in the 
Public Record Office there will be found only the original 
despatches received from abroad, and the drafts of those 
sent out. The originals of many treaties, with the full- 
powers of the negotiators and the instruments of 
ratification will also be found there. Spain possesses in 
the archives of Simancas, founded by Charles V, a 
collection of public documents of immense interest and 
historical value. In France, Austria, Germany, Russia 
and Holland similar establishments exist. 

20. In Germany the Chancellor of the Empire is also 
head of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The Secretary 
of State for Foreign Affairs ranks last among the pleni- 
potentiaries to the Federal Council. 

In the United States the title is The Secretary of State 
(see 15). 

In Austria-Hungary, the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
is also Minister of the Imperial and Royal Household. 

The Spanish title is Ministro de Estado. 

In France it is Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres. 

In Great Britain the title is Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs. 

Italy, Ministro degli Affari esteri. 

Japan, Gai-mu Dai- j in = Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

Russia has a Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres. 

In Turkey his Highness the Grand Vizier is Minister 
for Foreign Affairs, and there is a Secretary of State for 
that department in addition. 



21. Precedence of sovereigns as fixed by Pope Julius II 
22. Bull of Leo X 23. Claims to precedence of various 
sovereigns 24. Portugal and England 25. Suggestion 
of principle of relative antiquity 26. French claim to 
precedence over Spain 27. Fracas between Spanish and 
French ambassadorial coaches in London in 1661 28. 
Dispute between French and Russian ambassadors Footnote, 
State entry of Nicolo Tron, London, 1715 29. Czerni- 
chew and du Chatelet-Lomon 30. Russian and French 
equality established by Peace of Tilsit 31. Pombal's 
attempt to regulate precedence 32. Settlement at Vienna 
in 1815 33. Alternat 34. Dispute between France and 
Sweden in 1631 35. Other cases 36. Elaborate arrange- 
ments in 1718 37. Reglement at Cambray in 1724 38. 
Arrangement at Teschen in 1779 39. Expedient sometimes 
adopted in signature of treaties 40. Modern practice. 

21. THE Pope in early times claimed the right of 
fixing the order of precedence among the heads of states, 
and in 1504 Julius II promulgated the following list. 
The precedence of the Pope above all other potentates 
was assumed as a matter of course. After him the order 
was: i. The German Emperor; 2. the King of the 
Romans; 3. King of France ; 4. King of Spain; 5. King 
of Aragon; 6. King of Portugal; 7. King of England; 
8. King of Sicily; 9. King of Scotland; 10. King of 
Hungary; n. King of Navarre; 12. King of Cyprus; 
13. King of Bohemia; 14. King of Poland; 15. King 
of Denmark; 16. Republic of Venice; 17. Swiss Con- 
federation; 18. Duke of Britanny; 19. Duke of Bur- 
gundy; 20. Elector Palatine; 21. Elector of Saxony; 
22. Elector of Brandenburg; 23. Archduke of Austria; 
24. Duke of Savoy ; 25. Grand-duke of Florence ; 26. Duke 



of Milan ; 27. Duke of Bavaria ; 28. Duke of Lorraine. 1 
Neither the rulers of Russia nor Sweden were included, 
the former not being then counted among European 
sovereigns, while the latter state was not yet completely 
emancipated from the domination of Denmark. 2 

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

" Christianissimo in Christo films noster, Maximilianus, in 
imperatorem electus, Julii papae II praedecessoris nostri, 
nostro vero tempore, clarissimae memoriae, Ludovicus Fran- 
corum, et ceteri reges et principes Christiani. . . . Laterensi 
concilio adhaeserunt." 3 

23. The regulation of Julius II, however, was not 
observed, any more than those of other Popes. Gustavus 
Adolphus asserted the equality of all crowned heads, 
Queen Christina maintained it at the Congress of West- 
phalia, and in 1718 England claimed it on the occasion 
of the Quadruple Alliance between the King of England 
Elector of Hanover, the Emperor, the King of France 
and the States-General. 4 It will be observed that whereas, 
in the preamble of the text printed by Jenkinson, the 
King of England is named first, yet in the articles which 
follow, where some act is stipulated to be performed by 
the Emperor and other high contracting parties, the 
Emperor takes precedence. It will be noted, moreover, 
that, even if there had been a disposition to observe the 
order set forth by Pope Julius II, the number would have 
been considerably diminished, in the course of time, in 
consequence of the accumulation of some of the crowns 
named on the heads of single sovereigns. 

24. The list places the King of Portugal before the 

1 Pradier-Fode"re, i. 87. 

2 Queen Margaret of Denmark and Norway was elected Queen 
of Sweden in 1389, and the union of the three crowns was con- 
firmed in 1397 by the Treaty of Calmas. In 1523 Gustavus Wasa 
delivered Sweden from the Danish yoke, 

3 De Maulde-la-Claviere, 2nd pt., i. 65. 

4 Jenkinson, ii. 199. 


King of England, and hence it may be presumed that 
a dispute arose between the two crowns. Of this we 
find a trace in the Quadruple Alliance of May 16, 1703, 
when the plenipotentiaries of these two Powers signed 
separate originals of the instrument, vitandce controversies 
causa qucB est de loci pr&rogativa inter Coronas Britan- 
nicam et Lusitanam, pro more consuetudineque inter 
utramque coronam observata. 1 It seems that Portugal 
claimed at least equality with England. In 1763, the 
King of Portugal acceded to the peace of Paris, concluded 
between Great Britain, France and Spain; on that occa- 
sion, in order not to delay the conclusion of the treaty, 
the Portuguese claim to " alternate " with Great Britain 
and France was conceded, but the Portuguese ambas- 
sador had to sign an undertaking that this complaisance 
on the part of those Powers was not to be made a pre- 
cedent for the future. 2 

25. It has also been suggested that a proper principle 
to be adopted in establishing relative rank among crowned 
heads is the comparative antiquity of the royal title. 
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 1805, the following would 
be the order of the others 3 

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). 

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 Goths). 

Portugal (Alfonso I, in 1139). 

1 Lamberty, 2nd edit., ii. 501. 2 Jenkinson, iii. 201. 

3 Garcia de la Vega, 1873, 525. 


Prussia (kingdom, January u, 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, 1856). 

26. In 1564, Pius IV declared that France was en- 
titled to precedence over Spain, in a question respecting 
the relative rank of the ambassadors of the two Powers 
at Rome. 1 Philip II was deeply offended by this decision. 
The point was not finally settled until nearly a century 
later. In i633, 2 Christian IV of Denmark having pro- 
posed to celebrate the wedding of his son, the Crown 
prince, a dispute arose between the French and Spanish 
ambassadors, the Comte d'Avaux and Don Gasparo de 
Teves y Guzman, 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." His rival, having heard that d'Avaux 
was determined to assert precedence over him, no matter 
where, spread abroad a report that he had been recalled 
by the King his master, on account of urgent business, 

1 Flassan, ii. 66; Prescott, Philip II (edit, of 1855), 233, says 
it was Pius V. 
z Flassan, iii. 13. 


which did not admit of his remaining until the day of the 
wedding. He then went to take leave of the King, and 
paid a farewell visit to d'Avaux, without showing any 
signs of temper, and took ship for his own country. 

In 1657 a contest of the same kind occurred between 
de Thou, special ambassador to the Hague, and the 
Spanish ambassador Gamarra. 1 

27. A more serious affair happened in London on 
September 30, 1661, 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 some of his gentlemen inside, and a train of about 
forty armed servants. The coach of the French ambas- 
sador, Comte d'Estrades, with a royal coach for the 
accommodation 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 Frenchmen 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. 2 Louis XIV, on learning of 
this incident, ordered the Spanish ambassador to quit 
the kingdom, and sent instructions to his own repre- 

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

2 Evelyn's report to Charles II, printed in H. B. Wheatley's 
edition of the Diary of John Evelyn, ii. 486. This is a better 
statement of the facts than that given in Pepys's Diary under the 
date of September 30, 1661. The other accounts, which suggest 
that the two ambassadors were present, are manifestly incorrect. 

VOL. I. C 


sentative 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 
prohibited all his ambassadors from engaging in rivalry 
in the matter of precedence with those of the Most 
Christian King. The question was finally disposed of 
by the " Pacte de Famille " of August 15, 1761, in Article 
XXVII of 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. 1 

28. Similar rivalry occasionally manifested itself be- 
tween the Russian and French ambassadors. The latter 
had instructions to maintain their rank in the diplo- 
matic circle by all possible means, and to yield the pas 
to the papal and imperial ministers alone. On the 

1 Flassan, vi. 314. The custom of sending a coach to form 
part of the procession in honour of a newly arrived ambassador is 
frequently mentioned in the Original Letters of H.E. Sir Rd. 
Fanshaw, 203, 233, 346. 

In the Nozze Busnelli-Ballarin there is an interesting account 
of the public entry into London of the Venetian ambassador, 
Nicolo Tron, on August 27, 1715. Leaving his house at nine 
o'clock in the morning, 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 by 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 


other hand, Russia had not ordered hers to claim pre- 
cedence over the French ambassador, but simply not to 
concede it to him. However, the French ultimately 
obtained the first place on all solemn occasions. 1 

29. At a court ball in London, in the winter of 1768, 
the Russian ambassador, I wan Czernichew, arriving first, 
took his place immediately next to the Count von Seilern, 
ambassador of the Emperor, who was on the first of two 
benches arranged in the diplomatic box. The French 
ambassador, Comte du Chatelet-Lomon, 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. 2 Flassan offers the 
opinion that he was in the wrong, as Catherine II, in 
her declaration of 1762 to the diplomatic corps respecting 
her title to be addressed as Imperial Majesty, had said 
that it " n'apportera aucun changement au ceremoniel 
usite entre les cours, lequel restera sur le meme pied." 
Somewhat later, at Vienna in 1784, the French ambas- 
sador, M. de Noailles, informed Prince Kaunitz that he 
would not appear at court until he received instructions 
how he was to comport himself towards the Russian 
ambassador. The Viennese court appeared inclined to 
adopt the pele-mele, or confusion of ranks, at public 

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 ambassador'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 other foreign 
ambassadors did not send their coaches on this occasion. 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. It appears that the King's 
reply to the ambassador was read in French by the Master of the 

1 Flassan, vii. 26. z Ibid., vii. 376. 


ceremonies. It was asserted that Russian ministers had 
orders never to quit a place they had once occupied. 

30. It was only at the Treaty of Tilsit, in 1807, that 
Russia attained complete equality with France. Article 
28 runs 

" Le ceremonial des deux Cours de St. Petersburg et des 
Thuilleries entr'elles et a 1'egard des ambassadeurs, minis- 
tres et envoyes qu'elles accrediteront Tune pres de 1'autre, 
sera etabli sur le principe d'une reciprocity et d'une e"galite 
parfaites." l 

31. Pombal, the celebrated Prime Minister of 
Portugal, in 1760, in order to revenge himself on the 
French ambassador Comte de Merle, whom he had tried 
in vain to get recalled, devised a scheme for upsetting 
the established order among crowned heads, and the 
relative rank of ambassadors dependent on it. On the 
occasion of the marriage of the Princess of Brazil he 
caused a circular to be addressed to the foreign representa- 
tives, announcing the ceremony, and acquainting them 
that ambassadors at the court of Lisbon would thence- 
forth rank, when paying visits and having audiences 
granted to them, according to the date of their credentials. 
Pombal excepted the papal nuncio and the imperial 
ambassador, and the new regulation was to apply only 
to those of France, England, Spain, etc., so that an 
ambassador of the Netherlands, or even of the republic 
of Venice, would rank before the French ambassador if 
his credentials were older. Merle replied that he regarded 
his right to take precedence of Lord Knowles, who had 
arrived at Lisbon later than himself, not as the conse- 
quence of the priority of his credentials, but as essen- 
tially inherent in the dignity of the sovereign whom he 
represented. Choiseul, the French Minister for Foreign 
Affairs, when the matter was referred to him, maintained 
that " the King would not give up the recognized rank 
due to his crown, and his Majesty did not think that the 

1 F. de Martens, xiii. 319. 


date of credentials could in any case or under any pretext 
weaken the rights attaching to the dignity of France." 
He added, in replying to representations made by the 
Portuguese minister at Paris, 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 recognizes 
powers of legislation in the person of other sovereigns. 
All Powers are bound to each other to do nothing con- 
trary 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 pre- 
text, 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 deserved 
contempt, and suggested consulting with the court of 
Spain in order to destroy the ridiculous pretension of the 
Portuguese minister. 1 

32. Pombal's proposal consequently failed to suc- 
ceed, and the question slept until 1814. 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 notifica- 
tion of their arrival. And in order to do away with the 
last relic of the old opinions that some crowned heads 

1 Flassan, vi. 183. 


ranked higher than others, they also decided that : " Dans 
les actes ou traites entre plusieurs puissances qui admet- 
tent 1'alternat, le sort decidera, entre les ministres, de 
1'ordre qui devra 6tre suivi dans les signatures." * 2 

33. 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 plenipotentiaries 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. 

34. In drawing up the treaty of January 13, 1631, 
between Gustavus Adolphus and Louis XIII, the name 
of the latter had been placed first in both originals. The 
Swedish plenipotentiaries protested, and quoted the 
treaty of 1542 between Francis I and Gustavus Wasa, 
who had treated with the King of France on a footing of 
equality. The French negotiator Charnace refused to 
admit the Swedish claim, whereupon Gustavus Adolphus 
wrote to Louis XIII, " qu'il ne pouvait pas s'imaginer que 
sa majeste ne consentit a lui accorder son amitie qu'aux 
depens d'un honneur qu'il ne tenait que du ciel," and the 
matter was arranged in accordance with his wishes. 

35. England and France established the alternat 
between themselves in 1546,3 but Charles IX refused to 
concede it to Queen Elizabeth in the Treaty of Blois of 
April 18, 1572. Henri IV observed it in 1596 when he 
contracted an alliance with her. 4 France did not, how- 
ever, claim it in treaties with the Emperor, but where the 
latter concluded a compact otherwise than in his character 

1 It has been pointed out below, p. 237, that though the 
reglement states that the order of signature shall be decided by 
lot, the signatures appended to that very 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. 

s de Martens-Geffcken, ii. 134 n. * Pradier-Fodere, i. 108. 


of Emperor, e. g. on the occasion of the marriage of Marie- 
Antoinette with the dauphin, afterwards Louis XVI, 
the alternat was conceded, because her mother contracted 
as Queen of Bohemia. The kings of France constantly 
refused it to the courts of Berlin, Lisbon and Turin up to 
the end of the reign of Louis XVI. 1 The Emperor still 
withheld it from Russia during the reign of Joseph II. 2 

36. When the accession of Philip V to the Quad- 
ruple Alliance of 1718 was recorded at the Hague, twelve 
copies of the protocol were signed, six for the Emperor, 
two each for Spain, France and England. The Emperor's 
plenipotentiary 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 recognized, 
the other three Powers admitted the alternat among 

37. At the Congress of Cambray, in a reglement 
adopted April 24, 1724, for the purpose of avoiding all 
delay in the signature of the expected treaties (which, 
however, were never concluded), it was provided that 
as many originals should be prepared as would be needed 
by the Powers, who should sign alternatively, but the 
Emperor's ambassadors were to sign first in all of them, 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 1873 edit 253. * Holtzendorf, iii. 637, 


and those of the other Powers in the order previously 
adopted at the Hague. 1 

38. In 1779, at the Treaty of Teschen, the alternat 
was observed between the French and Russian courts. 2 
Though the regulation of Vienna speaks only of its applic- 
ability to the case of treaties between several Powers, 
the rule is also observed in treaties between two parties 
only. At Hubertusburg, in 1763, Collenbach, the 
Austrian negotiator, claimed that precedence should be 
given to the Empress Maria-Theresa in the Prussian as 
well as in the Austrian copy of the treaty. Herzberg, the 
Prussian plenipotentiary, objected, but on referring the 
point to Frederick the Great, he was instructed not to 
weary his master with letters on trifles of secondary 
importance, and was told by the minister Finckenstein 
to adhere to the practice observed in previous treaties, 
i. e. concede precedence to the Empress. 3 

39. It was doubtless in order 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, 4 and in other instances 
quoted below. 5 Kliiber (Aden des Wiener Congresses, Bd. 
vi. 207) 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. At Teschen, the Elector 
Palatine refused to accord the alternat to the Elector of 
Saxony. The difficulty was avoided by stating in the 
preamble of the convention concluded between them 
that : " Les Serenissimes Parties Contractantes pour la 

1 Rousset, t. 3 (c), 418. 

2 de Martens-Geffcken, ii. 133 n. 
8 Schafer, iii. 68 1. 

4 The text of this treaty shows that the intention of the draughts- 
man was that each copy should be signed by both parties. 

6 Treaty of Portugal with the Grand Alliance of 1703, Treaty 
of Belgrade, etc. 


succession allodiale du dernier Electeur de Baviere e"tant 
convenues, etc., par les soins et sous la garantie des hautes 
Puissances Mediatrices, de mgrne que sous celles des hautes 
Puissances Contractantes du traite de paix de ce jour, 
ont pourvu a cet effet des pleins-pouvoirs necessaires leurs 
Plenipotentiaries au Congres de Teschen, lesquels apres 
les avoir echanges ont arre'te les articles suivants." The 
names of the respective plenipotentiaries were not in- 
serted, but they each signed separate originals, which were 
then exchanged. The four Powers who were to guarantee 
the convention were also not mentioned by name, but 
merely described as " puissances mediatrices et contrac- 
tantes " in order to show the two Electors that there was 
nothing derogatory to their dignity in not being mentioned 
by name. The adoption of this expedient is explained in 
a letter of 16/27 April from Prince Repnin to the Russian 
ambassador at Vienna; 1 he also states that a similar 
instance occurred in 1731 with respect to a convention 
between Hanover and Saxony. 2 But the Saxon minister 
Stutterheim explained that the convention of 1731 was 
concluded between the kings of Poland and England; 
otherwise Hanover always yielded precedence to Saxony. 3 
40. The Holy Roman Empire having come to an 
end, in September 1805, by the establishment of the 
Confederation of the Rhine, the precedence over other 
sovereigns formerly enjoyed by the German Emperor 
also 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. It may 
fairly be inferred that from this date the equality in point 
of rank of all independent sovereign states, whether 
empires, kingdoms or republics, has been universally 
admitted, and it is improbable that any instances of the 
refusal of the alternat in connexion with modern treaties 
are to be found. 

1 Sbornih, etc., Ixv. 474. Ibid., 477. 3 Ibid., 496. 



41. The title of " Majesty " 42. Controversy between German 
Emperor and Tsar of Moscow 43. Titles of the Pope 
and other exalted personages 44. Titles of Empresses, 
Queens and others 45. Titles of various sovereigns 
Footnote, " Emperor of Germany," not correct 46. Altesse 
47. " Erlaucht " 48. Courtesy titles of sovereigns who 
have ceased to reign 49. Titles of republics and presidents 
50. Designations of certain sovereigns granted by the 
Pope 51. Assumption of a new title 52. By the Tsars 
of Russia Footnotes, Lord Whitworth's speech to Peter 
the Great, and Reversale given to Prussia 53. Recogni- 
tion of Peter the Great as Emperor by various states 
54. Recognition by France and Spain 55. Dispute in 
Peter Ill's time 56. Dispute in the time of Catherine 
II 57. Catherine II's declaration 58. French counter- 
declaration 59. Russian protest in 1765 against omission 
of " imperiale " 60. Assumption of kingly title by the 
Elector of Brandenburg 61. Ditto by various electors 
62. Assumption of titles at Vienna in 1815 63. Refusal 
of kingly title to Elector of Hesse-Cassel in 1818 64. Title 
of King of Italy 65. Assumption of imperial title by 
Napoleon III 66. Assumption of kingly title by Balkan 
sovereigns 67. Grand litre, titre moyen and petit litre 
68. Address of " Monsieur mon Frere " 69. Refusal of 
this form to Louis Napoleon by the Emperor of Russia 
70. Examples of variation 71. Titles of heirs-pre- 
sumptive 72. Precedence among sovereigns no rule 
exists 73- Precedence of princes at Inauguration of 
Leopold II in 1865 74. At Queen Victoria's Jubilee in 
1897 75. Correspondence of sovereigns 76. Coronation 
of sovereigns 77. Exchange of decorations 78. Position 
of an ex-president travelling abroad. 

41. The title of " Majesty." 

Originally this title 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 Altitude, Illuster (for illustris) and 

Nobilissimu$ 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 Nobilis- 
simus or Purpuratus. 1 Since the end of the fifteenth 
century other crowned heads have successively 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 1578. 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 of Prussia, whose kingly title dated only 
from 1701. The Emperor gave it to the King of France 
at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and soon afterwards 
to other kings. The unfortunate Emperor Charles VII 
accorded it to all kings without distinction. 

42. A long controversy was carried on between the 
German Emperors and the Tsars of Moscow with respect 
to the claim of the latter to be addressed as " Majesty." 
It is stated that up to 1600 the Emperors in their written 
communications to the Tsars spoke of them by this title, 
but in that year Rudolph II addressed Boris Godounoff 
simply as " Serenitas." In 1658 envoys of Leopold I 
arrived at Moscow bringing a rescript in which the title 
" Seigneurie " was used. On their departure a similar 
document was handed to them in which the Tsar, instead 
of addressing the Emperor as ' Majesty," entitled 
him " Seigneur Roi," but they refused to receive it. A 
dispute of the same nature arose in 1661, when other 
imperial envoys again applied the title '"' Seigneurie ' ; 
to the Tsar. But, on the original rescript of the Emperor 
Maximilian, of 1514, being shown to them, in which the 
imperial title was mentioned, they consented to use the 
word " Majeste ' in their negotiations. In 1675 other 
envoys of Leopold I arrived at Moscow with the object 

1 De Maulde-la-Clavidre, 289. 

2 4e Martens-Geffcken, ii. 25 ; Pradier-Foder6, i. 67. 


of concluding an offensive and defensive alliance with the 
Tsar. The Russian plenipotentiaries, before entering on 
the negotiation, demanded the signature of a sort of 
protocol of the discussion that had taken place between 
them and the imperial envoys on this point, and also as 
to the refusal of the Imperial Chancery to let the re- 
creances be delivered by the Emperor in person to Russian 
envoys, instead of their transmission through a secretary. 
This document was signed in German and Russian, and 
in the preamble the alternat was observed ; for while in the 
Russian text the name of the Emperor and his envoys 
are placed first, the German text gives the place of 
honour to the Tsar and his plenipotentiaries. This 
protocol did not, however, settle the questions in dispute, 
and when some Russian envoys at Vienna, in 1686, 
proposed to conclude a formal convention respecting 
the title of " Majesty," they met with a categorical 
refusal. 1 

43. The Pope's title of courtesy is Most Holy Father, 
Tres Saint Pere, also 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 Fill, or Dilectissimo in Christo Fili, in Italian 
Diletlissimo, Carissimo Figlio, even when the text of the 
letter is in French. 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 Roy ale, 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 ; so also for sons or brothers of the sovereign, for 
his uncles and first cousins. For the other princes of a 
sovereign family, and even for the German mediatized 
princes, Monseigneur and Altesse Serenissime. In Spain 

1 F. de Martens, i. 2. 


(and formerly in Portugal), with the exception of the 
heir-presumptive, the princes and princesses receive only 
Altesse Serenissime. Austrian archdukes up to 1806 were 
only Royal Highnesses ; they are now styled Imperial 
Highness. 1 

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

Princes sprung from royal houses who are not sons or 
grandsons of reigning kings, and all other members of 
sovereign princely houses, to whom the title of Altesse 
Roy ale has not been expressly accorded, are styled Altesse 

45. The German Emperor is Mafeste Imperiale et 
Roy ale. The title of the Emperor of Austria is Empereur 
d'Autriche, Roi apostolique de Hongrie. The Emperor of 
Russia is Empereur et Autocrate de toutes les Russies. 2 
The Russian title Tsar should not be used in speaking of 
him officially. The King of England is " King of the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of 
the British Dominions beyond the seas, Defender of the 
Faith, Emperor of India." The Emperor of Japan is 
styled Tenno in the Japanese language. The title Mikado, 
by which he is sometimes spoken of by European writers, 
is antiquated, and its use is not desired. 

46. 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 

1 de Martens-Geffcken, ii 26. 

2 Almanach de Gotha, 1914. 


the German Emperor 1 had conferred it. Although the 
German title Hoheit corresponds literally to Altesse, it 
has now become, since the decision taken at one of the 
sittings of the so-called Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle of 
1818, a title intermediary between Altesse Royale and 
Altesse Serenissime ; but Hoheit, when applied to a prince 
of an imperial or royal family, is always accompanied by 
kaiserliche or konigliche. By itself Hoheit, which implies 
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 signi- 
fying Altesse), which is 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 has been conferred by their sovereign. 

47. By a decision of the German Diet of February 
15, 1829, the qualification of Erlaucht was granted to the 
ancient families of the German counts mediatized after 
the dissolution of the empire in i8o5. 2 A list of such 
families may be found in part 2 of the Almanack de Gotha. 

48. Emperors and kings who have ceased to reign 
in consequence of their abdication or for other reasons 
continue to receive the title of " Majesty " from friendly 
sovereigns. The Treaty of Paris of April u, 1814, pro- 
vides that their Majesties the Emperor Napoleon and the 
Empress Marie-Louise shall preserve these titles and 
qualities. 3 

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 vex 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. 432]. 

2 de Martens-Geffcken, ii. 27 n. 3 Ibid., 28. 


49. 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 Mightinesses " (H antes Puissances], and in the letters 
written to them by sovereigns they were addressed as 
Tres-chers amis, or Chers et bons amis et allies. The Presi- 
dent of the United States of America and of the French 
Republic are addressed as " Great and Good Friend " 
and the Executive Council of the Swiss Confederation as 
Tres-chers et bons amis et allies* Before the change of 
constitution in 1848 the credentials given by the King of 
France to his ambassador to Switzerland began : "A 
nos tres-chers, grands amis et allies et confederes le 
president et deputes des vingt-deux cantons composant 
la diete helvetique : Nous avons nomme M. . . . pour 
resider pres les louables cantons composant la Confedera- 
tion helvetique." 2 

50. In former times the King of France was desig- 
nated " le Roi Tres-chretien " (Most Christian King), and 
the King of Portugal " le Roi Tres-fidele " (Most Faithful 
Majesty) since 1748. The King of Spain is " le Roi Catho- 
lique " (His Catholic Majesty) since 1469, the sovereign of 
Austria-Hungary is " His Imperial and Royal Apostolic 
Majesty' 1 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, or is, only in addressing or speaking 
of them that they are used. 

51. Assumption of a new title by a crowned head. 
Since the Popes and the Emperors of the Holy Roman 
Empire ceased to grant the title of king to other poten- 
tates, European Powers have adopted the principle that 
the title taken by the head of a state cannot of itself give 
rise to any sort of precedence over other crowned heads, 
1 de Martens-Geficken, ii. 25-29. 2 d'Haussonville, ii. 364 n. 


and that the latter can either recognize the new title, or 
refuse to do so, or recognize it on conditions. 1 

52. In early times the Russian sovereign bore the 
title of Autocrator, Magnus Dominus, Grand-Prince, or 
Czar (Tsar) , the last being the Slav word for King. In the 
seventeenth century they 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. 2 Notification was 

1 Ch. de Martens, ii. 89. 

* In 1675 envoys from the Emperor Leopold I [G. F. de Martens, 
1874, p. 2] arrived at Moscow to negotiate an offensive and 
defensive alliance with the Tsar. On this occasion the Russian 
plenipotentiaries appointed to treat with them raised two ques- 
tions, (i) That whereas the Tsar received letters of credence of 
imperial envoys, and delivered to them the (re-creditif) lettres de 
recreance, both with his own hand, the Emperor had omitted to 
do this, and had sent to the Tsar's envoys the lettres de recreance 
through a secretary, to be delivered to them at their lodging ; 
and in one instance only, as a special favour, had caused them to 
be handed to the envoys by a minister in his presence ; and they 
demanded that the Emperor should in future deliver such letters 
with his own hand. Failing an agreement, the Tsar would in 
future not deliver such letters, except through a minister. 

The imperial envoys replied that the practice at both courts 
was in accordance with traditional custom. If the Tsar on the 
present occasion were to say that he would change the practice, 
they would prefer to depart without an audience to take leave 
and without lettres de recreance. What was done at the courts 
of other potentates could not bind the Emperor. 

On this the Russian plenipotentiaries said that their sovereign 
would personally hand them their letters, but requested the envoys 
to lay the matter before the Emperor, and report that if in future 
H.I.M. did not adopt the practice observed at Moscow, the 
Tsar would follow the example of the Emperor, in order that the 
dignity of both potentates might be placed on a footing of equality. 

The answer of the envoys was that the Tsar might write to 
the Emperor to this effect, and that they would report the matter 
to H.I.M. on their return home. 

(2) The Russian plenipotentiaries complained that the Emperor 
had addressed the Tsar as " Serenitat " instead of "Majestat," 
which was the title given to him by other Christian potentates. 
Letters of other sovereigns were exhibited to the envoys in proof of 
this assertion. They proposed, therefore, to enter into an arrange- 
ment by which the Emperor and his envoys should in future use 
" Majestat " in addressing the Tsar. Failing that, the Tsar 
would use " Serenitat " in addressing the Emperor. 

The envoys replied that the title "Majesty" belonged to the 


made of this fact to all the ambassadors of foreign courts, 
which, however, did not at once decide to recognize the 
new title. 

53- 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, 1 by his arrest 
and confinement in a sponging-house, at the suit of his 
creditors. 8 

Roman Emperor exclusively, who gave to kings the title " Sereni- 
tat " in accordance with the old and unalterable practice of the 
Imperial Chancery. They were surprised at this demand, seeing 
that the Tsar had for many years hitherto been contented with 
" Serenitat," and, moreover, when the written copy of the speech 
to be delivered at their first audience had been sent in beforehand, 
no objection was raised to the use in it of " Serenitat," and that 
it had been used at the audience. They could not enter into any 
arrangement as to the wording of Imperial letters, as they had 
no instructions, but they personally were willing to accord the 
title of " Majestat " to the Tsar in their own communications, 
provided it were without prejudice. 

The Russian plenipotentiaries expressed themselves as satisfied 
with this compromise. 

Throughout this curious document, which was framed by the 
Russians, the expressions " Zarische Majestat" and " Kaiserliche 
Majestat " are used for the respective sovereigns. Besides the 
German text, in which the name and titles of the Tsar are placed 
before those of the Emperor, there is a Russian text in which 
the order is reversed. The German text is signed first by the 
Imperial envoys, then by two of the Russian plenipotentiaries, 
and was the copy, binding the former, which was destined for 
the Moscow archives; the other has the signature only of the 
imperial envoys, but it was evidently the text by which the 
Russian Government would be bound. The difference of order 
in the two texts is in accordance with the practice known as 
the alternat. 

1 Lord Whitworth, envoy extraordinary at Petersburg, was 
appointed ambassador extraordinary for the purpose of conveying 
to Peter the Great at a public audience the expression of Queen 
Anne's regret for the insult offered to Mathveof, his representative 
in London. The Tsar's carver and cup-bearer proceeded to Whit- 
worth's residence in a court carriage to fetch him to the audience, 
followed by twenty other coaches conveying court personages 
and the secretaries and gentlemen of the embassy. Lord Whit- 
worth's speech, delivered in English, began with " Most High 
and Mighty Emperor," and in the course of it he managed to 
repeat the words " Your Imperial Majesty " no less than seven 
times, and " Your Majesty " four times (Ch. de Martens, i. 68). 

2 Ch. de Martens, i. 47. 

VOL. I. D 


Prussia made no difficulty about recognizing the new 
title. 1 

Sweden recognized it in 1723 and Denmark in 1732. 

The Republic of Venice in 1726. 

The Emperor Charles VII in 1744, as did also Francis I 
shortly after his election as empereur d'Allemagne; 2 and 
the words Empire Russe were employed in 1748. 

Maria-Theresa gave the title imperial to Elisabeth in 
1742, in the credentials of her envoy to the court of 
Russia, Marquis Botta d'Adorno. 

In an agreement of September 8, 1741, between Russia 
and the Ottoman Porte, the latter undertook on all 
occasions to give the title of Imperatrice to the Czarina. 

The Republic of Poland only agreed to give the title 
of Imperatrice de toutes les Russies in 1764, on condition 
that she should not lay any claim to Red Russia, she 

1 But see F. de Martens, v. 205, for the Oversale given to 
Prussia on this occasion. 

Reversals (the words in italics are in Roman and the rest in 
Gothic in the original printed text). Ihro Kayserl. Maf von 
aller Reiissen haben es als eine absonderliche Marque S r Konigl. 
Maf in Preiissen Freiindschafft angenommen, dass dieselbe den 
Ihro von Alters her com^etirenden Titul von Kayser, nicht alleine 
erkennen, sondern auch S r Kayserl. Maf in Dehro Hohen Nahmen 
dazu gluckwiinschen lassen wollen. 

Ihro Kayserl. Maf lassen auch hiedurch S r Konigl. M l 
dafiir verbiindlichsten Danck abstatten, und dieselbe anbey aufs 
festeste versichern, dass sie Keinem andern gekronten Haupte, 
wegen agnoscirung dieses Ihro zukommenden Tituls von Kayser 
sowohl ins gesambt, alss in besondere des Rangs Ceremoniels, 
und Titulatur halber nichts zum praejudiz S r Konigl. Maf in 
Preiissen einraumen, sondern darunter eine exacte paritaet zwischen 
Dehroselben, und alien andern Konigen in Europa conserviren 
und unterhalten, auch Ihnen bey aller Gelegenheit eine Freiide 
seyn lassen werden, wann Sie zu Ihro Konigl. Maf und Dehro 
Konigl. Hausses weitern Aufnahm und Vergnugen etwas 
beytragen konnen. 

Welches Ihro Kayserl. Maf dem Konigl. Preiissischen 
wiirklichen geheimbten .Rathe und Envoye Extraordinaire Hrn 
Baron von Mardefeld auff dessen pro Memoria in Antwort anzu- 
fiigen aller gnadigst befohlen, und sind demselben iibrigens mit 
aller Kayserl. Gnade und Hulde wohl beygethan. 

Gegeben Mosco d. a6 ten January 1722. 

(sans signatures) 

z For the proper title see footnote derived from Bryce on 
P- 30- 


having in 1763 notified that she could not receive M. de 
Borch as ambassador of Poland, as long as the dispute 
as to the title of Imperial was not arranged. 

54. The French and Spanish courts did not accord 
the title of Imperalrice to Elisabeth until 1743, and the 
former, at least, on condition of a r ever sale, undertak- 
ing that this should not make any difference in the 
ceremonial observed between the two courts. The text 
of this document was as follows 1 

Sa majeste le roi de France, par amitie et une attention 
toute particuliere pour sa majeste imperiale de toutes les 
Russies, ayant condescendu & la reconnaissance de litre im- 
perial, ainsi que d'autres puissances le lui ont deja concede; 
et voulant que ledit titre soit toujours donne et a 1'avenir, 
tant dans son royaume que dans toutes les autres occasions ; 
sa majeste imperiale de toutes les Russies a ordonne", qu'en 
vertu de la presente, il soit declare et assure", que comme cette 
complaisance du roi lui est tres agrable ; ainsi cette meme 
reconnaissance du titre imperial ne devra porter aucun pre- 
judice au ceremoniel usite" entre les deux cours de sa majeste 
le roi de France, et de sa majeste" impe'riale de toutes les 

Fait a Saint-Peterbourg, le 16 de mars 1745. 

Signe, Alexis, Comte de Bestucheff, et Rumin Mich, Comte 
de Woronzow. 

55. As the Gazette de France did not give to Peter 
III, who succeeded to the throne in January 1762, the 
title of emperor, but that of czar, the Russian minister 
in Paris, Czernichew, wrote to Count Choiseul-Praslin 
protesting. The latter replied that Peter the Great and 
his successors had never received any other title in France 
but that of czar ; the empress Elisabeth was the first 
to whom the title imperial had been accorded, but only 
on a formal condition, that of a r ever sale stipulating that 
this new title should not in any way affect (n'apporterait 
aucun prejudice au) the accustomed ceremonial between 
the two courts. The King had raised no difficulty about 
according the same title to her successor (Peter III), and 

1 Flassan, v. 217. 


the credentials of the French minister Breteuil were ad- 
dressed to " the Emperor of all the Russias," but on con- 
dition of a similar reversale, or at least of a declaration 
that the former one still subsisted in all its force. 1 

56. While this discussion was going on in Paris, the 
court of Petersburg delivered the required reversale to 
Breteuil, and the latter quitted Petersburg on June 25. 2 
The revolution which raised Catherine II to the throne 
took place on July 14. Breteuil was reappointed to 
Petersburg, and arrived there September 4. 3 He began 
by demanding from the Chancellor Woronzow a reversale 
similar to those given by Elisabeth and Peter III. 
Woronzow replied to him that the Empress would prob- 
ably refuse, and acquainted him at the same time that he 
was to have an audience on the morrow, along with 
the ministers of Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Prussia, 
doubtless hoping that if Breteuil postponed the repe- 
tition of his demand till after the audience, it would be 
easier to evade giving the reversale. But Breteuil was 
equal to the occasion, and declined to attend the audience. 
The French Government then proposed the signature 
of a convention, which would do away with the necessity 
of a new reversale on each occasion. But Catherine did 
not accept this expedient, and finally, on December 3, 
addressed a declaration to all the foreign ministers at 
Petersburg, including the French, worded as follows 

57. Le titre imperial que Pierre-le-Grand, de glorieuse 
memoire, a prit ou plutot renouvele pour lui et ses successeurs, 
appartient tant aux souverains qu'a la couronne et a la 
monarchic de toutes les Russies, depuis bien du temps. Sa 
majeste imperiale trouve contraire a la stabilite de ce principe, 
tout renouvellement des reversales qu'on aurait donnees a 
chaque puissance, lorsqu'elle reconnut primitivement ce titre. 

En conformite de ce sentiment, sa majeste imperiale vient 
d'ordonner a son ministere, de faire une declaration generale, 
que le titre ^.'imperial, par sa nature meme, etant une fois 

1 Flassan, vi. 332 ; Ch. de Martens, Causes Celebres, ii. 89, and 
F. de Martens, xiii. 124 (the latter only a very sketchy account). 

2 Flassan, vi. 339. 3 Ibid., 353. 


attache a la couronne et a la monarchic de Russia, et perpetue 
depuis de longues annees et successions; ni elle, ni ses suc- 
cesseurs a perpetuite, ne pourront plus renouveler les dites 
reversales, et encore moins entretenir quelque correspondance 
avec les puissances qui refuseraient de reconnaitre le titre im- 
periale, dans la personne des souverains de toutes les Russies, 
ainsi que dans leur couronne et leur monarchic. 

Et pour que cette declaration termine une fois pour toutes, 
les difficultes dans une matiere qui n'en doit offrir aucune, 
sa majeste imperiale, en partant de la declaration de Pierre- 
le-Grand declare que le litre d'Imperial riapportera aucun 
changement au ceremonial usite entre les cours, lequel restera 
sur le meme pied. 

58. Breteuil accepted this declaration, but the court 
of Versailles regarded it as too overbearing, and put 
forth a counter-declaration on January 18, 1763, which 
was published in the Gazette de France. Catherine had 
also resorted to a similar measure of publication. 

The French document lays it down that 

"i. Titles are nothing in themselves. Their value lies 
in their being recognized. 

"2. Sovereigns cannot give themselves whatever titles 
they choose; their acknowledgment by other Powers 
is necessary. Each crown can recognize or refuse to 
recognize a newly adopted title, and on such conditions 
as it finds convenient. 

"3. In virtue of this principle Peter I and his successors 
down to the Empress Elisabeth were never known in 
France, but under the title of czar. She was the first 
to whom the king accorded the title of imperial, but 
on the express condition that it should not in any way 
affect the accustomed ceremonial between the two courts. 

"4. The Empress Elisabeth subscribed to this con- 
dition without difficulty, admitting explicitly, by the 
r ever sale of March 1745, that it was by a particular act 
of attention on the part of the King of France that the 
title imperial was recognized. 

"5. The King of France, animated by the same 
sentiments towards the Empress Catherine, makes no 


difficulty about now according to her the title imperial 
and recognizing it as attached to the throne of Russia. 
But His Majesty understands this recognition to be given 
on the same conditions as in the two preceding reigns, 
and he declares that, if hereafter any of the successors 
of the Empress Catherine, forgetful of this solemn re- 
ciprocal engagement, should put forward any pretensions 
contrary to the usage constantly followed between the 
two courts, from that moment the Crown of France, 
by way of just reciprocity, would resume the style it had 
formerly employed, and would cease to give the title of 
imperial to that of Russia. 

"This declaration, which tends to forestall all subject 
of difficulty for the future, is a proof of the King's friend- 
ship for the Empress and of his sincere and unalterable 
desire to establish a solid and unalterable union between 
the two courts." 

Catherine at first inclined to refuse reception of this 
declaration, then thought of issuing a reply. But 
Breteuil succeeding in persuading the two chancellors 
to see how absurd and unbecoming such a war of words 
would be. 

59. In 1765 Russia protested against the alleged 
omission of imperiale after majeste in official documents. 1 
The Due de Choiseul, Minister for Foreign Affairs, con- 
sequently sent out a circular to French diplomatic agents 
explaining that in royal letters to the Emperor and 
Empress of the Romans the word majeste alone was used, 
without the epithet imperiale, and that the same practice 
had been observed towards the czars and czarinas? ever 
since the King had recognized their titles of emperor and 
empress ; but by a clerical error in the letters addressed 
to Catherine II from her accession down to the mission 
of the Marquis de Bausset, the adjective had been con- 

1 Flassan, vi. 531. 

a This is an English rendering of czarine, a form invented in 
France to denote the consort of the czar (tsar). But the correct 
Ryssian word is Tsaritsa, 


joined. In his credentials the correct practice had been 
reverted to. The day after he presented his credentials, 
the Empress noticed the omission, and instructed the 
vice-chancellor to ask for an explanation. Bausset, not 
knowing the rule, explained that the superscription on 
the cover, Imperatrice de toutes les Russies, was equivalent 
to majeste imperiale, and that the omission was due to 
a mistake of the French Foreign Office. On his reporting 
this, he was informed that he was mistaken; that the 
King was not addressed as votre majeste tres-chretienne, 
and he was instructed to withdraw his letter to the 
vice-chancellor and to retract his explanation. On his 
proceeding to carry out this instruction, the vice-chancellor 
replied that the Empress would regret to be obliged in 
future to refuse acceptance of letters in which imperiale 
was omitted after majeste. Explanations were also 
furnished to Galitzin, the Russian minister in Paris, 
who was told that if the Empress persisted, the King 
would neither write to her nor maintain a representative 
at her court. 

In 1772, Durand was sent to Petersburg to endeavour 
to settle this dispute. It was finally agreed that the 
two courts should write to each other in Latin. France 
would use imperialis in the body of letters to Russia, and 
Russia would use regia in reply. Durand delivered his 
credentials, and harmony was restored. 

60. The Elector of Brandenburg assumed the title 
of King in Prussia in 1701. It was first recognized 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 it until 1786, but the 
order of Teutonic Knights maintained their claims to 
the Duchy of Prussia until 1792. 1 

61. After the creation of the Confederation of the 
Rhine by Napoleon I, the Electors of Bavaria, Saxony 
and Wiirttemberg took the title of King, the Margrave 

i Pradier-Fod6re, i. 51. 


of Baden and the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt that 
of Grand-duke, and the Prince of Nassau that of Duke. 
These titles were not at first recognized 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. 

62. 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 Meck- 
lenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Saxe-Weimar 
that of Grand-Duke, and the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel 
that of Elector. 

63. In 1818, the Elector of Hesse-Cassel notified to 
the diplomatic assembly at Aix-la-Chapelle ( 462) 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 plenipotentiaries agreed that the title 
borne by a sovereign is not a simple matter of etiquette, 
but a fact involving important political questions, but 
that they could not collectively give a decision on 
the request put forward. However, the cabinets, taken 
separately, declared the Elector's request not justifiable 
on any satisfactory ground, and that there was no in- 
ducement to them to accede to it. The cabinets at the 
same time took an engagement not to recognize for the 
future any change, either in the titles of sovereigns, nor 
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-presumptive. 1 

64. A vote of parliament at Turin on March 17, 1861, 
conferred on Victor Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, the 
title of King of Italy, recognized by Great Britain, March 
30, by a letter from Lord J. Russell to the Marquis 
d'Azeglio. It was not at first admitted by Prussia and 
Austria, but has since received recognition. 

65. When the French President, Louis Napoleon, 
on December 2, 1852, assumed the title of Emperor of 
the French, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Drouyn de 
Lhuys, informed the foreign diplomatic agents who 
had been accredited to him as President of the French 
Republic that they must obtain fresh credentials. The 
difficulties which were made on that occasion by the 
sovereigns of Russia, Prussia and Austria respecting 
the form of address to be used in the new credentials 
are recounted by Count Hiibner in his Neuf ans de 
Souvenirs d'un Ambassadeur, v. i. 87. 

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

Prince Nicholas of Montenegro took the title of King 
August 15/28, 1910. 

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, 1881. 

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

The first of these includes the names of the fictitious 
as well as of the real dominions. For instance, the grand, 
Hire of the Emperor of Austria is " Empereur d'Autriche, 
roi apostolique de Hongrie, roi de Boheme, de Dalmatic, 

1 Pradier-Fodere, i. 53 n. 


de Croatie, d'Esclavonie, de Galicie, de Lodomerie et 
d'lllyrie, roi de Jerusalem, etc., archiduc d'Autriche, 
grand-due de Toscane et de Cracovie, due de Lorraine, 
de Salzbourg, de Styrie, de Charinthie, de Carniole et de 
Bukovine, grand prince de Transylvanie, margrave de 
Moravie, due de la Haute-Silesie, de la Basse-Silesie, de 
Modene, de Parme, Plaisance et Guastalla, d'Auschwitz 
et Zator, de Teschen; Frioul, Raguse et Zara, comte 
princier de Habsbourg et Tyrol, de Kybourg, Goritz et 
Gradisca, prince de Trente et Brixen, margrave de la 
Haute et de la Basse-Lusace et en Istrie, Comte de 
Hohenembs, Feldkirch, Brigance, Sonnenberg, etc., 
seigneur de Trieste, de Cattaro et de la Marche Wende, 
grand voyvode de la voyvodie de Serbie, etc., etc." x 

The King of Spain's grand litre includes the two Sicilies, 
Jerusalem, Corsica, Gibraltar, Austria, Burgundy, Brabant 
and Milan, Habsburg, Flanders, Tyrol, all of which are 
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 are very long. 
The latter comprises " heritier de Norvege, due de Slesvig- 
Holstein, de Stormarn, des Dithmarses et d'Oldenbourg " 
(but the last four also belong to the grand titre of the King 
of Denmark), together with sovereignty over the Wends 
and Goths. Down to 1783 inclusive the sovereigns of 
England asserted their right to the crown of France in 
similar fashion. \ To avoid disputes arising out of this 
practice, which was sometimes maintained with a show of 
seriousness in order to protract treaty negotiations, diplo- 
matists discovered the expedient of inserting an article de 
non prcejudicando, that " cela ne tire pas a consequence. 

The titre moyen is confined to real facts, and the petit 
titre, the most generally made use of in these days, is 
the highest of the whole number namely, that by which 
the sovereign is habitually designated. 

68. Sovereigns, in addressing each other officially, 
1 Alvnanaclijle Gotha, 1914. 


begin : " Monsieur mon frere," adding the name of any 
blood relationship that may exist between them. To 
an empress or queen it is Madame ma Sceur. 

Nicholas I of Russia, who regarded the elevation of 
Louis Philippe, in 1830, to the throne, with the title 
of King of the French, as a violation of the principle of 
legitimacy, constantly refused to give him the title of 
' brother," while reluctantly recognizing his government, 
and simply addressed him as " Sire." Previously to 1830 
the Russian Emperor's letters to the legitimist King 
had always ended with " votre bon Frre et Ami." 1 This 
proceeding produced a coldness between the two courts, 
the result of which was that, although ambassadors had 
been mutually appointed, they were absent from their 
posts from 1843 up to the revolution of February 1848, 
and charges d'affaires were maintained at Petersburg 
and Paris respectively. No exchange of decorations 
between the two courts took place till 1847, when a 
Russian Grand-duke visited Algeria and one of the 
southern military posts of France, where he showed 
himself particularly gracious to the French authorities. 2 

69. Subsequently, when Louis Napoleon in December 
1852 took the title of Emperor of the French, the same 
Russian Emperor, in the new credentials which had to 
be presented by his diplomatic representative, substituted 
the words " Sire et bon ami " for the traditional formula. 
Austria and Prussia joined him in this intentionally 
offensive proceeding. A few months earlier (May 1852) 
he had addressed to the Comte de Chambord (Henri V) 
a letter beginning : " Monsieur mon Frere et Cousin." 3 

70. The essential point is the use of the word Frere 
or Sceur, and the address may be varied by the addition 
of other words. The correspondence of Queen Victoria 
affords numerous interesting examples. Thus Louis 
Philippe ends a letter to her " Qu'elle me permette d'y 

1 F. de Martens, xv. 101, 125. 2 d'Haussonville, i. 279, 114. 

3 Hiibner, i. 87; F. de Martens, xv. 266. 


ajouter 1'expression de la haute estime et de 1'inviolable 
amitie avec lesquelles je ne cesserai d'etre, Madame ma 
Sceur, de votre Majeste le bon Frere." Another begins 
" Madame ma bien chere et bien bonne Soeur," and ends : 
" Je suis, Madame ma tres chere Sceur, de votre Majeste, 
le bien affectionne Frere." A letter of the Queen to him, 
of October 1844, opens with " Sire, et mon tres cher Frere," 
and winds up with : " Je suis pour la vie, Sire et mon 
cher Frere, de votre Majeste la bien affectionnee Soeur 
et fidele Amie." This affectionate tone undergoes a 
diminution of tenderness after the " Spanish marriages ' 
in 1846, and in reply to a letter from the Queen of the 
French announcing the due de Montpensier's marriage 
to the Infanta Luisa, the style is " Madame," ending with 
" Madame, de votre Majeste, la toute devouee Sceur et 
Amie." After the revolution of 1848, in a letter of 
March 3, it is again " Sire et mon cher Frere," and " Je 
me dis, Sire et mon bon Frere, de votre majeste, la bien 
affectionnee Sceur." 

Between the Emperor of the French and Queen 
Victoria the style used was " Madame et bonne Sceur, 
Madame et chere Sceur, Madame et tres chere Sceur," on 
one side and " Sire et mon cher Frere," or " Sire et cher 
Frere" on the other, with the subscription " La bien 
bonne Sceur," " La bien bonne et affectionnee Sceur," 
" La tres affectionnee Sceur et amie," or "La bien 
affectionnee Sceur et fidele amie." 

In October 1860, the King of Naples writes to Her 
Majesty: "Madame ma Sceur," ending up with " une 
nouvelle preuve du respect que j'ai eu tou jours pour elle, 
de 1'affection sincere, et des sentiments de haute considera- 
tion avec lesquels j'ai 1'honneur d'etre, Madame ma Sceur, 
de votre Majeste, le bon Frere." The reply, which was 
apparently drafted in English, is :" Sir my Brother - . . . 
the assurance of the invariable friendship and the high 
consideration with which I am Sir, my Brother, your 
Majesty's good Sister," 


The Emperor of Russia in 1848 begins a letter to Her 
Majesty with "Madame ma Sceur," and ends with 
" Madame, de votre Majeste, le tout devoue et fidele 
bon Frere et ami," but in October 1853, when war 
was imminent between the two countries, it is plain 
" Madame de votre Majeste, le tout devoue frere et 
ami." The Queen's reply is far more cordial : " Sire 
et tres cher Frere . . . Sire et cher Frere, de votre 
Majeste imperiale la bien bonne Soeur et amie." 

The letters exchanged with the King of Prussia in 
1854 were in German, but are published in translation. 
March 17 the Queen writes what is rendered as, " Dear 
Sir and Brother . . . My much honoured Sir and Brother, 
your Majesty's faithful sister and friend." To which the 
reply, of May 24, as it seems to be, is " Most gracious 
Queen ... I commend myself to the grace, goodwill 
and friendship of my august Royal Sister, I being your 
Majesty's most faithfully devoted, most attached servant 
and good brother." The reply of June, also in German, is 
simply, " Dearest Sir and Brother . . . your Majesty's 
Faithful Sister and Friend." 

An exchange of letters in December 1848 and January 
1849, between Pope Pius IX and the Queen, was in this 

" To the Most Serene and Potent Sovereign Victoria, 
the Illustrious Queen of England, Pius Papa Nonus . . . 
Given at Gae'ta, the 4th day of December 1848, in the 
third year of our Pontificate." The reply is : " Most 
Eminent Sir, your Holiness . . . Given at Windsor 
Castle the [ ] day of January 1849." 

A Foreign Office memorandum of January 5, 1849, 
says : " 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 Sister.' 


" 2nd, commencing with the Queen's titles. In these 
letters the plural ' we ' and ' our ' are employed instead 
of ' I ' and ' my/ and the letters terminate thus : ' your 
Good Friend.' 

" This form is now used almost exclusively for Royal 
letters to republics." 

Royal personages in their strictly private correspon- 
dence address each other in the same friendly and 
affectionate style as ordinary mortals. 

71. Titles of heirs presumptive, when not styled 
Prince Imperial or Prince Royal. 

Spain. Principe de Asturias; if there are only 
daughters the next heiress is called Princesa de Asturias. 
Other children are Infante and Infanta respectively. 

Portugal (formerly) Dom [Christian name] d' Alcantara, 
or Principe de Ba'ira. 

England. Prince of Wales (by patent). 

Netherlands. Prince of Orange. 

Belgium. Due de Brabant. 

Sweden. Due de Scanie. 

As long as the Holy Roman Empire continued to exist, 
the heir presumptive 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-presumptive of the German Emperor is 
Kronprinz, so also the heir of the Emperor of Austria. 
The other children of the latter are archdukes and 

Russia. Tsarewitch. 1 

72. As no rule has hitherto been devised for regulat- 
ing 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 

1 de Martens-Geffcken, ii. 21. 


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, Wurttemberg, Westphalia, Bavaria, the 
Dukes of Oldenburg, Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 
Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and 
the Prince of Tour und Taxis. At a great dinner at 
Weimar, on October 6, the order among these kings 
seems to have been Westphalia, Bavaria, Wurttemberg, 
Saxony. 1 

At the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15 there was again 
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 
Wurttemberg, the Elector of Hesse and the Grand-Duke 
of Baden. Besides these there were the heads of the 
elder branch of the House of Brunswick and of both the 
German branches of the House of Nassau, the Dukes of 
Saxe- Weimar and Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, regarding whose 
relative rank disputes were not likely to arise. 2 

At Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1818, the only sovereigns present 
were the emperors of Austria and Russia and the King 
of Prussia. According to some authorities all three 
attended at Troppau in October 1820, but the King of 
Prussia did not go to Laybach. At Verona, in 1822, 
besides these three the King of Sardinia was present. 

During the meeting of the three Emperors at Berlin, 
in 1872, these Sovereigns took precedence over each 
other alternately in every succeeding ceremony, and 
the National Hymns of each country were also played 

On the occasion of the Vienna Exhibition of 1873, the 

1 Vandal, NapoUon et Alexandre, i er , i. 414, 444. 
Camb. Mod. Hist., ix. 580 et infra. 


Sovereigns representing the Great Powers, including the 
King of Italy and the Sultan, were given precedence 
over one another in alphabetical order according to 
the French language. A similar rule was observed as 
regarded the Hereditary Princes of the Powers. 

73. 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 they 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 II 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 Flanders (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-Sigmarigen. It 
is not easy for the uninitiated to divine what principle 
dictated this arrangement. 1 

74. At Queen Victoria's Jubilee, in 1897, a great 
deal of difficulty was experienced in settling the pre- 
cedence among the crowned heads and heirs-apparent, but 
some assistance was derived from what had been decided 
at the assemblage of august personages that had taken 
place at Vienna in the year 1873. Possibly the order 
was : Great Powers arranged according to French 
alphabetical order, then the Kings of minor Powers, 
and lastly Grand Dukes and other reigning Princes. 
Perhaps the family courts (i. e. those related to Queen 
Victoria) were given the pas over equals. There was a 
difficult question as to the relative rank of the heir- 
apparent of a Great Power and a reigning Grand Duke, 
1 Garcia de la Vega, 561. 


which the Queen is reported to have settled by giving to 
each precedence on alternate evenings. The safest plan is 
to consult the persons concerned beforehand, but the final 
decision must rest with the sovereign who is host or hostess. 

If it is a question of toasts at a banquet the best order 
would be : Great Powers, the minor Powers, each in 
alphabetical order. At the Foreign Office dinner on 
the Sovereign's birthday to the diplomatic representatives 
of foreign Powers the senior ambassador proposes the 
health of the Sovereign, and " God save the King " is 
played. Then the Secretary of State toasts the friendly 
Powers, and the national anthem of the doyen is given. 

75. The frequent intermarriages that have taken 
place between members of Christian reigning families 
in Europe have created a bond of relationship among 
the crowned heads, and have rendered it natural and 
usual to communicate to each other news of interesting 
events, such as accession to the throne, congratulations 
on happy occurrences, such as marriages and births, con- 
dolences on deaths, court mourning of longer or shorter 
duration, especially on the death of a sovereign. These 
notices are generally given by means of a letter from the 
sovereign, transmitted through his diplomatic representa- 
tives at the friendly courts, and mostly with instructions 
to present it in the usual manner. In the majority 
of cases this is done by forwarding it in a Note to 
the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Sometimes a special 
embassy is sent, particularly for congratulations on 
accession to the throne, or to a coronation. If the 
distance is very great the local diplomatic agent may 
be appointed as special ambassador for the occasion. 
Intimations of deaths are given in the same way, and the 
duration of court mourning which will be observed is 
simply mentioned, without any request to adopt mourning 
on the occasion, as such a mark of sympathy must be 
afforded altogether spontaneously. 

The Emperor of Japan, though not related by marriage 
VOL. i. E 


to any European reigning family, is nevertheless admitted 
to the circle of those to whom such notices are sent. The 
King of Siam has received similar indications of friendship. 
On the attainment by the late Empress-Dowager of China 
of her seventieth year by Chinese reckoning, various 
foreign Crowned Heads offered her their felicitations, to 
which she responded by sending to each of them a large 
photograph of herself, suitably framed and enclosed in a 
box covered with silk of the imperial yellow colour. 

76. Coronations of Sovereigns are often attended by 
special ambassadors sent by the other Crowned Heads, 
and weddings or funerals by members of the related 
royal and imperial families. The case of the inauguration 
of King Leopold II of Belgium, in 1865, has already been 
mentioned in 73. 

By way of emphasizing the friendly feeling of Great 
Britain to the United States, condolences have been ad- 
dressed to the family of a President dying during his term 
of office by the Sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland. 

77. Friendly sovereigns usually exchange their 
highest orders of chivalry, which are sometimes conferred 
also on members of reigning families. On the outbreak 
of war, in August 1914, the Emperor of Austria, the Ger- 
man Emperor, the King of Wurttemberg, the Duke of 
Saxe-Coburg, the Duke of Cumberland, the Grand-Duke 
of Hesse, Prince Henry of Prussia, the Crown Prince of 
Germany and the Grand-Duke of Mecklenburg-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 inten- 
tion 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 is 
conveyed to him by a complimentary special mission. 1 

1 For an account of what takes place in connection with the 
investiture, see Redesdale. 


George III declined to accept the Golden Fleece offered 
to him by the Junta at Seville in 1808. This is probably 
an isolated instance of such a refusal. It was based on 
the fact that no English sovereign since Edward VI had 
received a foreign decoration. 1 

78. Nothing definite has been laid down with regard 
to the position of an ex-President of a republic when 
travelling in a foreign country. Strictly speaking, he 
becomes a private person when his term of office expires. 
It is probable, however, that in most countries he would be 
accorded the privileges of the head of a state if official 
notice of his journey were given to the governments con- 
cerned, and that he would at least receive as courteous 
treatment as a sovereign travelling incognito. 

1 Villa-Urrutia, i. 317. 



79. Protocol of November 21, 1818, signed at Aix-la-Chapelle 
80. Man-of-war with royal personage arriving at foreign 
port 81. Salutes to diplomatic officials, English rules 
82. National fetes, salutes may be fired 83. Visits of 
men-of-war to foreign ports 84. Salutes by H. M. ships to 
foreign Sovereigns and Presidents 85. Salutes to members 
of foreign royal families 86. Salutes to members of the 
Royal Family 87. Salutes on occasion of foreign national 
fetes 88. Salutes to foreign officials. 

79. 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 
relativement au salut de mer, il est convenu que chacune des 
Cours signataires de ce protocole fera remettre a la Conference 
ministerielle a Londres les reglements qu'elle fait observer 
jusqu'ici a cet egard, et que Ton invitera ensuite les autres 
Puissances a communiquer les memes notions de leur cote, 
afin que Ton puisse s'occuper de quelque reglement general 
sur cet objet." 

This protocol bears the signatures of Metternich, 
Wellington, Nesselrode, Richelieu, Hardenberg, Capo 
dTstria, Castlereagh and Bernstorff. Nothing seems to 
have been done to carry this agreement into effect. 

80. A foreign man-of-war arriving at a port provided 
with a saluting battery, 1 and having on board a foreign 
sovereign, a prince or princess of the blood, or an ambas- 
sador, is first saluted by the forts. The arrangements 

1 de Martens-Geffcken, i. 207-8. 


are usually made beforehand by an officer, sent ashore 
by the commander of the man-of-war, with the officer 
in command of the fort or other high official representing 
the government of the country. The salute to the 
sovereign is not returned by the ship, but if the personage 
on board is a prince or a princess of the blood, or an 
ambassador, it is immediately returned. A second salute 
is then exchanged between the ship and the fort in 
honour of the flag, the number being regulated by the 
rank of the officer commanding the ship. When the per- 
sonage disembarks, he is saluted by the ship with the 
number of guns prescribed by the regulations of his own 
country. This salute to an ambassador or other diplo- 
matic agent is fired only when he disembarks finally on 
the territory of the state to which he is accredited. 

8 1. The English rules governing the number of guns 
forming a salute to each class of diplomatic officer, the 
places and occasions, are laid down in the Foreign Office 
List. For an Ambassador the number of guns is 19, 
for an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
17, for a Minister Resident, or other authority below 
the rank of Envoy and above that of Charge d'affaires 
15, for a Charge d'affaires or a subordinate diplomatic 
agent left in charge of a mission, or for an Agent and 
Consul-general, 13 guns. It is to be observed that not 
all of H.M. ships are " saluting ships " ; the point is 
governed by the number of guns that can be fired for 
saluting purposes. The number of guns accorded to 
British diplomatists by the English rules appears to 
exceed the number fired in accordance with the French 
regulations. 1 

When a diplomatic agent pays an official visit in a 
foreign port to the officer commanding the naval forces 
of his [the agent's] country, he is received on board with 
much ceremony, but a salute is fired only on the first 
occasion, at the moment of his leaving the ship to return 
1 de Martens-Geffcken, i. 209. 


on shore. He acknowledges the compliment by standing 
up in his boat and 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. 

82. When men-of-war happen to be lying in a 
foreign port on the occasion of a national fete, it is cus- 
tomary to dress ship and fire a salute, on intimation being 
given beforehand by the proper authority that it is a 
national anniversary. But this intimation must not 
take the form of an invitation to follow the example of 
the fort or ship belonging to the country of which it is 
the official anniversary ; that is supposed to be done as a 
matter of course on the intimation being given. 

For instance, if one of H.M. ships is lying in a port 
where there is a saluting fort, on H.M. birthday, and men- 
of-war of other countries are also present, the command- 
ing officer of H.M. ship sends an officer in full uniform 
to give an intimation to the commanding officers of the 
fort and foreign ships, that, on the day in question, it is 
his intention to dress ship and fire a royal salute. Nothing 
more. A royal salute is of twenty-one guns. 

These are, however, matters with which the diplomatic 
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 

83. In many countries there exists a regulation 
prohibiting more than three 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 also be afforded an opportunity of 
presenting some of the principal officers of the squadron 
to the sovereign at a private audience granted for the 

84. The regulations with regard to salutes by H.M. 
ships to foreign sovereigns and to foreigners not of royal 
families are laid down in the " King's Regulations and 
Admiralty Instructions " 

44. 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 H.M. dominions where there is 
a Fort or Battery from which salutes are usually fired, they 
shall receive a Royal Salute on their first arrival and again 
on their final departure from such Fort or Battery and from 
any Ships present, and a similar Salute is to be fired upon their 
going on board or leaving any of H.M. Ships ; on such occa- 
sions, during the Salute, the Senior Officer's Ship shall display 
at the main the Flag of the nation of such Royal or 
distinguished personage. 

85. 45. Whenever any Prince, being a member of a Foreign 
Royal Family, shall arrive at any British Port, or visit any of 
H.M. Ships, the same Salutes shall be fired and compliments 
paid to him as to the members of the Royal Family of 
England, as are directed to be paid to the members of the 
Royal Family of England; the Flag of the nation of such 
Foreign Prince being displayed at the main. 

2. Whenever such visits to H.M. Ships shall take place in a 
foreign Port, corresponding Salutes shall be fired, and the 
Flag of the nation of the Royal Visitors hoisted, as already 

86. 42. 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 H.M. Ships and Vessels 

2. Whenever any member of the Royal Family shall go 
on board any of H.M. 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 
embarked in any Ship or Vessel, and the Standard of His or 
Her Royal Highness shall be hoisted in her, every one of 
H.M. Ships meeting, passing, or being passed by her shall fire 
a Royal Salute. 

87. 52. On the occasion of the celebration of the Birth- 
day of the King or Queen of a foreign nation, or on other 
important National festivals and ceremonies, by any Ships 
of War or Batteries of such nation, H.M. Ships present may, 
on official intimation being received by the Senior Officer, 
fire such Salutes in compliment thereto, not exceeding 21 
guns, as are fired by the Ships or Batteries of the foreign 
nation, the Flag of such nation being displayed on these 
occasions at the main of the Senior Officer's Ship. 

70. Salutes, in conformity with the Table of Salutes, shall 
be fired in compliment to Foreign Officials from either Forts 
or Ships, in the same manner, and in circumstances similar to 
those in which Salutes to a British official would be fired. 

[The Table is contained in Article 69. 

No. of Guns 

Governor .... 17 When visiting a ship either 

on going on board or on 
leaving by such ship. 

Ambassador ... 19 At all places. Whenever he 

embarks, and if he goes to 
sea, on finally landing, by 
such ship. No limitation 
of occasion. 

Envoy Extraordinary 17 Within the precincts of the 

nation to which he is ac- 
credited, when visiting a 
ship or on quitting her, 
only once within twelve 
months, and by one ship 
only on the same day. 

Minister Resident . . 15 Within the precincts of the 

nation to which he is ac- 
credited, when visiting a 
ship or on quitting her, 
only once within twelve 
months, and by one ship 
only on the same day. 



No. of Guns 
Charge d' Affaires, or a 
subordinate diplo- 
matic Agent left in 
charge of a mission ; 
Agents and Consuls- 
General ; Commis- 
sioners and Consul- 
General . . . . 13 

Within the precincts of the 
nation to which he is ac- 
credited, when visiting a 
ship or on quitting her, 
only once within twelve 
months, and by one ship 
only on the same day.] 

Foreigners of Distinction. 

88. 77. If a Foreigner of high distinction, or a Foreign 
Flag or General Officer, visit any one of H.M. Ships, he may be 
Saluted on his going on board, or on leaving the Ship, with 
the number of guns he from his rank would receive on visiting 
a Ship of War of his own nation, or with such number not 
exceeding 19 guns as may be deemed proper; should the 
number of guns t^ - -hich he is entitled from Ships of his own 
nation be 1 nven to the Officers of his rank under 

Article 70, he is . 'ted with the greater number. 

95 (&). When Sa" fired, whether in British or in 

Foreign ports, on tl ca' i of a Foreign National Festival, 
the Flag of the N{^ rating the day is to be hoisted 

at the Main during" tne oalute and for such further time 
as the Ships of such Nation may be dressed if none are 
present, until sunset. 

(e). On the occasion of visits from Foreign Diplomatists, 
Governors, or Naval, Military or Consular Authorities, or 
of distinguished Persons entitled to Salutes, the Flag of 
the Foreign Nation to which the person belongs is to be 
hoisted at the Fore during the personal Salute. 



89. Former use of Latin, French and Spanish 90. Language 
used in treaties 91. Use of the French language not to 
prejudice right of the parties to use any other 92. French 
attempt to impose their language on English commissioners 
in 1753 93. Treaties with Turkey 94. Present practice 
as to treaties 95. British regulations as to correspondence 
96. Bismarck's anecdote 97. Forms of diplomatic 
written communications 98. Despatch to agent for com- 
munication 99. Canning's refusal to hear despatch read, 
unless copy left with him 100. Example of Note in the 
third person (refusal to ratify) 101. Recognition of 
annexation 102. Note Verbale 103. Memoire, memorial, 
memorandum or pro-memorid 104. Note Collective, ex- 
ample of, and reply 105. Proposed Note to Spain in 1822 
106. Note identique 107. Formal parts of a Note 
108. Fox and Talleyrand correspondence in 1806, forms 
used 109. French usage since 1900 no. Belgian usage 
in. Spanish usage 112. English usage 113. Ger- 
man usage 114. Lettres de Chancellerie and Lettres de 
Cabinet 115. Spanish Carta de Cancilleria 116. Lettres 
de Cabinet 117. United States usage 118. Spanish 
reply to letter of a Spanish-American President. 

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 instruc- 
tions 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 the language was usually employed 
both in writing and speaking between the two countries, 
but in consequence of English insistence Latin was 
again resorted to in the sixteenth century. Spanish was 
the only language that could compete with French. 
Ferdinand and Isabella tried the experiment of making 
out full powers in their own tongue, but the success that 
attended the innovation was insignificant. 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. Language of Treaties. At the beginning of the 
sixteenth century all agreements drawn up in English, 
German or Italian have a domestic or quasi-domestic 
character. English served for Anglo-Scotch relations, 
German for those of German princes and of Germany 
with Bohemia, Hungary and Switzerland. Italian was 
sometimes 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 constantly used the latter, above 
all for treaties with France and the Low Countries. 
However, at the end of the fifteenth century England 
reverted to Latin for its treaties with France. 2 

The treaties of Westphalia (1648) were in Latin. The 

Anglo-Danish Treaty of July u, 1670, is also in Latin. 

The Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1674 in Latin, but the Treaty 

of Alliance of 1677-8 in French. The Treaty of the Grand 

1 De Maulde-la-Claviere, i. 80, 389. 3 Ibid., 209. 


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 Branden- 
burg, 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. 1 

91. At Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, a separate article was 
annexed to the treaty of peace signed by the plenipoten- 
tiaries of 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 prejudicing the right of the con- 
tracting parties to have copies signed in other languages, 
in the following words 

" II a ete convenu et arrete, que la langue Francoise, em- 
ployee dans tous les exemplaires du present traite, ne formera 

1 F. de Martens, v. and ix (x). 


puissances contractantes ; et que 
formera a 1'avenir a ce qui a ete observe, et doit etre observe, 
a 1'egard et de la part des puissances, qui sont en usage et 
possession de donner et de recevoir des exemplaires de sem- 
blables traites, en une autre langue que la Frangoise, le present 
traite [et les accessions qui interviendront], ne laissant pas 
d'avoir la meme force et vertu, que si le susdit usage y avoit 
ete observe." 

The same separate article, with the omission of the 
words in square brackets, was attached to the Treaty of 
Paris of 1763, between Great Britain, France and Spain, 
and also 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 franchise ayant ete 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 negocia- 
tions et conventions futures, la langue dont elle s'est servie 
jusqu'ici dans ses relations diplomatiques, sans que le traite 
actuel puisse etre cite comme exemple contraire aux usages 
etablis." z 

The use of French as the common language of diplomacy 
has now become so generally recognized that in 1856 it 
was not thought necessary to insert any such stipulation 
in the treaty of peace of that year. 

92. The French had tried to enforce a demand that 
correspondence addressed to their Minister for Foreign 
Affairs should be written in their own language. 

On July 8, 1748, a declaration was signed by the 
plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France and the States- 
General at Aix-la-Chapelle, by which, among other 
matters, it was agreed that within two months' time 
commissioners duly authorized should meet at St. Malo, 

1 Jenkinson, iii. 342. z d'Angeberg, 1432. 


or any other place that might be agreed upon between 
the high contracting parties, to give orders for the recip- 
rocal restitution of or indemnities for prizes made after 
the lapse of six weeks from the date of the signature of 
the preliminaries of peace, April 30, 1748. 

The French and English commissioners were occupied 
for some time with the question of the limits of Nova 
Scotia, and the occupation by the French of the neutral 
island of Santa Lucia in the West Indies. It was only 
in the spring of 1751 that the two governments agreed to 
instruct their commissioners to devote a portion of the time 
at their disposal to the examination of the prize claims. 

In March 1753, the French commissioners proposed 
to return to the English 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, on this question being referred 
to them, sent instructions to Paris, stating that out of 
complaisance they had at first usually accompanied the 
English memoranda (or memorials) with a French transla- 
tion, but the French commissioners having found fault 
with its wording, the commissioners had been ordered 
to confine themselves in future to the English language; 
but the French commissioners having now demanded 
the use of the French as a right, to comply would be to 
establish a precedent. 

" All nations whatsoever have a right to treat with each 
other in a neutral language. As such, the French is made use 
of in transactions 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 commis- 
saries in their own language, unless they shall engage to receive 
the answer . . . returned to it in English." 

The French commissaries then proposed to enter into 


an agreement, that giving or accepting any written papers 
in the French language should not be of any consequence, 
or drawn into a precedent. On the English commissioners 
reporting this to the Secretary of State, he informed them, 
in reply, that they should adhere strictly to their previous 
instructions and refuse to enter into any such agreement 
as was proposed. 1 

A French account of this incident is shortly as follows : 
The commission was appointed in November 1749, and 
began its work in 1750. The last memorial delivered 
on the French side was dated July 18, 1753. It had to 
fix the frontier in America, decide the ownership of St. 
Vincent, Tobago and St. Lucia, and solve the question 
of prizes made by the English marine before the declara- 
tion of war. The greater part of 1753 was wasted in the 
dispute over the language. Finally, the English Govern- 
ment refused to admit French as the only language to 
be used, and offered as a compromise the employment 
of a neutral language. The French Foreign Department 
was with difficulty persuaded by Mirepoix to give way, 
and the conferences were resumed. 2 

93. The practice in regard to treaties with Turkey 
was somewhat peculiar. In 1739 two copies of the pre- 
liminaries of the Peace of Belgrade were drawn up, in 
French and Turkish, the former being signed by the 
Imperial plenipotentiary, Count Neipperg, and the latter 
by the Grand Vizier. These were then delivered to the 
French ambassador, Marquis de Villeneuve, who attached 
to each an acte de mediation and wrote the French 
guarantee on a separate sheet. He then delivered to 
the respective plenipotentiaries the copy made out in the 
language of the other party, together with a copy of 
the act of guarantee. The definitive treaty was drawn 

1 Comrs. to Holdernesse, March 21, 1753; Holdernesse to 
Comrs., April 5; Comrs. to Holdernesse, April 18; Holdernesse 
to Comrs., April 26; Comrs. to Holdernesse, May 2. S. P. For. 
France, vol. 239. 

4 Waddington, Louis XV et le Renversement des Alliances, 52. 


up in Latin and Turkish. 1 It seems probable that each 
party received the copy made out in the language used 
by the other and signed by him alone. 

The Russian treaty on the same occasion was made 
out in Italian and Turkish, the former being signed by 
Villeneuve on behalf of Russia, the latter by the Grand 
Vizier. Villeneuve handed the Italian text to the 
Grand Vizier, who in turn delivered to him the Turkish 
document. 2 

The Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji, between Russia and 
Turkey, in 1774, was drawn up in Russian, Turkish and 

In 1791, when the Peace of Sistovo was concluded be- 
tween the Emperor and Turkey, one text of the treaty was 
worded in French, the other in Turkish, and Article 14 
provided that the former should be signed by the imperial 
plenipotentiaries, the Turkish by those of the Porte, and 
that the two documents should be exchanged through 
the mediating ministers, English, Prussian and Dutch. 3 

94. When treaties or conventions are concluded 
between more than two Powers, the present practice 
is to use French; but if between two Powers only, then 
it is very usual to have two texts, one in each language, 
signed by the plenipotentiaries of both parties. It would 
be desirable in such cases to add an article specifying 
which of the two is to be regarded as authoritative in 
case of a difference of opinion as to the precise meaning 
of a stipulation, because of the very great difficulty of 
producing two versions which shall exactly coincide 
word for word and clause for clause. 

Dr. Alt has the following remarkable statement with 
regard to the language employed in the different counter- 

1 Koch and Schoell, xiv. 365, 370. 

2 Ibid., 383 n. For an account of the whole negotiation and 
of the diplomatic skill employed by the Marquis de Villeneuve, 
see A. Vandal, Une Ambassade Fran$aise en Orient sous Louis XV, 
and post, 634, in Chapter XXXIII. 

3 Ibid., 493. 


parts of the London Treaty of May n, 1867, by which, 
among other things, the perpetual neutrality of Luxem- 
burg was placed under the guarantee of the signatory 
Powers (with the exception of Belgium, which is herself 
a perpetually neutral state). 

" Der Londoner Vertrag d. J. 1867, abgeschlossen unter 
England, Frankreich, Russland, Oesterreich, Preussen, Italien, 
Belgian und Holland (wegen Luxemburg) ist in alien acht 
Urkunden in franzosischer Sprache abgefasst, Titel, Einleitung 
und Ratifications-Cl'ausel dagegen sind in den Sprachen der 
Aussteller ausgedriickt, mit Ausnahme Oesterreichs, welches 
die lateinische Sprache angewandt hat." l 

The French and Belgian counterparts would, of course, 
be in the French language throughout. So is also the 
Russian text reproduced by F. de Martens, Recueil des 
Traites et Conventions, etc., xii. 370. The whole of the 
English copy, preserved at the Public Record Office, 
is in French, including the portions which, according 
to Dr. Alt, would be in English. We can only draw the 
conclusion that he had been misinformed. Possibly the 
idea arose from the fact that the instruments of ratifica- 
tion were for Austria in Latin, for Belgium, France, the 
Netherlands, Luxemburg and Prussia in French, for Italy 
in Italian, and for Russia in Russian with a French 
translation. The British instrument of ratification was 
no doubt drawn up in English. 

95. The assertion in 1753 of the right to use the 
English language in diplomatic communications has 
already been mentioned. In 1800 Lord Grenville intro- 
duced 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 

1 Handbuch des Europaischen Gesandtschafts-Rechtes. Berlin, 
1870, 188 n. No authority is cited for this statement, which on 
the face of it is improbable. 

VOL. I. F 


the foreign sovereigns and ministers. Canning, in 1823, 
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 the 
English language in future. In 1826 a controversy arose 
with the Prussian Government in consequence of Count 
Bernstorff's persistent 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. On this occasion 
an instruction was sent to adhere to the use of English, 
but to intimate that a reply would be accepted written 
in either German, French or Latin. But this did not 
settle the question, as the Prussian Foreign Office con- 
tinued to claim the right of prescribing to foreign diplo- 
matic agents the language in which they should address 
it, but offered to agree that each Government should 
confine itself in future to the use of its own language, 
however inconvenient that might prove. To compromise 
the matter Canning proposed that the British minister 
should in future send a French or German translation 
with the English text, the German Government to be at 
liberty to write in French, or in German accompanied by 
an English version. As Canning left the Foreign Office 
shortly afterwards, the question remained in abeyance 
until 1831, when it was found that the British minister 
of that period at Berlin had written several Notes in 
French to the Prussian Secretary of State, and he was 
instructed to use English in future. He adopted, how- 
ever, the expedient of enclosing with his English Notes a 
certified French translation. 

From 1814 to 1833 the practice of the British repre- 
sentatives at Paris, the Hague, Madrid and Lisbon was 
to use the English language, but at other Courts they 

1 Stapleton, Political Life of the Right Hon. George Canning, 
ii. 265. 


continued to write in French. In 1834 the minister at 
Vienna was instructed to write in English only, in con- 
sequence of a question having been raised at that capital 
respecting the language to be employed, and in 1837 a 
similar instruction was forwarded to the minister at 
Turin, owing to the discovery that he had followed the 
practice of writing in French. 

The question was again raised in 1844 by the Prussian 
Secretary of State of that time, who objected to communi- 
cations being addressed to him in English only, and Lord 
Aberdeen instructed the British minister at Berlin that 
the difficulty would be obviated by adding a French 
or German translation. In 1851 the President of the 
German Diet set up the pretension to receive translations 
of Notes addressed to that Body, on which occasion 
Lord Palmerston instructed the British representative 
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 recognized by her as appertaining 
to every other state. It is obvious that while a man 
speaking or writing in his own language is able to say 
whatever he wishes, on the other hand, when employing 
a foreign tongue, he can only say what he is enabled to 
express by the knowledge which he happens to possess 
of that particular language. 

96. The general usage now is that diplomatists address 
the Foreign Minister in their own language or in French, 
and that he uses his own in reply. Sometimes the use 


of one's own language may cause inconvenience, as is 
shown by an anecdote related to Dr. Busch by Count 

" Ach Keudell," sagte er dann plotzlich, " da fallt mir ein : 
ich muss morgen eine Vollmacht haben, vom Konige, natiirlich 
Deutsch. Der Deutsche Kaiser darf nur Deutsch schreiben. 
Der Minister kann sich nach den Umstanden richten." 
' ' Der amtliche Verkehr muss in der Landessprache gef iihrt 
werden, nicht in einer fremden. Bernstorff hat das zuerst 
durchsetzen wollen bei uns, er war aber damit zu weit gegangen. 
Er hatte an alle Diplomaten deutsch geschrieben, und alle 
antworteten ihm nach einer Complott natiirlich in ihrer 
Muttersprache, russisch, Spanish, schwedisch und was weiss ich 
alles, so dass er einen ganzen Schwarm von Uebersetzern im 
Ministerium sitzen hatte So fand ich die Sache, als ich ins 
Amt trat. Budberg schickte mir eine russische Note. Das 
ging doch nicht an. Wollten sie sich revanchiren, so miisste 
Gortschakoff an unsern Gesanten in Petersburg russisch 
schreiben. Das war das richtige. Man kann vielleicht 
verlangen, dass die Vertreter des Auslandes die Sprache des 
Landes verstehen und gebrauchen, in dem sie accreditirt 
sind. Aber mir in Berlin auf ein deutsches Schreiben 
russisch antworten, das war unbillig. Ich bestimmte also : 
was nicht deutsch oder franzosisch, englisch oder italienisch 
eingeht, bleibt liegen und geht zu den Acten. Budberg 
schrieb nun Excitatorien uber Excitatorien, immer russisch. 
Keine Ant wort, die Sachen waren in den Actenschrank gewan- 
dert. Endlich kam er selbst und fragte, warum ich ihm denn 
nicht antwortete. ' Antworten ? ' sagte ich ihm verwun- 
dert, auf was? Ich habe nichts gesehen von Ihnen ! Nun, 
er hatte vor vier Wochen geschrieben und mehrere Male 
erinnert. Richtig, da besinne ich mich, sagte ich ihm, unten 
liegt ein Stoss Actenstiicke in russischer Schrift, da mags 
wohl dabei sein. Unten aber versteht kein Mensch russisch, 
und was in einer unverstandlichen Sprache ankommt geht 
zu den Acten." Sie waren darauf, wenn ich recht verstand, 
iibereingekommen, das Budberg franzosisch schreiben solle, 
und das Auswartige Amt gelegentlich auch. 1 

97. Written official communications between a diplo- 
matic agent and the Minister for Foreign Affairs take 
one or other of three principal forms : (i) Note, (2) note 
verbale, (3) memorandum (memoire, pro-memorid) . 

1 Graf Bismarck, 4th edition, Leipzig, 1878, ii. 289. 


A Note may be in the first l or third person. Both are 
signed. The former is the more friendly style, the latter is 
stiff in tone, and should be reserved for serious occasions. 
' There is one difference in the correspondence of all 
the foreign ministers here from that which is usual in 
Europe they write letters instead of notes, in the first 
person instead of the third. The effect of this difference 
upon style is greater than any one not habituated to both 
modes would imagine. The third person, " The Under- 
signed," is stiff, cold, formal, and dignified; it is negotia- 
tion in court dress, bag wig, sword by side, chapeau de 
bras, white silk stockings, and patent shoe-buckles. 
Letters in the first person are negotiations in frock coat, 
pantaloons, half-boots, and a round hat." 2 To this 
may be added that it is like the difference between a 
formal invitation to dinner, " Mr. and Mrs. X request 
the pleasure of Mr. Y's company," and " Dear Y, will you 
come and dine with us ? " 

When a Government finds it necessary to address a 
formal communication to another, it usually makes use 
of its own diplomatic representative to the other State 
as the channel. The reply should not be addressed to 
the diplomatic agent who presented it, but should be 
sent through the diplomatic representative at the capital 
of the State which originated the correspondence. 

98. Another method is for the minister for Foreign 
Affairs to address a despatch to his representative at 
the other capital, setting forth the views of the Govern- 
ment with regard to the matter in hand, with an instruc- 
tion to read it to the minister for Foreign Affairs, usually 
with an injunction to leave him a copy. Sometimes the 
direction is, to give a copy if it is requested. To withhold 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, iii. 100, terms these lettres diplomatiques. 
The French Protocole du Minister e des Affaires Etrangeres, 1900, 
calls them letters, and does not mention Notes in the third person, 
except under the heading of Notes Verbales. But the latter are 
not signed. 

2 J. Q. Adams' Memoirs, iv. 327, quoted in J. W. Foster, 
Practice of Diplomacy, 76. 


a copy may possibly, and probably will, lead to a re- 
fusal to listen to the reading of the despatch, such as 
was given by Canning in 1825 x to the Russian am- 
bassador, Count Lieven, and to Prince Esterhazy, Austrian 

99. Canning, in January 1825, had recognized the 
independence of Buenos Aires, Colombia and Mexico. 
In his despatch to Viscount Granville of March 9 he 
gave a very full account of what had happened. The 
Russian and Austrian Ambassadors called on him on 
successive days, and stated that 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. He therefore 
requested them to give to whatever they had to say to 
him the form of a verbal communication. He explained 
to them 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 recollection; 
the despatch being at the same time (as they admitted 
it would be) in the hands of every Russian, Austrian 
and Prussian mission in Europe. Expressions in these 
despatches might easily escape his notice at one hearing 
which might afterwards be circulated in Europe as 
having been addressed to the British Government, and 
listened to without a reply. Facts might be stated in them 
which, if he had opportunity of reflection and reference, he 
could readily contradict or explain, but which, if they 
remained uncontradicted or explained, would be taken 
as admitted for all time to come. He reminded Count 
Lieven of a despatch on the affairs of Turkey and Greece 
which the latter had communicated to him in the previous 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, i. 170, where only Lieven is mentioned; 
the letter to Lord Granville of March 9 is in Stapleton, George 
Canning and His Times, 


January, of which Count Lieven had also been prohibited 
from giving a copy. H. E, sense of justice had led him 
to transgress the prohibition. But what would have been 
his situation, as a responsible minister, if a despatch 
professing to give an account of recent and important 
transactions, but fraught with errors both of assertion 
and omission of the gravest kind errors which it was not 
possible to detect and expose without reference to a long 
series of correspondence and an accurate comparison of 
dates as well as of facts ; \vhat, he said, would have been 
his situation as a responsible minister, if that despatch, 
read to him only once, had then been circulated through- 
out Europe, as a charge which the British Government 
had borne to hear, and of which it had forborne to offer 
any refutation. He referred Prince Esterhazy to certain 
rumours which had lately prevailed in Paris respecting 
some supposed despatch or Note of Prince Metternich's, 
containing expressions of a very unmeasured kind on 
the subject of Spanish-America. No such Note had come 
to his knowledge. He found the impression among 
the Foreign Ministers to be that some such paper was 
written, in which such expressions were used, in the first 
ebullition of Prince Metternich's feelings, but these ex- 
pressions were afterwards, upon reflection, recalled. If 
so, though recalled, they had nevertheless transpired. 
He observed to Esterhazy that as yet he could say truly 
that he knew nothing of any despatch from Metternich. 
But if he once consented to hear a despatch on the same 
subject, of which he was not to retain a copy, it would be 
in vain that, six months later, he should attempt to con- 
tradict, on no other testimony than his own recollection 
of so cursory a communication, whatever it might suit 
the policy of any foreign Power, or Foreign Minister, to 
quote as the contents of that despatch. He therefore 
felt bound not to listen to the reading of any despatch 
without being allowed to retain a copy of it, but was 
perfectly willing to receive any verbal communication 


which they might wish to make. As soon as they had 
left he noted down his understanding and impression 
of what they had said, and sent his minutes to them 
respectively for their approbation or correction. These 
minutes were returned to him that of Lieven consider- 
ably enlarged, Esterhazy's with one alteration. The 
Prussian minister, Baron Maltzahn, was with Canning 
the third day. He did not propose to read a despatch, 
but made a verbal statement, of which Canning sent him 
a minute, and which he returned as containing mot-d- 
mot the matter of his communication. Canning de- 
scribed the tone of Prussia as much harsher than that 
of the other allies, for what reason it was difficult to 
imagine, unless it were supposed that her interest in 
Spanish-American affairs was exactly in inverse pro- 
portion to the concern she had, or was likely to have, 
in them. Granville, the Ambassador in Paris, was in- 
structed to communicate the three minutes to the French 
Minister for Foreign Affairs, and also to his diplomatic 
colleagues, taking every opportunity of declaring that 
these were the only communications which had been 
addressed to the British Government on the subject 
to which they related by the Courts of Petersburg, 
Berlin, or Vienna, and also that if any copies or extracts 
were being circulated of other supposed despatches or 
Notes on that subject, purporting to have been addressed 
to the British Government by those Courts or by any 
one of them, such extracts or copies must be fabrications. 
Canning did not expect that the King would command 
him to give any answer to the contents of the three 
minutes. The Emperor of Russia had expressly depre- 
cated any further discussion. The Austrian declaration, 
Canning added, was unexceptionable, and formed so 
strong a contrast with the language injuriously ascribed 
to Metternich by public report at Paris, that it might be 
considered as a virtual contradiction of that report. 1 

1 P.R.O., P.O. 27/327. The note of Esterhazy's communication 
is in F.O. 7/190 ; Lieven's in F.O. 65/151 ; Maltzahn 's in 64/145. 


100. The following is a Note in the third person 
which completes the record in 571 of the refusal of the 
French Government to ratify the quintuple treaty for 
the suppression of the Slave Trade, signed at London, 
December 20, 1841. 

Londres, le 8 novembre, 1842. 

Le Protocole du 20 [19] fevrier, 1842, etant reste ouvert 
pour la France, le Soussigne, Ambassadeur Extraordinaire 
et Plenipotentiaire de Sa Majeste le Roi des Frangais pres 
Sa Majeste Britannique, a 1'honneur d'informer Son Excel- 
lence le Comte Aberdeen, Principal Secretaire d'Etat de Sa 
Majest6 Britannique pour les Affaires Etrangeres, d'apres 
les instructions qu'il vient de recevoir, que le Gouverne- 
ment du Roi, ayant pris en grande consideration les faits 
graves et notoires qui, depuis la signature de la Convention 
du 20 decembre, 1841, sont survenus a ce sujet en France, 
a juge de son devoir de ne point ratifier la dite Convention. 

Le Soussigne doit aj outer, egalement d'apres les ordres 
de son Gouvernement, que cette ratification ne devant non 
plus avoir lieu plus tard, il n'existe desormais, en ce qui con- 
cerne la France, aucun motif pour que le Protocole demeure 

Le Soussigne, etc. 


Son Excellence 

le Comte Aberdeen, K.T. 

101. On the occasion of the annexation of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1908, that 
Government having informed the other governments who 
were parties to the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 of the 
signature of a protocol with the Turkish Government, 
and requested their assent to the abrogation of Article 
25 of that treaty, the Powers, one after another, 
notified their consent. That article provided that those 
provinces of the Turkish empire should be " occupied 
and administered " by Austria-Hungary. We give a 
translation of the Notes of the German ambassador and 
a transcript of that of the British ambassador in reply 
to this request. 

The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government 


having informed the Imperial German Government of the 
signature of the Protocol relating to Bosnia and Herze- 
govina, 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 d'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. 
His Excellency, 
Baron d'Aehrenthal, etc., etc., etc. 

That of the British ambassador was in the first person. 

Vienna, April 17, 1909. 
Monsieur le Ministre d'Etat, 

In reply to the communication which the Austro-Hungarian 
ambassador in London made to Sir Edward Grey on the 
3rd instant, 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. 


To judge from the correspondence reproduced in the 
volume of ' Diplomatic Correspondence between the 
United States and belligerent Governments relating to 
Neutral Rights and Commerce," published at New York 
in 1915, the practice at both Berlin and Vienna appears 
to be for the German and Austro-Hungarian Foreign 
Offices to address Notes in the third person to foreign 

102. A Note Verbale is in the third person, but neither 

addressed nor signed. It should, however, terminate 

with a formula of courtesy (see below, 109). It is often 


used for the mere record of a conversation, or merely in 
order to put a question. 1 Pasquier defines it thus 

" C'est une expression usitee dans le langage diplomatique. 
Elle veut dire une piece dont le contenu doit etre pris en 
serieuse consideration, 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 oubliee." 

And certainly the paper in respect of which he gives 
this definition was not lacking in importance. As not 
many Notes Verbales are to be met with in print, it seems 
worth while to reproduce it here. It was framed by 
Pasquier in conjunction with the Due de Richelieu, and 
despatched to Laybach with instructions to communicate 
it to all the plenipotentiaries assembled at the " Con- 
gress," and to ask for its reproduction in the protocol 
of the sittings. 

' La declaration que la cour imperiale et royale vient de 
publier relativement aux affaires de Naples, offre un passage 
qui a dii attirer 1'attention du gouvernement de Sa Majeste 
Tres Chretienne et qui le met dans 1'indispensable necessite 
d'entrer dans quelques explications tendant a ne laisser 
subsister aucune obscurite sur sa conduite et ses veritables 

" Le passage dont il s'agit est celui ou le cabinet autrichien, 
apres avoir fait 1'expose de 1'etat de choses produit par les 
e"venements survenus dans le royaume des Deux-Siciles, 
indique que, dans les conferences de Troppau, il a ete entiere- 
ment d'accord et sur toutes les questions avec les cours de 
Russie et de Prusse, que des considerations d'un grand poids 
ont engage le gouvernement britannique a ne pas les partager 
et le cabinet frangais a n'y acceder qu'avec des restrictions. 

' II importe au gouvernement frangais de bien etablir quel 
est le sens precis de ces dernieres expressions. 

" Les deliberations de Troppau ont eu pour objet : i e , 
d' etablir un systeme de principes generaux pour fixer le droit 
d'intervention reciproque dans les affaires interieures des 
Etats; 2 e , de faire 1'application de ces principes aux affaires 
du royaume de Naples. 

" La France, de meme que 1'Angleterre, est restee etrangere 

^ Garcia de la Vega, 209; De Martens-Geffcken, iii. 3. 


aux discussions qui ont eu lieu sur le premier point, et elle 
n'a ni directement ni indirectement adhere au systeme propose. 
Le gouvernement du Roi ne s'est pas cru, comme celui de Sa 
Majeste Britannique, dans 1'obligation de rendre publique 
son opinion a ce sujet, mais lorsqu'il a 6te dans le cas de la 
faire connaitre soil a ses allies, soit a d'autres cours, il n'a pas 
dissimule qu'elle etait conforme a celle du cabinet anglais. 
Maintenant il declare, en tant que besoin est, qu'il ne prevoit 
aucune hypothese ou il lui fut possible d'admettre le systeme 
en question comme base de sa conduite. 

" Quant au second point, le principe n'ayant pas et6 admis 
par la France, sa conduite ulterieure dans les affaires de Naples 
ne saurait etre considered comme en etant 1'application. 
Le gouvernement fran9ais est parti d'une autre base. Penetr6 
des avantages que devaient offrir des mesures pacifiques et 
amicales, il s'est constamment fait un devoir de cooperer 
a toutes celles qui avaient ce caractere. C'est avec ce senti- 
ment que le Roi s'est empresse d'appuyer la demarche faite 
aupres du roi de Naples, pour 1'inviter a se rendre a Lay bach, 
c'est egalement en partant de la meme base que Sa Majeste 
Tres Chretienne s'etait associee a ses allies pour engager le 
Souverain Pontife a se porter pour mediateur, dans le cas ou 
les roi des Deux-Siciles n'eut pas eu la possibilite de remplir 
lui-meme cette noble et salutaire fonction. 

" Telles sont les seules mesures arretees a Troppau entre les 
cours d'Autriche, de Prusse et de Russie, auxquelles la France 
ait pris part par les motifs ci-dessus exposes. Elle a porte 
le meme esprit de conciliation dans les conferences de Laybach. 
Ses plenipotentiaries n'ont pris sur eux de donner leur adh6- 
sion aux dernieres demarches des cabinets de Prusse, d'Autriche 
et de Russie et d'inviter le charg6 d'affaires du roi de x Naples 
de les appuyer que parce qu'ils ont cm y voir un moyen 
d'epargner au royaume des Deux-Siciles les maux de la 
guerre et de garantir le repos du reste de 1' Italic. Les inten- 
tions du gouvernement francais ne sont pas de nature a 
changer, et si malheureusement la prevoyance des cours 
alliees etait trompee et que le fleau des hostilitds dut affliger 
les Deux-Siciles, il chercherait dans la neutralit6 que ses 
principes lui font un devoir d'observer les moyens d'en adoucir 
les rigueurs et d'en abreger la duree." 2 

Both as regards the place and manner of the composi- 
tion of this paper, and its intrinsic importance, it seems 
more entitled to be termed a pro-memorid than a note 

1 De should be a. 2 Memoir es du Chancellier Pasquier, v. 150. 


103. A memoir e, also called memorial, memorandum 
or pro-memorid, 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, or dated, but 
it is convenient to deliver it by means of a short covering 
Note. There are numerous examples in the American 
volume of Diplomatic Correspondence mentioned above 
in loi. 1 In earlier times these were often termed 
deduction, or expose de motifs. In 1753 Frederick the 
Great caused a Pro-memorid, accompanied by an Expose 
de motifs, to be presented to the British Government 
respecting the capture of Prussian and neutral ships, 
carrying cargo belonging to Prussian subjects, which 
had been condemned as good prize by the English 
courts. The reply was made in the form of a Note from 
the Secretary of State, enclosing a Report by the Law 
Officers of the Crown, which latter was in its essence a 
counter-memorandum. 2 A more modern instance is the 
memoire by Metternich in 1846 respecting the incorpora- 
tion of the city and territory of Cracow in the Austrian 
Empire. This was delivered by the Austrian diplomatic 
representatives in Paris and London to the French and 
British Governments. The French reply was in the 
form of a despatch from the French Foreign Minister to 
the French diplomatic agent at Vienna, who was in- 
structed to communicate it to Prince Metternich, and to 
deliver a copy to him. 8 

104. Note Collective. 

This is a comparatively rare form of diplomatic corre- 
spondence. It involves very close relations, amounting 
almost to an alliance, between the Powers whose repre- 

1 See pp. 84, 89, 96, 125, 141, 176, 178, 216, 232, 233, 234, 235, 

2 Satow, 77 : The Silesian Loan, etc. 

3 De Martens-Geffcken, iii. 8. Other examples in the same 


sentatives sign it, and it is unlikely to be regarded in a very 
friendly light by the Power to which it is addressed. The 
only example we have met with is one addressed by the 
ministers of Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia 
to the French Government, represented by the Due de 
Richelieu, towards the close of the Congress of Aix-la- 
Chapelle (see 462), and is dated November 4, 1818. 
It is in the third person, and undertakes that the 
occupation of French territory by the allied forces shall 

" Les soussignes, ministres des cabinets d'Autriche, de 
la Grande-Bretagne, de Prusse et de Russie, ont regu 1'ordre 
de leurs augustes maitres d'adresser a S. Exc. M. le due de 
Richelieu la communication suivante : 

" Appel6s par 1'article 5 du traite du 20 novembre 1815 a 
examiner, de concert avec S. M. le roi de France, si 1'occupa- 
tion militaire d'une partie du territoire frangais, arretee par 
ledit traite, pourrait cesser a la fin de la troisieme annee, ou 
devrait se prolonger jusqu'a la fin de la cinquieme, LL. MM. 
1'empereur d'Autriche, le roi de Prusse, et 1'empereur de toutes 
les Russies se sont rendus a Aix-la-Chapelle, et ont charge 
leurs ministres de s'y reunir en conference, avec les pleni- 
potentiaires de S. M. le roi de France et ceux du roi de la 
Grande-Bretagne, afin de proceder a 1'examen de cette question 
import ante. 

" L' attention des ministres et plenipotentiaries a du se 
fixer avant tout, dans cet examen, sur 1'etat interieur de la 
France; elle a du porter egalement sur 1'execution des 
engagements contracted par le gouvernement frangais envers 
les puissances co-signataires du traite du 20 novembre 1815. 

" L'etat interieur de la France ay ant ete depuis longtemps 
le sujet des meditations suivies des cabinets, et les pleni- 
potentiaires reunis a Aix-la-Chapelle s'etant mutuellement 
communiques les opinions qu'ils s'etaient formees a cet 
egard, les augustes souverains, apres les avoir pesees dans 
leur sagesse, ont reconnu avec satisfaction que 1'ordre de 
choses heureusement etabli en France par la restauration de 
la monarchie legitime et constitutionnelle, et le succes qui a 
couronne jusqu'ici les soins paternels de S. M. Tres-Chretienne, 
justifient pleinement 1'espoir d'un affermissement progressif 
de cet ordre de choses si essentiel pour le repos et la pros- 
perite de la France, et si e"troitement lie a tous les gran 
interets de 1' Europe. 


" Quant a 1'execution des engagements, les communica- 
tions que, des 1'ouverture des conferences, M. le plenipotenti- 
aire de S. M. Tres-Chretienne a adressees a ceux des autres 
puissances n'ont laisse aucun doute sur cette question, en 
prouvant que le gouvernement frangais a rempli avec 1'ex- 
actitude la plus scrupuleuse et la plus honorable toutes les 
clauses des traites et conventions du 20 novembre, et en 
proposant pour celles des clauses dont raccomplissement 
etait reserve a des epoques plus eloignees des arrangements 
satisfaisants pour toutes les parties contractantes. 

" Tels etant les resultats de 1'examen de ces graves ques- 
tions, LL. MM. II. et RR. se sont felicitees de n'avoir plus 
qu'a ecouter leurs sentiments et leurs vceux personnels, qui 
les portaient a mettre un terme a une mesure que des circon- 
stances funestes et la necessite de pourvoir a leur propre 
surete et a celle de 1'Europe avaient pu seules leur dieter. 

" Des lors, les augustes souverains se sont decides a faire 
cesser 1'occupation militaire du territoire francais, et la 
convention du 9 octobre a sanctionne cette resolution. Us 
regardent cet acte solennel comme le complement de la paix 

" Considerant maintenant comme le premier de leurs 
devoirs celui de conserver a leurs peuples les bienfaits que 
cette paix leur assure, et de maintenir dans leur integrite 
le transactions qui 1'ont fondee et consolidee, LL. MM. II. 
et RR. se flattent que S. M. Tres-Chretienne, animee des 
memes sentiments, accueillera avec 1'interet qu'elle attache 
a tout ce qui tend au bien de 1'humanite et a la gloire et a la 
prosperite de son pays, la proposition que LL. MM. II. et RR. 
lui adressent d'unir dorenavant ses conseils et ses efforts a 
ceux qu'elles ne cesseront de vouer a raccomplissement d'une 
oeuvre aussi salutaire. 

" Les soussignes, charges de prier M. le due de Richelieu 
de porter ce voeu de leurs augustes souverains a la connais- 
sance du roi son maitre, invitent en meme temps S. Exc. a 
prendre part a leurs deliberations presentes et futures, con- 
sacrees au maintien de la paix, des traites sur lesquels elle 
repose, des droits et des rapports mutuels etablis ou confirmes 
par ces traites et reconnus par toutes les puissances europeennes. 

" En transmettant a M. le due de Richelieu cette preuve 
solennelle de la confiance que leurs augustes souverains ont 
placee dans la sagesse du roi de France et dans la loyaute 
de la nation frangaise, les soussignes ont 1'ordre d'y aj outer 
1'expression de 1'attachement inalterable que LL. MM. II. 
et RR. professent envers la personne de S. M. Tres-Chretienne 
et sa famille, et de la part sincere qu'elles ne cessent de 
prendre au repos et au bonheur de son royaume. 


' Us ont 1'honneur d'offrir en meme temps a M. le due de 
Richelieu 1'assurance de leur consideration toute particuliere. 1 




" Aix-la-Chapelle, le 4 novembre, 1818." 

Dignified reply of the Due de Richelieu 

" Le soussigne, ministre et secretaire d'fitat de S. M. 
Tres-Chretienne, a recu la communication que LL. Exc. MM. 
les ministres des cabinets d'Autriche, de la Grande-Bretagne, 
de Prusse et de Russie lui ont fait 1'honneur de lui adresser 
le 4 de ce mois, par ordre de leurs augustes souverains. II 
s'est empresse d'en donner connaissance au roi son maitre. 
S. M. a re$u avec une veritable satisfaction cette nouvelle 
preuve de la confiance et de 1'amitie des souverains qui ont 
pris part aux deliberations d'Aix-la-Chapelle. La justice 
qu'ils rendent a ses soins constants pour le bonheur de la 
France, et surtout a la loyaute de son peuple, a vivement 
touche son cceur. En portant ses regards sur le passe, et en 
reconnaissant qu'a aucune autre epoque, aucune nation 
n'aurait pu executer avec une plus scrupuleuse fidelite des 
engagements tels que ceux que la France avait contracted, 
le roi a senti qu'elle etait redevable de ce nouveau genre de 
gloire a la force des institutions qui la regissent, et il voit 
avec joie que raffermissement de ces institutions est regarde 
par les augustes allies comme aussi avantageux au repos de 
1'Europe qu'essentiel a la prosperite de la France. Con- 
siderant que le premier de ses devoirs est de chercher a per- 
petuer et accroitre, par tous les moyens qui sont en son 
pouvoir, les bienfaits que 1'entier retablissement de la paix 
geneYale promet a toutes les nations; persuade que 1'union 
intime des gouvernements est le gage le plus certain de sa 
duree, et que la France, qui ne pouvait rester etrangere a un 
systeme dont toute la force naitra d'une parfaite unanimite 
de principes et d'action, s'y associera avec cette franchise 
qui la caracterise, et que son concours ne peut qu'augmenter 
1'espoir bien fonde des heureux resultats qu'une telle alliance 
aura pour le bien de 1'humanite. S. M. Tres-Chretienne 
accueille avec empressement la proposition qui lui est faite 
d'unir ses conseils et ses efforts a ceux de LL. MM. I'empereur 
d'Autriche, le roi de la Grande-Bretagne, le roi de Prusse et 
I'empereur de toutes les Russies, pour accomplir I'reuvre 
salutaire qu'ils se proposent. En consequence elle a autorise 

1 Br. and For. State Papers, vi. 16. 


le soussigne a prendre part a toutes les delib6rations de leurs 
ministres et plenipotentiaries dans le but de consolider la 
paix, d'assurer le maintien des traites sur lesquels elle repose, 
et de garantir les droits et les rapports mutuels etablis par 
les memes traites et reconnus par tous les Etats de 1'Europe. 

" Le soussigne, en priant LL. Exc. de vouloir bien trans- 
mettre a leurs augustes souverains 1'expression des intentions 
et des sentiments du roi son maitre, a 1'honneur de leur offrir 
1'assurance de sa plus haute consideration. 


" Aix-la-Chapelle, le 12 novembre, 1818." 

This collective note is of a friendly character. It 
declares in carefully chosen phrases that France is for- 
given by the four monarchies for the errors of the revolu- 
tionary and Napoleonic period, and invites the King to 
join in their alliance for the conservation of the status quo 
established by the treaties of Paris and Vienna. It is 
the pardon of the repentant Magdalen. 

105. That the delivery of a collective note may easily 
be regarded as offensive by the Government to which it 
is addressed is shown by the steps taken at Madrid, 
after the Congress of Verona, by the three despotic 
monarchies, Austria, Prussia and Russia, with which 
the French Cabinet had been induced to combine. The 
object of the proposed diplomatic demonstration was to 
compel the Spanish Government to adopt modifications 
in the Constitution of 1812, which Ferdinand VII had 
been driven to accept against his will. The idea of a 
collective note was set aside as being too irritating. It was 
then agreed that the minister of each of the four Powers 
should present a separate note, which, if not actually 
worded identically, should be of the same tenor. A few 
days later this suggestion was abandoned and replaced 
by that of despatches from the Governments of the four 
allies to their representatives at Madrid, who would 
make their contents known to the Spanish Government. 
The drafts of these despatches were framed at Verona 

before the meeting separated. It may be added that the 
VOL. i. G 


communication of these despatches, which was coupled 
on the part of Austria, Prussia and Russia by the simul- 
taneous withdrawal of their ministers, did not lead to a 
pacific solution of the question as regarded the relations 
between France and Spain. 1 

106. Notes identiques are not always word for word 
exactly similar. It is, however, desirable that they 
should be worded as closely as possible in the same way, 
and be identical quant au fond. They should be pre- 
sented, as far as possible, simultaneously. A step of 
this character was taken vis-d-vis France in November 
1833 by Austria, Prussia and Russia, after the meeting 
of the emperors Nicholas I of Russia and Francis I of 
Austria, and the Crown Prince of Prussia, at Munchen- 
gratz. At first it had been proposed to frame a single 
text, which should be adopted by all three Powers, in 
order to demonstrate the perfect concord that existed 
between the cabinets of Vienna, Berlin and Petersburg, 
but the old King of Prussia, who was benevolently dis- 
posed towards France, persuaded the other two sovereigns 
to agree that each should draw up its separate note, 
merely embodying in a final paragraph, in exactly similar 
terms, the declaration they had resolved to make. 2 This 
plan was accordingly carried out. First of all the Austrian 
Charge d'affaires, Baron Hiigel, called on the due de 
Broglie, then French Minister for Foreign Affairs, read 
to him Metternich's despatch and left a copy. On the 
following day Baron Werther presented himself, and 
offered to read, or to let the due read, the despatch he 
had received from Ancillon, the Prussian Minister for 
Foreign Affairs. Broglie read it, found it moderate 
enough, and gave it back. Last of all arrived Pozzo di 
Borgo, who said he need not exhibit to him the whole 
of Nesselrode's despatch, and confined himself to reading 

1 M&m. du Chancellier Pasquier, v. 451. 

2 d'Haussonville, i. 46. 


the last few phrases, which repeated textually the con- 
clusion of the Austrian and Prussian despatches. The 
Note is described as being directed against a revolutionary 
propaganda which was alleged to be carried on in France 
against the peace and good order of neighbouring states. 
It was feared that it might result in disturbances calling 
for assistance in their suppression, which would not be 
refused. 1 Any attempt, it was added, to oppose such 
assistance being afforded would be regarded by each of 
the three Powers concerned as an act of hostility against 

The Prussian despatch was conceived in a tone of 
moderation, which contrasted with the threatening and 
hostile character of the Austrian, while the Russian 
Cabinet was evidently unwilling to go as far as the 

107. The formal parts of a note are : (i) I'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 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 always 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 to the Pope, Majeste 
to kings and emperors; altesse imperiale, altesse royale, 

1 Due de Broglie, despatch to Berlin, and circular to French 
diplomatic agents, in De Martens-Geffcken, iii. 101. 


altesse serenissime, altesse, excellence, seigneurie excel- 
lentissime, seigneurie illustrissime, grandeur, 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 tres-humble et tres-obeissant serviteur " it is 
said to be written en depeche ; if by " veuillez agreer 
1'assurance de ma consideration respecteuse," or by 
some similar form of words, it is said to be written en 

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. It may be placed at the top of the 
first page, or at the end of the letter, opposite to the 
signature. The latter is more formal, but the other is 
more usual, as well as more convenient. 

(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. Sufficient space 
must be left for this, and the writing on the first page 
must not come near the bottom. 

(7) Suscription is the address, and is a reproduction 
on the envelope of the reclame. 2 

Of these the complimentary phrase is subject to 
considerable variation. 

Examples. A Note in the third person to the Prime 
Minister of Denmark from the British Charge d'affaires 
in 1800 ends with : " En remettant cette note a Monsieur 
le Comte de Bernstorff, le Soussign6 profite avec plaisir 
de cette occasion pour Fassurer de la haute consideration 
avec laquelle il a 1'honneur d'etre de Son Excellence le 
tres-humble et tres-obeissant serviteur " ; while the reply 

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

2 Pradier-Fodere, ii. 483. 


has merely : " II a 1'honneur d'offrir a Monsieur Drum- 

mond 1'assurance de sa consideration la plus distinguee." 1 

Talleyrand to the papal legate at Paris, April 18, 1896 

" Le soussigne, ministre des relations exterieures, est 

charge de faire connaitre a Son Eminence le Cardinal 

Caprara, legat du Saint-Siege, que, etc."; winding up 

with : " Le soussigne a 1'honneur de renouveler a Son 

Eminence Monsieur le Cardinal Caprara 1'assurance de 

sa tres-haute consideration." 2 

In another case it was : " Son Eminence est priee de 
mettre la note qu'il [i. e. le soussigne] a 1'honneur de lui 
adresser sous les yeux de son gouvernement, et d'agreer 
les assurances de sa respectueuse consideration." 3 

108. In February 1806 Fox began a correspondence 
with Talleyrand, doubtless intended to pave the way for 
peace negotiations, with a letter informing him of a visit 
from a man who apparently gave a false name, the object 
of which was to propose a plan for the assassination of 
the Emperor Napoleon. It commenced with 

" 20 fevrier, 1806. 

" J'ai 1'honneur d'etre, avec le plus parfait attache- 
ment, Monsieur le Ministre, votre tres-obeissant serviteur." 

Talleyrand's reply 

"5 mars, 1806. 

"J'ai mis la lettre de votre Excellence sous les yeux 
de Sa Majeste. . . . 

" Je vous prie seulement d'agreer 1'assurance de ma haute 

And then it goes on, alternately 

"26 mars, 1806. 

" L'avis que votre Excellence m'a donne. . . . 
" J'ai 1'honneur d'etre avec la plus haute consideration, 
monsieur, de votre Excellence le tres-humble et tres-obeissant 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, iii. 65, 67. 

2 Ibid., 68. s iMd., 72. 


" i avril, 1806. 
" MONSIEUR, . . . 

" J'ai 1'honneur d'etre avec la plus haute considera- 
tion, monsieur, de votre Excellence le tres-humble et tres- 
obeissant serviteur." 

" ce 8 avril, 1806. 

" Je n'ai recu qu'hier votre depeche du i" courant. 
Avant d'y repondre, permettez-moi d'assurer votre Excellence 
que. . . . 

" J'ai 1'honneur d'etre avec la consideration la plus dis- 
tinguee, monsieur, de votre Excellence le tres-humble et 
tres-obeissant serviteur." 

"le 1 6 avril, 1806. 


" Je viens de prendre les ordres de Sa Majeste 1'Em- 
pereur et Roi, sous les yeux de qui je m'e'tais empresse de 
mettre la depeche que votre Excellence m'a fait 1'honneur 
de m'ecrire en date du 8 avril. . . 

" Agreez, monsieur, etc." 

"ce 21 avril, 1806. 

" J'ai recu avant-hier la de'peche de votre Excellence, 
du 16 de ce mois. . . . 

' Je vous prie d'agreer les assurances de ma consideration 
la plus distinguee. 

" J'ai 1'honneur d'etre, de votre Excellence, le tres-humble 
et tres-obeissant serviteur." 

"le 2 juin, 1806. 

" J'ai mis sous les yeux de 1'Empereur la derniere 
lettre que votre Excellence m'a fait 1'honneur de m'ecrire. . . . 
" Agreez, Monsieur, 1'assurance de ma plus haute con- 

" ce 14 juin, 1806. 

' J'ai re9u, il y a quelques jours, la depeche de votre 
Excellence en date du 2 du mois courant. . . . 

" J'ai 1'honneur d'etre, avec la consideration la plus dis- 
tinguee, de votre Excellence, le tres-humble et tres-obeissant 

And a postscript ending with 
" Agreez tous mes hommages." 1 

1 Lord John Russell, iv. 145. 


As is well known, this attempt at negotiation failed, 
mainly because Great Britain refused to conclude peace 
apart from her allies. 

109. French usage, since 1900. 

To the Nuncio and foreign Ambassadors. 

Appel (en vedette) : Monsieur le Nonce, ou Monsieur 
1'Ambassadeur. 1 

Traitement : votre Excellence. 

Courtoisie : Agreez les assurances de la tres-haute 
consideration avec laquelle j'ai 1'honneur d'etre, Monsieur 
le Nonce, or Monsieur 1'Ambassadeur. 
De votre Excellence 2 

le tres humble et tres 

obeissant serviteur. 

Date : a Paris, le ... 19 ... 

Reclame : A Son Excellence Monseigneur . . . Nonce 
du Saint-Siege apostolique, or A Son Excellence Monsieur 
... or Monsieur le . . . (litre heraldique, s'il y a lieu], 
Ambassadeur de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur de . . ., or le 
Roi de . . . pres la Republique franaise. 

To foreign Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers 

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

Appel (en vedette) : Monsieur le Ministre, or Monsieur 
le . . . (titre heraldique, s'il y a lieu). 

Traitement : Vous. 3 

Courtoisie : Agreez les assurances de la haute con- 
sideration avec laquelle j'ai 1'honneur d'etre, Monsieur le 
Ministre (titre heraldique, s'il y a lieu). 

Votre tres humble et tres 
obeissant serviteur. 

1 As Ambassadors represent the very person of the sovereign 
who has accredited them the title, "Ambassador" takes precedence 
of the heraldic title in the Ael andj&urtoisie. 

2 Altesse, or Altesse Serenissime, if the case requires it. 

3 Notice that an envoy does not receive the traitement 


Reclame : A Monsieur . . . or Monsieur le . . . (litre 
heraldique s'il y a lieu], Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
pl6nipotentiaire de . . . pres la Republique fran^aise. 

To Foreign Ministers resident, the same as the fore- 
going, except that the appel is written en ligne. 

To Foreign Charges d'affaires. 

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

Appel (en ligne} : Monsieur le Charge d'affaires or 
Monsieur le . . . (titre heraldique s'il y a lieu). 

Traitement : Vous. 

Courtoisie : Agre"ez, Monsieur le Charge d'affaires, or 
Monsieur le . . . (titre heraldique s'il y a lieu], les assur- 
ances de ma consideration la plus distinguee. 

Reclame : A Monsieur . . . or Monsieur le . . . (titre 
heraldique s'il y a lieu], Charge d'affaires de . . . pres la 
R6publique franchise. 

Other rules of the French Foreign Office. 

Letters addressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
to the representatives of foreign Powers accredited to the 
French Republic are written on folio paper with gilt 

The Agents of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in their 
correspondence with the authorities of the foreign 
country in which they are stationed must follow the 
forms and the rules laid down by the Head of the Diplo- 
matic Mission in accordance with local usage. 

Notes verbales destined for Foreign Representatives 
accredited at Paris are written on folio paper with gilt 
edges. They have neither appel nor reclame. 

The Courtoisie is : Le Ministre des Affaires etrangeres 
saisit cette occasion d'offrir a ... les assurances de sa 
tres haute consideration, or haute consideration, or con- 
sideration la plus distinguee, and the date is written on 
the next line below. 

Notes pro-memorid destined for Foreign Representa- 


tives accredited at Paris are written on square paper 
with gilt edges. They 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 on 
the line below the last word of the text. 

Abbreviations such as " S. M." for " Sa Majeste," 
" S. A." for " Son Altesse," " S. Exc." for " Son Excel- 
lence," " S. E." for Son Eminence," " Mgr." for " Mon- 
seigneur," " M." for " Monsieur," are only allowed under 
the double condition (i) that the name or the title of the 
person follows immediately, and (2) that the document 
be not intended to come into the hands of the person so 
designated. Where both of these conditions are present 
the use of abbreviation is imperative. Thus ' dans 
votre entretien avec S. Exc. 1'Ambassadeur de . . . vous," 
but " Veuillez faire observer a Son Excellence que ..." 
or " le Ministre des Affaires etrangeres presente ses com- 
pliments a Son Excellence 1'Ambassadeur de . . . et a 
1'honneur de Lui rappeler que ..." 

The expressions " Votre Majeste," " Votre Altesse," 
" Votre Excellence," " Prince," " Princesse," " Madame," 
" Mademoiselle," and heraldic titles may not ever be 

Forms used in addressing foreign sovereigns 

Appel (en vedette] : " Sire," or " Madame." To the 

Pope, " Tres-Saint-Pere." 

Traitement : " Votre Majeste," or " Votre Majeste 

Imperiale," or " Votre Majeste Imperiale et Royale." 

To the Pope, " Votre Saintete." 

Courtoisie : ' Je suis avec respect." To the Pope, 

" Avec un profond respect." 

"Sire, "or "Madame." To the Pope, "Tres-Saint-Pere." 
" De Votre Majeste," or " Votre Majeste Imperiale," 

or " Votre Majeste Imperiale et Royale." To the Pope, 

" De Votre Saintete." 

Le tres humble et tres 

obeissant serviteur. 



To Presidents of Foreign Republics 
Appel (en vedette) : Monsieur le President. 
Traitement : Votre Excellence. 
Courtoisie : Je suis avec respect, 

Monsieur le President, 
De Votre Excellence, 
Le tres humble et tres 

obeissant serviteur. 
Date : A Paris, le ... 19 ... 

To Princes or Princesses of Sovereign Families, to 
reigning Princes and Princesses 

Appel (en vedette) : Monseigneur, or Madame. 

Traitement : Votre Altesse (Imperiale, Royale, Serenis- 
sime) . 

Courtoisie : Je suis avec une respectueuse consideration, 

Monseigneur, or Madame, 

De Votre Altesse (Imperiale, Royale, Serenissime) . 

Le tres humble et tres 

obeissant serviteur. 

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

Reclame : A Son Altesse (Imperiale, Royale, Sere- 
nissime), Monseigneur le Prince X . . ., or Madame la 
Princesse X ... 

To Foreign Cabinet Ministers 

Appel (en vedette) : Monsieur le Ministre, or Monsieur 
le . . . (titre heraldique, s'il y a lieu). 

Traitement : Votre Excellence. 

Courtoisie : Veuillez agreer, Monsieur le Ministre, or 
Monsieur le . . . (titre heraldique, s'il y a lieu), les 
assurances de ma haute consideration. 1 

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

Reclame : A Son Excellence Monsieur . . . or Monsieur 
le . . . (titre heraldique, s'il y a lieu), Ministre de . . . 
de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur de . . . or\e Roi de . . . 

1 For the Chancellors, Ministers of State, or Prime Ministers of 
the Great Powers, the courtoisie uses " la tres haute consideration." 


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. Belgian usage. 

To an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 

Courtoisie : Haute consideration. 

Traitement : Monsieur le Ministre, or the title of 

Reclame : A Son Excellence Monsieur . . . Envoye 
extraordinaire et Ministre plenipotentiary de S. M. le 
Roi de . . . a Bruxelles. 

To the Nuncio 

Courtoisie : Tres-haute consideration. 
Traitement : Monseigneur. 

Reclame : A Son Excellence Monseigneur . . . Nonce 
apostolique a Bruxelles. 

To a Minister resident 
Courtoisie : Consideration la plus distinguee. 
Traitement : Monsieur le Ministre. 
Reclame : A Monsieur . . . Ministre resident de S. M. 
le Roi de . . . a Bruxelles. 

To a Charge d'affaires 
Courtoisie : Consideration tres-distinguee. 
Traitement : Monsieur le charge d'affaires. 
Reclame : a Monsieur . . . charge d'affaires de . . . a 

To a secretary charged with the affairs of the mission 
during the temporary absence of its head 

Courtoisie : Consideration distinguee. 

Traitement : Monsieur le charge d'affaires. 

Reclame : A Monsieur . . . charge d'affaires ad interim 
de . . . or charge des affaires de la legation de . . . a 
Bruxelles. 1 

1 Garcia de la Vega, Guide pratique, 247. 


in. Spanish usage. 

Courtoisie : The general phrase is : Aprovecho esta 
oportunidad para reiterar (or ofrecer) a Vuestra Excel- 
encia l las seguridades. 


To Cardinals and Nuncios : de mi mas alta con- 

To Ambassadors : de mi alta consideracion. 

To Envoys extraordinary and Ministers plenipotentiary : 
de mi mas distinguida consideracion. 

To Ministers resident : de mi muy distinguida con- 

To Charges d'affaires : de mi distinguida consideracion. 

The appel is 

To a Nuncio : Excelentisimo Senor, or if he is a Cardinal, 
Eminentisimo Senor. 

To an Ambassador : Excelentisimo Senor. 

To a Minister plenipotentiary : Excelentisimo Senor. 

To a Minister resident : Muy Senor mio. The same to 
a Charge d'affaires. 

The reclame is : Senor Nuncio Apostolico, Senor Em- 
bajador de . . . , Senor Ministro Plenipotenciario de . . . 
Senor Ministro Residente de . . . or Senor Encargado de 
Negocjos de . . . as the case may require. 2 

112. English usage. 

In all official communications, foreign Ambassadors 
accredited in London are addressed as " Your Excel- 
lency "; all other 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 consideration, 
Your Excellency's most obedient 
humble servant. 

1 This is given also to Ministers plenipotentiary, but not to 
Ministers resident. 2 de Castro y Casaleiz, i. 381. 


To foreign Ministers : 

I have the honour to be, 

with the highest consideration, 


your most obedient 
humble servant. 

To foreign Charges d'affaires : 

I have the honour to be, 
with high consideration, 

Your most obedient, 

humble servant. 

To His Majesty's Ambassadors abroad : 

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

Your Excellency's most obedient, 

humble servant. 
To His Majesty's Ministers abroad : 

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

Your most obedient, 

humble servant. 

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

Your most obedient, 

humble servant. 
To the Law Officers of the Crown : 

I have the honour to be, 

Your most obedient, 

humble servant. 
To all other correspondents : 
I am, 

Sir (Gentlemen, My Lord), 
Your most obedient, 

humble servant. 


In cases where an Under-Secretary of State signs in 
the name of the Secretary of State, the signature will be 
preceded by the words : " for the Secretary of State." 
113. German usage 

From the German Embassy in London to the British 
Foreign Office 

Mit der ausgezeichnetsten Hochachtung habe ich die 
Ehre zu sein 

Eurer Excellenz 
ganz gehorsamer Diener. 

From the German Foreign Office (third person Notes) : 

Der Unterzeichnete benutzt diesen Anlass, um dem 
Herrn Botschafter die Versicherung seiner ausgezeich- 
netsten Hochachtung zu erneuern. 

Benutzt er auf diesen Anlass um dem Geschaftstrager 
die Versicherung seiner vorziiglichsten Hochachtung zu 

Benutzt derselbe auch diesen Anlass zur erneuten Versi- 
cherung seiner ausgezeichnetsten Hochachtung. 

From the German Foreign Office (signed Notes) : 
Ich benutze, etc. : 

Genehmigen Sie, Herr Minister, die erneute Versicherung 
meiner ausgezeichnetsten Hochachtung. 

114. Lettres de chancellerie and Lettres de Cabinet. 

How sovereigns address each other in correspondence 
has been explained in Chapter V, 68. 

The credentials of an Ambassador are sometimes in the 
form of lettres de chancellerie, which is the most cere- 
monious style known, but more often in the shape of lettres 
de cabinet, which are also used for Envoys Extraordinary 
and for Ministers resident. 1 There are no corresponding 
terms for these in the English language. 

The former are written on large paper, and are sealed 
with the Great Seal. A lettre de chancellerie begins with 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, ii. 232. 


the grand litre (see 67) of the sovereign who signs it, 
followed by the name and titles of the sovereign to whom 
it is addressed. Thus : " Nous, Charles- Jean, par la 
grace de Dieu, roi de Suede et Norvege, etc. ... a tres- 
haut et tres-puissant prince Notre frere et parent, et 
Notre tres-cher ami Ferdinand i er , roi du royaume de 
Deux-Siciles, de Jerusalem, infant, due de Parme, grand 
due hereditaire de Toscane, etc., etc., and then, leaving 
an interval, 

Tres-haut et tres puissant prince, frere et parent, tres 
cher ami. 1 

Sovereigns who write lettres de chancellerie to princes of 
rank inferior to themselves use their own titles of sovereignty 
without following them up with the titles of the prince to 
whom they are writing. Princes of rank high enough to have 
the right of addressing lettres de chancellerie to emperors and 
kings place their own titles at the bottom of the letter, either 
before or after their signature. 

In the body of the letter the sovereign who is writing 
speaks of himself in the first person plural, Nous, while 
giving to the august recipient the title of Majeste, or Altesse 
(royale or serenissime), or using simply Vous, according to 
the rank and relations of friendship which exist between them. 

Courtoisie : The formula which ends the letter is usually : 
Sur ce, nous prions Dieu qu'il vous ait, tres-haut, tres-puissant 
et tres-excellent prince, notre tres-aime bon frere (ami, cousin, 
allie) en sa sainte et digne garde. 

Souscription : Underneath are written, on the left, the 
place, date, year of the calendar and of the sovereign's reign, 
and lower down, to the right, his signature. Lettres de chan- 
cellerie are usually countersigned by the Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs. 

Lettres de chancellerie from a sovereign to the President of a 
great Republic are in similar form 

N. . . . par la grace de Dieu, roi de ... a monsieur . . . 
President de la Republique. . . . 

Grand et bon ami, etc. 

Sur ce, je prie Dieu, grand et bon ami, qu'il vous ait en 
sa sainte et digne garde. 

The signature is countersigned by the Minister for Foreign 
Affairs or by the Chancellor, and the address is 

A Monsieur . . . President de la Republique de . . . 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, iii. 324 ; Garden, Traite complet, iii. 222. 


In 1850 the Austrian chancery still used Latin for 

Illustrissime Praeses, honoratissime et perdilecte amice ! 
Ex amicis litteris suis, etc. . . . 

. . . Quare eumdem, qui amicissimae meae in illustrem 
vestram ac Gallicam Rempublicam voluntatis testis esse non 
recusabit, vobis, illustrissime Praeses, tanquam insigni favore 
suo plane dignissimum, iterum iterumque commendo. 

Dabam Viennae 6 die 16 januarii 1850. 


Illustrissimo Praesidi inclytae Reipublicae Gallicae, 
Domino Ludovico Napoleoni Bonaparto, amico meo hono- 
ratissimo et perdilecto. 1 

Lettres de chancellerie addressed by Presidents of great 
Republics to the rulers of monarchical states are headed 
with : Le President de la Republique de . . . a Sa 
Majeste le roi de . . . 

Tres-cher et grand ami . . . 

The President of a Republic does not, of course, use 
the pluralis majestatis. 2 

115. A Spanish Carta de Cancelleria 

(Titulo grande) 

Y en su Real Nombre y durante su menor edad, la 
Reina Regente y Gobernadora, al Serenisimo y Potentisimo 
Senor Nicolas I, por la gracia de Dios (titulo grande) Seren- 
isimo y Potentisimo Senor Emperador y Rey, Hermano y 
Amigo Nuestro Carisimo : Sumergida en la mas profunda 
afliccion, cumplo con el triste deber de notificar a Vuestra 
Majestad Imperial queDios ha sido servido descargar un doloro- 
sisimo golpe sobre Mi y sobre toda la Monarquia espanola, 
llamando a Si a Mi caro Esposo el Senor Don Fernando 
Septimo, que fallecio el 29 del mes proximo pasado a las tres 
menos cuarto de la tarde. Participo igualmente a Vuestra 
Majestad Imperial el advenimiento al Trono, con el nombre 
de Isabel Segunda, de Mi Hija primogenita, a quien las Cortes 
celebradas en esta capital el 20 de Junio del presente ano 
prestaron juramento y pleito homenaje como a Heredera de 
estos Reinos, habiendo yo tornado las riendas del Gobierno, 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, iii. 320-3. z Pradier-Foder6, i. 117. 


en calidad de Reina Gobernadora de ellos, durante la menor 
edad de Mi citada Hija. En medio de tan amarga tribulaci6n, 
si algiin consuelo puede hallar Mi afligido anirao, es tener la 
seguridad de que Vuestra Majestad Imperial me acompafiara 
en Mi pena y que conservara a la Reina mi Hija y a Mi el 
mismo sincero afecto y los mismos sentimientos de cordial 
amistad que Vuestra Majestad Imperial ha mostrado a Mi 
Augusto Esposo. Y con esto rogamos a Dios, Serenisimo y 
Potentisimo Sefior Emperador y Rey, Hermano y Amigo 
Nuestro Carisimo, Os conserve en su Santa y digna guarda. 

Sefior Mi Hermano, 
de Vuestra Majestad Imperial 

Buena Hermana, 

Dada en el Palacio de Madrid a 5 de Octubre de 1833. * 

116. Lettres de Cabinet. 

The ceremonial observed in this class of correspondence 
is much less strict than in the case of lettres de chancellerie ; 
between equals the style is more familiar, and less formal 
towards inferiors ; for this reason it is the form employed 
by preference for the correspondence of sovereigns. 

Vedette (or appel] : Monsieur mon frere (et beau-frere), 
madame ma sceur (et belle-sceur) , monsieur mon cousin, 
or mon cousin. 

In the body of the letter the sovereign speaks of himself 
in the singular, and gives to his equals the title of Majeste, 
Altesse royale, etc. Sometimes he makes the use of Vous, 
which he always employs in addressing princes of lower 
rank. The latter always speak of crowned heads as Sire, 
both in the signature and in the body of the letter. 

Courtoisie : Some obliging or friendly expressions, 
which vary according to the relations between the two 
sovereigns, close the letter; for example, Je saisis avec 
empressement cette occasion de renouveler a Votre Majeste 
les assurances de la haute estime et de I'amitie sincere 
avec lesquelles je suis de Votre Majeste le bon frere, N. 
(see also Chap. V, 70). 

The signature of the sovereign to such letters is not 

1 de Castro y Casaleiz, Guia Prdctica, i. 795. 
VOL. I. H 


always countersigned by a Secretary of State. The 
letter is sealed with the privy seal, and the size of the 
paper is smaller than of that used for lettres de chancellerie. 1 
Lettres de Cabinet are usually employed for creden- 
tials of ambassadors and ministers, generally also for 
notifications of death, birth or marriage and for letters 
of congratulation and condolence. 

117. The President of the United States responds to cere- 
monious letters announcing the death of the ruler of a mon- 
archical country, or of any member of the royal family, or of 
the birth or marriage of such princes or princesses. Ex- 
President Harrison commented on this practice thus : " It 
seems almost incongruous to notify a republican Government 
like ours of such an event. The form in use for an answer 
to such communications [the birth of a prince royal] was 
possibly prepared by Secretary Jefferson. It assures the 
happy parent of the joy felt by the President and by 
the people of the United States over the happy event. The 
language in use was so tropical that when such a congratu- 
latory letter was presented for his signature one of our Presi- 
dents felt compelled to use the blue pencil with vigour. 
Perhaps, if we were to notify ' our great and good friends ' 
the kings and queens of the earth, of the birth of every ' heir 
possible ' to the presidency, they would break off the corre- 
spondence." It has not been the practice of the government 
of the United States to notify the changes of the presidency 
to other Governments. As to this practice Secretary Seward 
wrote : " We receive from all monarchical states letters 
announcing the births and deaths of persons connected 
nearly with the throne, and we respond to them in the spirit 
of friendship and in terms of courtesy. On the contrary, on 
our part, no signal incident or melancholy casualties affecting 
the Chief Magistrate or other functionaries of the Republic 
are ever announced by us to foreign states. While we allow 
the foreign states the unrestrained indulgence of their peculiar 
tastes, we carefully practice our own. This is nothing more 
than the courtesy of private life extended into the intercourse 
of nations." 2 

118. But it appears that some republics are in the 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, iii. 325, who say that the letter is not 
countersigned. Garcia de la Vega says the same, but gives 
instances of its having been done. 

z ].W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, 126-7. 


habit of notifying the election of a president, as appears 
from the following example of a letter in reply 


For la gracia de Dios, rey constitutional de Espana, 
etc., etc., etc. 

Al Presidente de los Estados Unidos Mejicanos. 
Mi Grande y Buen Amigo : He sabido con satisfaction, por 
la carta que me habeis dirigido al efecto, que habeis sido 
elevado a la primera magistratura de esa Republica. Os 
felicito sinceramente por la prueba de confianza que debeis 
a Vuestros conciudadanos, y me complazco en aseguraros que 
que vere con placer afianzarse y estrecharse durante Vuestro 
Gobierno la buena inteligencia, que tan util es a los mutuos 
intereses de Espana y de los Estados Unidos Mejicanos. 

En tal confianza, aprovecho esta ocasi6n para expresaros la 
amistad y el sincere aprecio con que soy 

Grande y Buen Amigo 
Vuestro Grande y Buen Amigo 

El Ministro de Estado 

En el Palacio de Madrid a 31 Enero de iSSi. 1 

Similar forms of congratulation on election to the 
presidency are extant elsewhere than in Spain. 

1 de Castro y Casaleiz, i. 466. A similar formula in Garcia de 
la Vega, 285, who also gives the correspondence between Louis 
Napoleon after the coup d'ttat of December 2, 1851, and King 
Leopold of Belgium. 



119. Credentials, English example 120. Mr. S. J. Reid on Lord 
Durham's credentials to Russia 121. French credentials 
in 1834 122. Letters of recall, addressed to a Sovereign 
123. Ditto, addressed to a President 124. Recredential 
(Recreance, Recreditif) 125. From a Republic to a King 
126. Full-power 127. Exchange of full-powers 128. 
Language used for full -powers 129. Full - power in 
Latin 130. Full power in French 131. Mediation of 
Austrian and Russian plenipotentiaries in 1783 132. The 
Emperor's full -power 133. Full power of the King of 
Spain 134. Latin full-powers of England and Holland in 
1784 135. Napoleon's full-power to General Clarke in 
1806 136. Modern examples : Belgian 137. Spanish 
138. English. 

119. Letters of Credence, or Credentials. 

The form of credentials used in Great Britain is that 
of a Lettre de Cabinet, as, for example 1 

Osborne House, 4th December, 1852. 

Being desirous to maintain uninterrupted the union 
and good understanding which happily subsist between Great 
Britain and France, I have made choice of Lord Cowley, a 
peer of my United Kingdom, a member of my Privy Council, 
and Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the 
Bath, to reside at your Imperial Majesty's Court in the 
character of my Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten- 
tiary. The long experience which I have had of his talents 
and zeal for my service assures me that the choice which I 
have made of Lord Cowley will be perfectly agreeable to your 
Imperial Majesty, and that he will prove himself worthy of 
this new mark of my confidence. I request that your Imperial 
Majesty will give entire credence to all that Lord Cowley 
shall communicate to you on my part, more especially when 
he shall assure your Imperial Majesty of my invariable 

1 Pol. Cor. Friedrichs des Grossen, xii. 17, gives the text of 
Michell's credentials to George II of January 4, 1756. 



attachment and esteem, and shall express to you those 
sentiments of sincere friendship and regard with which I 
am, Sir, my Brother, your Imperial Majesty's good Sister, 

To my good Brother, the Emperor of the French." 

120. Mr. Stuart J. Reid, in his Life and Letters of 
the First Earl of Durham, ii. 18, quotes some phrases from 
the letter of credence carried by Lord Durham to the 
Emperor Alexander I in 1835, prefacing them with the 
statement that : " No Plenipotentiary could have been 
sent to a foreign Court with more splendid credentials 
than those which were given to Durham by Palmerston, 
under the sign-manual of William IV." He remarks that 
in that document it was " expressly set forth " that the 
King, being desirous of giving to his Imperial Majesty 
the Tsar of All the Russias an " unequivocal and public 
testimony of our true regard, esteem and brotherly 
affection," had nominated " our right trusty and right 
well-beloved cousin and councillor John George, etc.," 
as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. He 
was to repair to the Russian court with all possible 
diligence in order to give the Tsar "the strongest assur- 
ances ' of the King's " unabated desire to strengthen 
and improve the harmony and good understanding 
happily subsisting between us and your Imperial Majesty." 
Finally, the hope was expressed that the Tsar will " receive 
our said Ambassador in the most favourable manner, and 
give entire credence to everything which we have ordered 
him to declare in our name," not merely when pre- 
senting his credentials, but " upon every subsequent 
occasion which may require his opening our sentiments 
to your Imperial Majesty." 

121. Compare with this the credentials of the envoy 
of the King of the French to the court of Stockholm in 
1834, in the form of a lettre de chancellerie 

Tres-haut, tres-excellent et tres-puissant prince, notre tres- 
cher et tres-ame bon frere le dessein que vous avons de main- 


tenir et de resserrer de plus en plus les liens de bonne harmonie 
qui subsistent si heureusement entre nos tats et ceux de 
Votre Majeste ne nous permet pas de differer a donner un 
successeur au ministre que nous entretenions aupres d'elle. 
En consequence, nous avons fait choix du . . . (noms et litres] 
et nous 1'avons nomme pour resider a la cour de Votre Majeste 
en qualite de notre Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre pleni- 
potentiaire. La connaissance particuliere que nous avons 
des qualites qui le distinguent, les preuves qu'il nous a donnees 
egalement de son zele pour notre service et de son devouement 
a notre personne ne nous laissent aucun doute sur la maniere 
dont il remplira les honorables fonctions que nous lui avons 
confines. Neanmoins, nous lui recommandons encore avant 
toute chose de ne rien negliger pour se concilier 1'estime et 
la confiance de Votre Majeste, seul moyen de meriter notre 
approbation. C'est dans la conviction ou nous sommes qu'il 
pourra completement repondre a nos intentions a cet egard 
que nous prions Votre Majeste d'accueillir notre ministre avec 
bienveillance, et d'ajouter une creance entiere a tout ce qu'il 
lui dira de notre part, surtout lorsqu'il lui exprimera les assur- 
ances de la sincere estime et de la parfaite amitie que nous 
avons pour Votre Majeste,^ainsi que les voeux que nous formons 
pour la prosperite de ses Etats et la gloire de son regne. Sur 
ce, nous prions Dieu, tres-haut, tres-excellent et tres-puissant 
prince, notre tres-cher et tres-ame bon frere, qu'il vous ait 
en sa sainte et digne garde. 

Ecrit en notre palais de Neuilly, le vingt-quatrieme jour du 
mois de juillet de 1'annee de grace mil huit cent trente-quatre. 

Votre bon frere. 1 

The truth is that the language of such documents as 
these is a matter of " common form." It may differ 
from reign to reign, and between one country and 
another, and in the credentials of an ambassador the 
phrases employed are more high-sounding and laudatory 
than those used in the case of an envoy and minis- 
ter. In particular, the final phrase asking that credit 
may be given to all that the agent may say in the 
name of his Sovereign is of universal application, as 
being what constitutes the essential part of a letter of 

1 de Martens-GefEcken, ii. 233. Of course, the pronouns 
referring to the two sovereigns, as well as the word " cour " ought 
to be written with initial capitals. 


122. Letters of Recall. 

Tres Haut, tres Excellent, et tres Puissant Prince, notre 
tres Cher et tres Aime bon Frere et Cousin. 

. . . Ay ant juge convenable au bien de Notre service de 
nommer le Comte de . . . Notre Ambassadeur a ... Nous 
avons dii lui ordonner de prendre conge de Votre Majeste, 
pres de laquelle il remplissait les fonctions de Notre Envoye 
Extraordinaire et Ministre Plenipotentiaire. Nous ne doutons 
pas qu'en remplissant cette derniere fonction de son ministere, 
il n'en profite pour Lui exprimer sa vive reconnaissance des 
bontes dont Votre Majeste a bien voulu 1'honorer pendant 
tout le temps de sa residence a Sa Cour. Nous lui recom- 
mandons particulierement de saisir cette meme occasion pour 
renouveler a Votre Majeste les assurances de Notre sincere 
estime et de Notre parfaite amitie. 

Votre bon Frere et Cousin, 
(L. S.) * Louis 

(countersigned) PASQUIER. 

Ecrit au chateau des Tuileries, le . . . etc., de 1'an de 
grace 1820, et de notre regne le 26. 

MONSIEUR MON FRE"RE, le sieur . . . ayant recu une 
autre destination, la mission que Je lui avais confiee aupres 
de Votre Majeste vient de cesser. J'aime a croire que cet 
Envoye, qui a rempli cette mission a Mon entiere satisfaction, 
aura su meriter la bienveillance de Votre Majeste, et J'espere 
qu'Elle lui permettra de lui temoigner en personne la recon- 
naissance 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 les assurances de la 
haute estime et de Unalterable amitie avec lesquelles je suis, 
Monsieur Mon Frere, de Votre Majeste. 

le Bon Frere. 2 


123. To a Republic. 

Tres-chers et grands Amis, Allies et Confederes, la satis- 
faction particuliere que Nous avons des services du sieur 
Comte de . . . Notre Envoye extraordinaire aupres de Vous, 
Nous aurait porte a le laisser plus longtemps dans cet emploi, 
si son age et sa sante lui permettaient d'en continuer encore 
les fonctions. Ayant egard aux instances reiterees qu'il Nous 
a faites a ce sujet, Nous lui avons accorde la permission de 

1 Garden, Traite complet de Diplomatic, iii. 239. 
9 de Martens-Geffcken, ii. 242, 


revenir aupres de Nous. II a ordre, avant son depart, ^de 
Vous temoigner combien sont vrais les sentiments d'amitie et 
d'attachement que Nous avons pour Vous, et 1'interet que Nous 
prendrons tou jours a Vos a vantages particuliers, ainsi que de 
Vous assurer qu'en toutes occasions Nous aimerons a Vous 
donner des marques de Notre estime et de Notre affection. 
Priant Dieu qu'il Vous ait, Tres-Chers et Grands Amis, Allies 
et Confederes, en Sa sainte et digne garde. Votre Bon Ami, 
Allie et Confedere. 1 


124. Recredential (recreance, recreditif] is the name 
given to the reply to a letter of recall. The examples 
here inserted are in the form of Lettres de Cabinet, but 
they may also be in the Lettre de chancellerie form. Of 
this there is a specimen in Garden, Traite complet, etc., 
iii. 240. 


J'ai, regu la lettre (M. . . . M'a remis la lettre) par 
laquelle Votre Majeste a bien voulu M'informer qu'Elle a 
juge a propos d'appeler aux fonctions de . . . Monsieur . . . 
qui a reside a Ma Cour pendant . . ., en qualite de . . . de 
Votre Majeste. Je ne laisserai pas echapper (or, Je saisis 
avec empressement) cette occasion d'exprimer a Votre Majeste 
combien J'ai eu lieu d'etre satisfait de la maniere dont Mon- 
sieur ... a constamment execute les ordres de Votre Majeste 
durant la mission qui 1'a retenu aupres de Ma personne. 
Comme il n'a cesse de consacrer ses efforts au maintien et a 
la consolidation de 1'union parfaite et des rapports d'intime 
amitie qui existent si heureusement entre Nos deux Couronnes, 
il s'est acquis toute Ma bienveillance, et Je n'hesite pas a le 
recommander, a ce titre, aux bonnes graces de Votre Majeste. 
En exprimant a Votre Majeste le plaisir que Me font eprouver 
les temoignages d'affection qu'Elle Me donne, Je La prie de 
recevoir les assurances de la haute estime et de 1'inviolable 
attachement avec lesquels Je suis. . . . 



J'ai regu la lettre que Votre Majeste a bien voulu 
m'adresser le . . . pour M'informer qu'Elle a juge" convenable 
de mettre un terme a la mission que Monsieur . . . remplissait 
pres de Ma personne, en qualite de Son. . . . Je ne veux pas 
laisser echapper 1'occasion que M'offre cette communication, 

* de Martens-Geficken, ii. 243. 


sans exprimer a Votre Majeste combien j'ai eu lieu d'etre satis- 
fait de la maniere dont Monsieur . . . s'est acquitte des 
devoirs que lui imposaient ses hautes fonctions, et a ce titre, Je 
me plais a le recommander aux bonnes graces de Votre Majeste. 
En exprimant a Votre Majeste la satisfaction que Me font 
eprouver les temoignages d'amitie que J'en recois, et en La 
remerciant du soin qu'Elle a pris de donner immediatement 
un digne successeur a Monsieur. . . . Je Me f elicite de pouvoir 
Lui renouveler les assurances de la haute estime et du sincere 
attachement avec lesquels Je suis. . . .' 1 

125. From a Republic to a King. 


II a plu a Votre^Majeste de nous faire part, par sa 
lettre du . . . des raisons qui ont porte Votre Majeste a 
rappeler . . . Son Ambassadeur extraordinaire pres de nous. 
II nous a envoye cette lettre de . . . ou il vient d'etre appele" 
pour le service de Votre Majeste, et en prenant conge de nous 
il a renouvele, de la maniere la plus positive, les assurances 
de I'amitie et de 1'interet que Votre Majeste continue a porter 
a notre Republique. Plus que personne, cet Ambassadeur, 
pendant le temps qu'il a reside dans cette Republique, a et6 
de meme de se convaincre des sentiments de reconnaissance 
dont nous sommes penetres pour Votre Personne Roy ale, et 
du desir sincere que nous avons de voir de plus en plus con- 
solider 1'union et la bonne harmonic retablie entre les^Etats de 
Votre Majeste et notre Republique. Comme nous avons une 
entiere confiance en lui, nous nous rapportons aussi ace qu'il 
Vous dira de nous, et du prix que nous attachons a I'amitie 
dont Votre Majeste veut bien nous honorer. Sur ce, nous 
prions Dieu qu'il Vous ait, Sire, en sa sainte et digne garde. 2 

126. Full-Powers. 

These are in the form of Letters Patent. 

A diplomatic agent to whom a particular negotiation is 
entrusted, whether for the conclusion of a treaty or con- 
vention, or for taking part in a Congress or a Conference, 
requires, as a general rule, a special written authorization, 
called a full-power, from the Head of the State which he 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 333. 

2 de Martens-Geffcken, ii. 247. This recreance and the lettre de 
rappel on p. 103 were evidently exchanged between the French 
King and the Swiss Confederation. 


represents, whether King, Emperor or President. Excep- 
tions to this rule occurring in the case of conferences, are 
mentioned in Chap. XXVI. 471 n., 489, and elsewhere, 
the view taken being, that an ambassador, by the very 
fact of his representing his sovereign, does not always 
require a full-power for the discussion of political affairs 
at a Conference in the capital where he is accredited. 

The forms used in drawing up full-powers are sufficiently 
shown by the examples which follow. 

127. Before the signature of a treaty, it is the rule 
that the full-powers of the plenipotentiaries must be 
exhibited for the purpose of verification, and when that 
act has been performed to the mutual satisfaction of the 
parties concerned, a statement is inserted in the draft 
to the effect that the plenipotentiaries, having either 
communicated, or exchanged their full-powers, or that 
they were furnished with full powers, these were found to 
be "in good and due form." A German model of such 
a statement is in the words " nach Austausch ihrer gut 
und geniigend gefundenen Vollmachten." It is, however, 
not to be understood that an actual exchange or trans- 
ference of the original documents must necessarily take 
place. A mere inspection will suffice, and the utmost that 
could be required would be the exchange of certified 
copies. That this was the custom in former times is 
evident 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 

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 verifica- 
tion. At the conferences of Constantinople (1876-7) and 
Berlin (1884), the plenipotentiaries appointed ad hoc alone 
produced full-powers, which were held to be unnecessary 

1 See Jenkinson, iii. 347. 


in the case of the resident diplomatic agents who repre- 
sented their governments on those occasions. 

128. 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, 1783, 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. 1 

129. Full-power, dated April 23, 1783, to the Duke 
of Manchester for negotiating a treaty of peace with 

(Signature) Georgius R. 

Georgius Tertius, Dei Gratia, Magnae Britanniae, Fran- 
ciae, et Hiberniae, Rex, Fidei Defensor, Dux Bransvicensis et 
Luneburgensis, Sacri Romani Imperii Archi-Thesaurarius, 
et Princeps Elector, etc. Omnibus et singulis ad quos prae- 
sentes hae literae pervenerint, salutem ! Cum ad pacem perfi- 
ciendam inter nos et bonum f ratrem nostrum Regem Christian- 
issimum, 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 Extra- 
ordinarii et Plenipotentiarii apud praedictum bonum fratrem 
nostrum Regem Christianissimum decoravimus, persuas- 
umque 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 prassentes, eum facimus, constituimus 
et ordinamus, nostrum verum certum ac indubitatum pleni- 

1 Papers rel. to the Negot. with France, Dec. 22, 1806, p. 65, 97. 


potentiarium, commissarium, et procuratorem ; dantes et 
concedentes eidem plenam et omnimodam potestatem, atque 
auctoritatem, pariter ac mandatum generale ac speciale, cum 
prasdicto Rege Christianissimo, ipsiusque ministris, commis- 
sariis vel procuratoribus, sufficient! auctoritate instructis, 
cumque legatis, commissariis, deputatis et plenipotentiariis 
aliorum principum et statuum, quorum interesse poterit, 
sufficient! itidem auctoritate instructis tarn singulatim ac 
divisim, quam aggregatim ac conjunctim, congrediendi et col- 
loquendi, 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, sub- 
signandi, 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, transi- 
gendi, tarn 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 qusecun- 
que a dicto nostro Plenipotentiario transigi et concludi con- 
tigerint, 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 praesentibus, manu nostra regia 
signatis, magnum nostrum Magnae Britanniae sigillum append! 
fecimus. Quae dabantur in palatio nostro Divi Jacobis die 
vicesimo tertio mensis Aprilis, anno domini millesimo, septin- 
gesimo octogesimo tertio, regnique nostri vicesimo tertio. 1 

130. Plein-pouvoir de sa Majeste Tres Chretienne. 

Louis, par la grace de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, 
a tous ceux qui ces presentes lettres verront, salut. Les 
preliminaries signes a Versailles, le vingt Janvier de cette 
annee, ont pose les fondements de la paix retablie entre Nous, 
et Notre tres cher et tres ame Bon Frere le Roi de la Grande 
Bretagne. Nous n'avons rien de plus a coeur que de consolider 
ce salutaire et important ouvrage par un traite solennel et 
defmitif. Pour ces causes, et autres bonnes considerations a 
ce nous mouvant, Nous confiant entierement en la capacite et 
experience, zele et fidelite pour notre service, de Notre tres 

1 Jenkinson, etc., iii. 347. This and the full-powers in 130, 
132 and 133 were printed by Jenkinson from badly transcribed 
copies of the originals, and should not be regarded as models of 
official attention to the use of capital letters in speaking of 
Crowned Heads. 


cher et bien ame le Sieur Comte de Vergennes, Notre Con- 
seiller en tous Nos Conseils, Commandeur de Nos ordres, Chef 
de Notre Conseil Royal des Finances, Conseiller d'Etat d'Epee, 
Ministre et Secretaire d'Etat, et de Nos Commandemens et 
Finances, ayant le departement des affaires etrangeres, Nous 
1'avons nomme, commis et depute, et par ces presentes sig- 
nees de Notre main, le nommons, commettons et deputons, 
Notre Ministre Plenipotentiaire, lui donnant plein et absolu 
pouvoir d'agir en cette qualite, et de conferer, negocier, traiter 
et convenir, conjointement avec le Ministre Plenipotentiaire 
de Notre tres cher et tres ame Bon Frere le Roi de la Grande 
Bretagne, revetu de pouvoir en bonne forme, arreter, conclure 
et signer tels articles, conditions, conventions, declarations, 
traite defmitif, accessions, et autres actes quelconques, qu'il 
jugera convenables, pour assurer et affermir le grand ouvrage 
de la paix, le tout avec la meme liberte et autorite que Nous 
pourrions faire nous-memes, si Nous y etions presents en per- 
sonne, encore qu'il y eut quelque chose qui requit un mande- 
mentplus special qu'il n'estcontenu dans ces presentes ; promet- 
tant, en foi et parole de Roi, d'avoir agreable, tenir ferme et 
stable a toujours, accomplir et executer ponctuellement, tout 
ce que le dit Sieur Comte de Vergennes aura stipu!6 et signe, 
en vertu du present plein-pouvoir, sans jamais y contrevenir, 
ni permettre qu'il y soit centre venu, pour quelque cause et 
sous quelque pretexte que ce puisse etre, comme aussi d'en 
faire expedier Nos lettres de ratification en bonne forme, et 
de les faire delivrer, pour etre echangees, dans le terns dont 
il sera convenu : Car tel est Notre plaisir. En temoin de quoi 
Nous avons fait mettre Notre seel a ces presentes. 

Donne a Versailles le quatrieme jour du mois de fevrier, 
1'an de grace mil sept cent quatre vingt trois, et de Notre 
Regne le neuvieme. 

(Signe) Louis (et sur le repli, par le Roi, La Croix Marechal 
de Castries, et scelle du Grand Sceau de cire jaune). 1 

131. The preamble to the definitive Treaty of Peace 
and Friendship, between His Britannick Majesty and the 
Most Christian King, signed at Versailles, September 3, 
1783, after reciting the desire of both Monarchs to put 
an end to the war, states that they had accepted the offer 
made by Their Majesties the Emperor of the Romans 
and the Empress of all the Russias of their " Entremise 
et de leur mediation." 

1 Jenkinson, etc., iii. 349. 


" Leurs dites Majestes le Roi de la Grande Bretagne et le 
Roi Tres Chretien, se faisant un devoir de donner a leurs 
Majestes Imperiales une marque eclatante de leur reconnois- 
sance, de 1'offre genereuse, de leur mediation, les ont invitees, 
de concert, a concourir a la consommation du grand et salu- 
taire ouvrage de la paix, en prenant part, comme mediateurs 
au traite definitif a conclure entre leurs Majestes Britannique 
et Tres Chretienne." 

And then are given the names of the personages named 
to represent the mediating sovereigns, who were the 
Imperial ambassador and two Russian ministers pleni- 
potentiary at Paris. 

What part the Emperor of the Romans and the Empress 
of Russia, or their diplomatic representatives at Paris, 
actually took as mediators in the negotiations which led 
up to the treaties of Versailles with France and Spain, 
is not clear. At any rate, these diplomatists were recog- 
nized as having mediated, and, simultaneously with the 
signature of the treaties, they signed respective declara- 
tions to the effect that, they having acted as mediators, 
the treaties of peace, with the separate articles, and all 
the clauses, conditions and stipulations therein contained, 
had been concluded by the mediation of the two neutral 
sovereigns. 1 

132. The Emperor's Full-Power. 

Nos Josephus Secundus, Divina favente dementia, Electus 
Romanorum Imperator, semper augustus, Germanise, Hiero- 
solymae, Hungariae, Bohemias, Dalmatian, Croatian, Slavoniae 
et Lodomerise Rex, Archi-dux Austrian; Dux Burgundias, 
Lotharingise, Stirriae, Carinthiae et Carniolae; Magnus Dux 
Hetruriae ; Magnus Princeps Transylvaniae, Marchio Moraviae ; 
Dux Brabantiae, Limburgi, Lucemburgi, et Geldriae, Wurtem- 
bergae, Superioris et Inferioris Silesiae, Mediolani, Mantuae, 
Parmae, Placentiae et Guastallae, Osvecinias et Zatoriae, Cala- 
briae, Barri Montisferrati et Teschinae ; Princeps Sueviee et 
Carolopolis ; Comes Habspurgi, Flandriae, Tyrolis, Hannoniae, 
Kiburgi, Goritiae, et Gradiscae ; Marchio Sacri Romani Im- 
perii, Burgoviae, Superioris et Inferioris Lusatiae, Mussoponti, 

1 Jenkinson, 346, 347, 384, 385. 


et Nomenei ; Comes Namurci, Provincial Valdemontis, 
Albimontis, Zutphanise, Sarwerdae, Salmae, et Falkenstenii ; 
Dominus Marchiae, Slavoniae et Mechliniae. 

Notum testatumque omnibus et singulis quorum interest, 
vel quocunque demum modo interesse potest, tenore praesen- 
tium facimus, Interea cum ultimum grave bellum universum 
prope terrarum orbem inundaret, Nos, et Imperatoriae totius 
Russiae auctocraticis Majestas, pari animati desiderio, belli 
hujus calarnitatibus quantocyus finem imponendi, pronam 
in id voluntatem nostram saepius testari non praetermisimus, 
ut intervenientibus communibus utriusque nostrum amicis 
officiis, partium belligerantium conciliatio sublevetur, et 
pristina pax ac sincera inter illas concordia restauretur. 
Pergratum Nobis intellectu fuit communes conatus nostros 
optato non caruisse effectu : Posteaque quam enim, prevalen- 
tibus inter principes bello implicitos pacatioribus animi sensi- 
bus, Res jam eo feliciter provecta fuit, ut de previis pacis 
conditionibus, seu articulis preliminaribus, queis universum 
pacificationis opus innitatur, inter illos conventum sit, altefati 
serenissimi et potentissimi principes amice a nobis petierunt, 
ut in consortio suae Majestatis Imperatricis omnium Russiarum 
sociam salutari huic negotio manum admoveremus, firm- 
andaeque pacis, cujus fundamenta in supramemoratis prseviis 
conditionibus prospere jacta sunt, arnica nostra interpo- 
neremus officia, quo certiusconjunctis pacificatorum laborious 
magnum almaa pacis opus omni ex parte absolveretur. Nos, 
quibus idem semper curae fuit, eo lubentius eosdem animi 
sensus in supramemoratis principibus deprehendentes, com- 
municatis praevie cum Imperatricis totius Russiae Majestatis 
conciliis, nulli haesimus conceptae de utroque nostrum illorum 
fiduciae satisfacere, atque delatam hanc provinciam lubenti 
ac grato animo in nos suscipere. Quern in finem elegimus 
virum illustrem et magnificum, fidelem nobis dilectum Flori- 
mundum Comitem a Mercy- Argenteau, Ordinis Aurei Velleris 
Equitem, conciliarium nostrum actualem intimum, atque 
Oratorem in Aula Serenissimi et Potentissimi Franciae et 
Navaras Regis commorantem, virum singularis fidei, integri- 
tatis, et rerum dextere gerendarum peritise, eumque denomin- 
avimus, atque plenam illi hisce facultatem impertimur, qui, 
nostro nomine, pacificatoris munus in se suscipiens, conso- 
ciate cum hoc vel his, qui tarn ex parte suae Majestatis Im- 
peratricis totius Russiae, ut commediatricis, quam ex parte 
reliquorum, quorum res hie agitur, intervenientium principum 
ad hoc denominati, ac aeque plena facultate instructi erunt, 
consilia et operam conferat, ut interpositis amicis ofnciis, et 
communibus laboribus, tales tractatus, conventiones, vel 
quaecunque dispositiones in ordinem redigantur, quales ad 


perficiendum pads opus necessarii esse visi fuerint ; quae 
omnia subscribe! et signabit, et ex parte sua etiam tale instru- 
mentum, vel talia instrumenta, exhibebit, quae ad rem faci- 
entia visa, et ab illo postulata fuerint. Verbo nostro Csesareo 
Regie et Archiducali spondentes, nos omnia ea, quae vigore 
praesentium tabularum ab Oratore hoc nostro conclusa, pro- 
missa, et signata fuerint, rata, grataque habituros, et fideliter 
adimpleturos, ratihabitionisque nostrae tabulas, tempore con- 
vento, extradi jussuros esse. In quorum fidem majusque 
robur, has Plenipotentiarum tabulas manu nostra subscrip- 
simus, Sigilloque nostro Caesareo Regio et Archiducali pendente 
firmari jussimus. 

Datum in civitate nostra Viennae, die 16 Aprilis, anno 
Domini 1783, Regnorum nostro rum Romano-Germanici 
vigesimo, hereditariorum tertio. 

W. Kaunitz Rietberg. 1 

The only point of interest in the full-power of the 
Empress of Russia, which was dated March 12, 1783, o.s., 
is the coupling together of " bons offices " and " media- 
tion " in one phrase. 2 

133. An identical series of full-powers was given 
for the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between his 
Britannick Majesty and the King of Spain, signed also 
at Versailles on the same day as the French treaty. 
Of these the full-power of his Catholick Majesty is here 

Don Carlos, por la Gracia de Dios, Rey de Castilla, de Leon, 
de Aragon, de las Dos Sicilias, de Jerusalem, de Navarra, 
de Granada, de Toledo, de Valencia, de Galicia, de Mallorca, de 
Sevilla, de Cerdena, de Cordova, de Corcega, de Murcia, de 
Jaen, de los Algarves, de Algeciras, de Gibraltar, de las Islas 
de Canaria, de las Yndias Orientales y Occidentales, Islas y 
Tierra Firme del Mar Oceano ; Archiduque de Austria ; 
Duque de Borgona, de Brabante, y de Milan ; Conde de 
Abspurg, de Flandes, Tirol y Barcelona; Sefior de Viscaya, 
y de Molina, etc. Por quanto ajustados ya felizmente los 
principales articulos preliminares de paz entre mi Corona de 
Espana con la de Inglaterra igualmente que lo han sido los 
de otras potencias, llegara mui luego el caso de celebrarse un 

1 Jenkinson, ibid., iii. 350. z Ibid., iii. 352. 


congreso general, en el parage que se juzgue mas a prop6sito, 
y de cormin ventaja, para acabar de arreglar y consolidar de- 
finitivamente todos los puntos contravertidos entre las Poten- 
cias y Estados, que han tenido parte en la guerra que ahora 
se termina : Y considerando mui verosimil sea elejida esa 
misma Corte por su proportion, y por hallarse en ella los 
Plenipotenciarios que han intervenido en la conclusion de 
los citados preliminares, he juzgado indispensable y corre- 
spondiente autorizar de nuevo a persona de todo mi aprecio 
y confianza que se halle dotada de la instruction, y experi- 
encias para que en nombre mio asista a las conferencias, 
trate, arregle y ajuste quanto convenga a mis intereses en el 
futuro tratado definitive : Por tanto concurriendo en vos, 
Don Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea Ximenez de Urrea, etc., 
Conde de Aranda, y Castelflorido, Marques de Torres, de 
Villanant y Rupit, Visconde de Rueda y Yoch, Baron de las 
Baronias de Gavin, Sietamo, Clamosa y otras; Sefior de la 
Tenencia y Honor de Alcalaten, etc., Ricohombre de Natu- 
raleza en Aragon, Grande de Espafia de Primera Clase, Caval- 
lero del insigne Orden del Toyson de Oro, y del de Sancti 
Spiritus, mi Gentilhombre de Camara con Exercicio, Capitan 
General de mis Reales Exercitos, y mi Embaxador Extra - 
ordinario cerca del Rey Christianisimo, todos estos requisites, 
y demas prendas que hacen al intento ; he venido en auto- 
rizaros, como por la presente os autorizo, os nombro, y os con- 
cede mi pleno-poder en la forma mas amplia y mas extensa, 
para que con los Ministros legitimamente autorizados por sus 
respectivos principes, 6 estados a quienes representen, trateis, 
ajusteis, concluyais y firmeis todos los puntos, que se dirijan a 
la consolidaci6n de la paz general, por medio del tratado 
definitive, a que se aspira, prometiendo, en fe y palabra de 
Rey, de aprobar, ratificar, cumplir, y hacer cumplir inte- 
gramente, qualesquiera articulos, pactos 6 ajustes, que con- 
cluyais y firmeis. En fe de lo qual mande expedir la presente 
firmada de mi mane, sellado con mi sello secrete, y refrendada 
por mi infrascrito consejero de estado y primer Secretario de 
Estado y del Despacho. 

En el Pardo, a Qcho de Febrero, de mil Setecientos ochenta 
y tre"s. 

(L. S.) Yo El Rey, 

(Countersigned) JOSEPH MoNiNO. 1 

134. There was signed at Paris, May 20, 1784, a 
Treaty of Peace between his Majesty the King of Great 
Britain and their High Mightinesses the States-General of 

1 Jenkinson, iii. 387. 
VOL. I. I 


the United Provinces of the Low Countries. The text 
was in French, the full-powers on both sides in Latin. 
The King's full-power is identically worded, mutatis 
mutandis with that used for the French treaty of 1783. 
The Dutch full-power is shorter, but contains the im- 
portant clause, present in all the rest, in some shape or 
other, " Sincera mente et bona fide polliciti, nos grata, 
accepta et rata habituros ornnia, quae dicti Domini Lega- 
tus noster 1 et Plenipotentiarius 2 stipulati fuerint, vel 
promiserint, concesserintve, nosque literas ratihabitionis 
solenni forma daturos." 3 

135. The full-powers given in 1806 to Lord Yarmouth 
in the first instance, and afterwards to Lord Lauderdale 
and Lord Yarmouth conjointly, are worded in the same 
manner as those of the Duke of Manchester in 1783. 
Napoleon's full-power to General Clarke on the same 
occasion is much shorter than the French full-power of 
1783. It runs as follows 

Napoleon par la grace de Dieu, et les constitutions, Empe- 
reur des Fran^ais, Roi d' Italic, 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 donn, 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 autoris6 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 agr6- 
able et tenir ferme et stable, accomplir et executer ponctuelle- 
ment tout ce que le dit plenipotentiaire aura promis et signe 
en vertu des presents pleins-pouvoirs, comme aussi d'en faire 
exp6dier les lettres de ratification en bonne forme, et de les 
faire delivrer pour etre echangees dans le terns dont il sera 

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

1 Mattheus Lestevenon van Berkenroode. 

2 Gerard Brantsen. 

3 Jenkinson, iii. 426. This full-power is countersigned by the 
Greffier, H. Fagel. 


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. 1 

136. More modern examples of a Full-Power are the 

Belgian form of full-power. 

Nous, Leopold, roi des Beiges, desirant arreter, de concert 
avec Sa Majeste . . ., un traite de commerce et de navigation 
egalement avantageux aux relations des deux Etats (or, une 
convention postale, ... or, une convention additionnelle a 
la convention postale conclue entre la Belgique et le . . . 
le . . .). A ces causes et nous confiant entierement en la 
capacite, le zele et le devouement du Sieur (le nom precede 
du titre nobiliaire et du grade militaire, s'il y a lieu, et suivi 

grades; a grade egale, on cite en premier lieu 1'Ordre du 
souverain avec lequel on negocie; vient, en dernier lieu, la 
qualite diplomatique dont le plenipotentiare est revetu) nous 
1'avons nomme, commis et depute et, par ces presentes, signees 
de notre main, le nommons, commettons et deputons notre 
plenipotentiaire, a 1'effet d'entrer en pourparlers avec celui 
ou ceux qui y auront ete autorises, de la part de Sa Majeste 
... pour negocier, etablir et conclure, apres 1'echange de 
pleins-pouvoirs en bonne et due forme, une convention propre 
a atteindre le but propose. Lui donnons plein et absolu 
pouvoir de negocier, arreter et signer les dispositions de ladite 
convention, promettant en foi et parole de Roi, d'avoir pour 
agreable, de tenir ferme et stable a toujours, d accomplir et 
d'executer ponctuellement tout ce que notre dit p!6nipoten- 
tiaire aura stipule, promis et signe en vertu des presents pleins 
pouvoirs, sans jamais y contrevenir, ni permettre qu'il y soit 
contrevenu pour quelque cause et sous quelque pretexte que 
ce puisse etre; comme aussi d'en faire expedier nos lettres 
de ratification en bonne forme et de les faire delivrer pour 
Stre echangees dans le temps dont il sera convenu. En foi 

1 Papers Rel. to the Negot. with France, p. 75. 


de quoi,nous avons ordonn que les presentes fussent revalues 
du sceau de 1'Etat. 

Donne a ... le ... jour du mois de . . . de 1'an de 
grace mil huit cent. . . . 

(Signature royale.) 

(Sceau de 1'Etat) Par le Roi 

Le ministre des affaires etrangeres. 

(Signature du Ministre.) 1 

137. Spanish form of Full-Power (plenipotencia) . 


Por la Gracia de Dios, Rey Constitucional de Espana, etc., 
etc., etc. 

Por cuanto ha llegado el caso de celebrar entre Espana y 
... (el pais 6 paises que scan) un Tratado de . . . (lo que 
sea), y siendo necesario que al efecto autorice Yo, debidamente, 
a una persona que merezca Mi Real confianza, y concurriendo 
en Vos, Don . . . (nombre, apellido, titulos de nobleza, 
condecoraciones, cargos de la Corte y empleos del interesado, 
en letra redondilla gruesa) ... las circunstancias que a este 
fin pueden apetecerse; por tanto, He venido en elegiros y 
nombraros, como por la presente os elijo y nombro para que, 
revestido del caracter de Mi Plenipotenciario, conferencieis y 
convengais lo mas acertado y oportuno con el Plenipoten- 
ciario que para el propio efecto nombre S. M. . . . (quiensea). 
Y todo lo que asi conferencieis, convengais, trateis, conclu- 
yais y firmeis, lo doy desde ahora por grato y rato, lo obser- 
vare y cumplire, lo hare observar y cumplir como si por Mi 
Mismo lo hubiere conferenciado, convenido, tratado, concluido 
y firmado; para lo cual os doy Mi pleno poder en la mas 
amplia forma que de derecho se requiere. Y en fe de ello,. 
He hecho expedir la presente, firmada de Mi mano, debida- 
mente sellada y refrendada del infrascrito Mi Ministro de 
Estado. Dada 

(Firmado) ALFONSO. 

(L. S.) (Refrendado) El Ministro de Estado. 

En Palacio de Madrid a ... de . . . de. 2 

In this formula there is no undertaking for ratification, 
but in a French form, which appears to be also in use at 
Madrid, the usual words are inserted. 

138. The most recent model of English general Full- 

1 Garcia de la Vega, p. 255. * De Castro y Casaleiz, i. 403. 


(Signature) GEORGE R. I. 

George, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Ireland and of 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 any 
matters which are now in discussion, or which may come into 
discussion, between Us and 

We have judged it expedient to invest a fit person with 
Full Power to conduct negotiations on Our part ; 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; 
Giving to him all manner of Power and Authority to treat, 
adjust and conclude with such Minister and Ministers as may 
be vested with similar Power and Authority on the part of 

any Treat , Convention or Agreement between Us and 

, and to sign for Us, 

and in Our name, everything so agreed upon and concluded, 
and to do and transact all such other matters as may apper- 
tain thereto, in as ample a 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, 
shall, subject if necessary to Our Ratification, 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 contrary 
thereto, as far as it lies in Our power. 

In witness whereof We have caused the Great Seal of Our 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 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, 


The wording of a special full-power differs from this 
very slightly. 

It will be noticed that Great Britain is the prin- 
cipal, perhaps the only, state, where a full-power is not 



139. Callieres on necessary qualities for a diplomatist 140. 
Lord Malmesbury's advice to a young man destined for the 
profession 141. Callieres on the style of despatches 
142. On Gallicisms and other vulgar expressions 143. 
Use of bribery Schmelzing and Schmalz on 144. Cal- 
lidres' story of D. Estevan de Gamarra 145. Cal- 
lieres on seeing things from the point of view of the other 
party 146. Garden on unvarnished official reports 
147. Duties of a diplomatist to his resident countrymen 
148. Passports and fees 149. On training the juniors 
150. Should not have local pecuniary interests 151. 
Reports of official conversations should be verified before 
they are despatched 152. Should not publish writings on 
international politics 153. Use of foreign languages 
154. Reserve in communicating official papers 155. 
Palmerston and Jarnac 156. Palmerston and the coup 
d'etat of 1851 157. Caraman, indiscretions at Vienna 
158. Secret diplomacy 159. Minister for foreign affairs 
should have personal knowledge of his agents 160. Diplo- 
matist must protect the dignity of has country 161. 
Difficulty of withdrawal from a wrong course publicly 
announced 162. False economy in telegrams 163. 
Carefulness about conversation at table 164. Do not 
hurry signature of treaties 165. Do not rashly say 
" jamais " 166. Your post is not always the centre of 
policy 167. Telegraphs leave no time for reflection. 

139. CALLIERES on the qualities necessary for the 
profession of a diplomatist : 

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 conoive 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 cceur 
des homines & pour sgavoir profiter 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 inclina- 
tions de 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 pou- 
voir sur lui-meme pour resister a la demangeaison de parler 
avant que de s'etre bien consult e 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 deffaut d'un fameux Ambassadeur etranger de notre 
terns, qui etoit si vif dans la dispute, que lorsqu'on 1'echauffoit 
en le contredisant, il reveloit sou vent des secrets d'importance 
pour soutenir son opinion. 

II ne faut pas aussi qu'il donne dans le deffaut oppose de 
certains esprits mysterieux, qui font des secrets de rien, & 
qui e'rigent en affaires d'importance de pures bagatelles; 
c'est une marque de petitesse d'esprit de ne sgavoir pas dis- 
cerner 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 chose souvent plus importantes ; 
il y a entre les Negociateurs 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 vues plus etendiies, pour profiter des conjonctures qui se 
presentent. 2 

II ne suffit pas pour former un bon Negociateur, qu'il ait 
toutes les lumieres, toute la dexterite & les autres belles qualitez 

1 Observe that the word diplomats did not exist when Callieres 

2 De la maniere de negocier avec les souverains. Paris, 1716, 29. 
Orthography and accentuation of the original. 


de 1'esprit ; il faut qu'il ait celles qui dependent des sentimens 
du coeur ; il n'y a point d'employ qui demande plus d'elevation 
& plus de noblesse dans les manieres d'agir. 1 

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 tres-mediocre. 2 

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'abondance, & meme la delicatesse, regne sur sa 
table : qu'il donne souvent des fetes et des divertissemens aux 
principals personnes de la Cour ou il se trouve, & au Prince 
meme, si'l est d'humeur a y prendre part, qu'il tache d'entrer 
dans ses parties de divertissemens, 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. 3 

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'Ambassadeur, & la depense qu'il y fait est non seule- 
ment 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 concilier les esprits, de faire naitre de la 
familiarite et de 1'ouverture de cceur entre les convives, & 
la chaleur du vin fait souvent decouvrir des secrets importans. 4 

II ne doit pas negliger de se rendre les Dames favourable en 
s'attachant a leur plaire & a se rendre digne de leur estime, le 
pouvoir de leurs charmes s'etend souvent jusqu'a contribuer 
aux resolutions les plus importantes d'ou dependent les plus 
grands evenemens; mais en reiississant a leur plaire par 
sa magnificence, par sa politesse & meme par sa galanterie 
qu'il n'engage pas son cceur. 5 

Comme la voye la plus sure de s'acquerir les inclinations du 
Prince aupres duquel on se trouve, est de gagner celles des 
personnes qui ont du credit sur son esprit, il faut qu'un bon 
Negociateur joigne a des manieres civiles, honnestes & 

1 De la maniere de negocier avec les souverains, 35. 

2 Ibid., 37. 3 ibid., 38. " Ibid., 156. e jbid., 39. 


complaisantes, certaines depenses qui contribuent beaucoup a 
lui en ouvrir le chemin ; mais il faut qu'elles soient f aites avec 
adresse, & que les personnes a qui on veut faire des presens, les 
puissent recevoir avec bienseance & avec surete. 1 

II faut encore qu'un habile Negociateur ne neglige pas de 
s'acquerir par des gratifications & des pensions secretes 
certains gens qui ont plus d'esprit que de fortune, qui ont 
1'art de s'insinuer dans toutes les Cours, & desquels il peut 
tirer de grandes utilitez quand il s$ait les bien choisir. On a 
vu des Musiciens & des chanteuses qui par les entrees qu'ils 
avoient chez certains Princes & chez leurs Ministres, ont 
decouvert de tres-grands desseins. Ces memes souverains, ont 
de petits Officiers necessaires ausquels ils sont souvent obligez 
de se confier, qui ne sont pas toujours a 1'epreuve d'un present 
fait bien a propos, & on trouve meme de leurs principaux 
Ministres assez complaisants pour ne les pas refuser quand 
on scait les leur offrir de bonne grace. 2 

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 sgait pas faire les depenses necessaires pour 
gagner ceux qui sont propres a Ten instruire. 3 

La fermete est encore une qualite tres-necessaire a un 
Negociateur . . . un homme ne timide n'est pas capable de 
bien conduire de grands desseins ; il se laisse ebranler facile- 
ment 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 prejudiciables 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 avoir balance les divers in- 
conveniens, scache prendre son parti & le suivre avec fermete. 4 

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 f ourberie 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. 5 

1 De la maniere de negocier avec les souverains, 41. 

2 Ibid., 43. a ibid., 46. 4 Ibid., 48. 6 /^^ 54 . 


Un trop grand attachement au jeu, a la debauche & aux 
amusemens frivoles, est peu compatible avec 1'attention 
necessaire aux affaires, & il est difficile que ceux qui se laissent 
entrainer par cette inclination, puissent remplir tous les 
devoirs de leurs employs, & qu'ils ne laissent meme quelque- 
fois tenter leur fidelite, pour pouvoir satisfaire a leurs desirs 
dereglez, qui augmentent necessairement leurs besoins. 1 

Un horn me 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 beau- 
coup moins parler qu'ecouter ; il faut du flegme de la retenue, 
beaucoup de discretion & une patience a toute epreuve. 2 

On a remarque qu'ordinairement un Negociateur Espagnol, 
n'est pas presse, qu'il ne songe pas a finir pour finir, mais 
a finir avec avantage, & a profiler de toutes les conjonctures 
favorables qui se presentent, & sur tout de notre impatience. 3 

II doit pour en etre bien instruit, lire avec application tous 
les traitez publics, tant generaux que particuliers qui ont 
ete faits entre les Princes & les Etats de 1' Europe . . . il est 
bon qu'il s'instruise de tous les traitez faits depuis le temps 
[du roi Loiiis XI & Charles dernier Due de Bourgogne dont 
la maison d'Austriche a herite], mais plus particulierement 
de ceux qui ont ete conclus entre les principales puissances 
de 1'Europe, a commencer par les traitez de Westphalie 
jusqu'au temps present. 4 

[He recommends particularly the study of the letters 
of Cardinal d'Ossat, those of Mazarin to the French 
plenipotentiaries at Miinster, his despatches to the King 
reporting on his conferences with Don Luis de Haro at 
the Peace of the Pyrenees, those of the embassies of 
Noailles, Bishop of Aix and Montluc, Bishop of Valence, 
those of the President Jeannin, the Mercures Italiens 
of Vittoria Siri and his Memorie Recondite, full of very 
curious and useful facts, the instructions given to French 
Ambassadors.] 5 

Le Due de Rohan, un grand homme a dit . . . que les 

1 De la maniere de negocier avec les souverains, 61. 

2 Ibid., 66. s Ibidmf 67 . 4 Ibidfi 79. 

5 Ibid., 81. A great number have now been published under 
the title of " Recueil des instructions, etc., depuis les traites de 
Westphalie jusqu'a la Revolution." 


Princes commandent aux peuples, et que 1'interet commande 
aux Princes. Mais on peut y aj outer que les passions des 
Princes & de leurs Ministres commandent souvent a leurs 
interets. 1 

Chaque sujet qui se destine a etre employe dans les negocia- 
tions pour le service du Roy, devroit sgavoir les langues Alle- 
mande, Italienne & Espagnolle, avec la latine, qu'il seroit 
honteux d'ignorer a un homme engage dans les employs 
publics, cette langue etant la langue commune de toutes les 
Nations Chretiennes. 2 

Un homme engage dans les employs publics, doit considerer 
qu'il est destine pour agir & non pas pour demeurer trop 
longtemps 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. 3 

Un sage & habile Negociateur doit non seulement etre bon 
Chretien ; mais paroitre toujours tel dans ses discours & dans sa 
maniere de vivre, & ne point souffrir dans sa maison de gens 
libertins & de moeurs dereglez, ny qu'on tienne des discours 
licencieux & de mauvais exemple a sa table & en sa presence. 

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. 4 

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 
loiient 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 facon 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 loiie tout ce qu'il y trouve de loiiable 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, arm 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 

1 De la maniere de negocier avec les souverains, 92. 
z Ibid., 98. 3 Ibid., 100. 4 Ibid., 269. 


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. 1 

Un Negociateur doit toujours faire des relations avanta- 
geuses, 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 quelquefois de faux avis, 
mais il faut les donner tels qu'on les a recus, sans s'en rendre 
garand ; & un habile Negociateur doit etablir si bien la reputa- 
tion 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. 2 

Un Ambassadeur doit eviter de recevoir au nombre de ses 
principaux domestiques des gens du Pays ou il se trouve, ce 
sont d'ordinaire des espions qu'il introduit dans sa maison. 3 

Us doivent aussi prendre garde de prostituer leur dignite, 
comme font ceux qui vont dans des cabarets & autres lieux 
malhonnetes & mal seans, & qui ont pour amis & pour 
confidens des hommes notez par leurs vices & par leurs 
debauches. 4 

Quelques elevez que soient les Princes, ils sont hommes 
comme nous, c'est-a-dire sujets aux memes passions, mais 
outre celles qui leur sont communes avec les autres hommes, 
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 Negocia- 
teur agisse avec eux par rapport a leurs idees, s'il veut ne 
pas se tromper. 5 

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. 6 

[Generally speaking, it may be said that written Notes 
should be employed, in the first place for all matters of 

1 De la maniere de negocier avec les souverains, 270. 

2 Ibid., 279. 3 Ibid., 283. 4 Ibid., 286. 
5 Ibid., 229. 6 Ibid., 250. 


routine, secondly, to place on record an agreement arrived 
at verbally, and thirdly, to state the views of one's 
government when all prospect of agreement has dis- 
appeared. On the other hand, it is often useful to be pro- 
vided with a rough sketch of the terms of a proposed agree- 
ment between the parties, since that helps to define the 
conditions on which agreement may be arrived at.] 

La plupart des hommes qui parlent d'affaires ont plus 
d'attention 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 L'une des qualitez la plus neces- 
saire a un bon Negociateur est de scavoir ecouter avec atten- 
tion & avec reflexion tout ce qu'cn 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 sgait & tout ce 
qu'il desire. II n'expose d'abord le sujet de sa negociation 
que jusqu'au point qu'il faut pour sonder le terrain, il regie ses 
discours & sa conduite sur ce qu'il decouvre tant par les 
reponses qu'on lui fait, que paries mouvemens du visage, par le 
ton & 1'air dont on lui parle ; & par toutes les autres circon- 
stances qui peuvent 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 

C'est un des plus grands secrets de 1'art de negocier que de 
sgavoir, 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 epineiises par les 
diincultez qu'il y a d'ajuster des interests sou vent 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 dirficultez, 
non seulement par les expediens que ses lumieres luy doivent 
suggerer, mais encore par un esprit liant & souple qui sgache 
se plier & s'accommoder aux passions & meme aux caprices 
& aux preventions de ceux avec qui il traite. Un homme 
difficultueux & d'un esprit dur & contrariant augmente les 
difficultez attachees aux affaires par la rudesse de son humeur, 
qui aigrit & aliene les esprits, & il erige souvent en affaires 

1 De la maniere de negocier avec les souverains, 250. 


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

II ne se trouve presque point d'hommes qui veiiillent 
avoiier qu'ils ont tort, ou qu'ils se trompent, & qui se 
depoiiillent entierement 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, mais 
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 
f aire revenir de leurs preventions ; il f aut pour cela avoir 1'art 
de leur alleguer des raisons capables de justifier ce qu'ils ont 
fait ou ce qu'ils ont era 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 mot. 2 

These observations, though made two centuries ago, 
have lost nothing of their value by the lapse of time. 
National character and human nature have not changed 
to any appreciable extent. Gallic-res' counsels are not 
here reproduced for the use of experienced old diplomatists, 
but as hints that may be valuable to younger members 
of the profession, for whose benefit is also given the 
following letter of advice by Lord Malmesbury. 

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

Park Place, April n, 1813. 

MY DEAR LORD, 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. 

1 De la maniere de negocier avec les souverains, 251-4. 

O T7 ' J *^ ' 

2 Ibid., 257. 


The first and best advice I can give a young man on enter- 
ing 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 endeavouring 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 acquaintance 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 arrived. 

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 insin- 
cere, 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 
your 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 predilection 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 provoca- 
tion, no anxiety to rebut an unjust accusation, no idea, 
however tempting, 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 draw- 
ing 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 unconsciously, in order to give 
a better turn to a phrase, or to enhance our skill in negoti- 
ation; but we must remember we mislead and deceive our 
Government by it. 

I am, etc. 1 

141. 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 sim- 

1 Diaries and Correspondence, iv. 420. 
VOL. I. K 


plicite, aussi eloignee d'une vaine affectation de science & 
de bel esprit, que de negligence & de grossierete, & qu'elles 
soient galement epurees de certaines f a$ons de parler nouvelles 
& affectees, & de celles qui sont basses & hors du bel 
usage. 1 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 imprevvis les 
decouvrent sou vent, & on en pourrait citer ici divers exemples ; 
ainsi il est de la sagesse d'un bon Negociateur de songer 
lorsqu'il ecrit que ses depe'ches peuvent etre vue's 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." 2 

142. 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 " (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 "compromise"; 
" 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 " das 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 must treat of one subject only. It is 
a good practice to number the paragraphs. To keep 
a diary of events and of conversations is very useful. 

143. The use of Bribery. 

The books generally condemn the employment of 
bribes to obtain secret information or to influence the 

1 Callieres, 298. 2 Ibid., 304. 


course of a negotiation. Nevertheless there are many 
cases 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, has been found of great utility for influencing 
public opinion. " L'ambassadeur [Count Lieven] reut 
enfin 1'ordre d'exercer, par 1'entremise de la presse 
periodique, une pression sur Fopinion publique et de 
demontrer au peuple anglais que son intere't le plus 
naturel exigeait 1'alliance et 1'amitie de la Russie pour 
le meilleur developpement de son commerce et de son 
Industrie." 1 This was a century or more since, but 
instances of quite recent date could easily be quoted. 

' If an envoy seek by means of presents to secure the good- 
will 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 
(v. Martens, Europ. V. R., p. 271, 229). Ministers, envoys 
and other diplomatic agents receive decorations and various 
other gifts, not only from their own, but also from foreign 
sovereigns, in recognition of their services, or as other means 
of distinction. Almost innumerable instances can be cited 
from earlier and from more recent periods. Gifts of money 
are very usual even now (1819) at many Courts. The due 
de Richelieu . . . received at the end of the Congress of 
Aix-la-Chapelle the richest gifts in the way of snuffboxes, 
especially from England and Prussia. The rest of the diplo- 
matic personnel present there was also remembered, and 
amongst them the Herr v. Gentz, protocollist of the Congress, 
most bountifully." 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. The majority 
of diplomatists heartily enjoy it as a proof of their cunning. 
I hold, nevertheless, that nothing is good politics but what is 

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

2 Schmelzing, Systematisches Grundriss, ii. 208. 


honourable, and that diplomatic bribery, however celebrated 
it may be, is not of greater utility than secret police, which 
costs a great deal and is valueless, because the terror it spreads 
affords to a tyrant less advantage than the damage arising 
from the hatred which it excites against him. How can traitors 
be trusted? And are the cases rare in which injury has 
been received from pretended traitors? 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 t'6 what passes around us will mostly 
enable us to divine what is secret." x 

In another place the same writer says 

" The Law of Nations condemns bribery in negotiations 
so decidedly that Powers accused of it have always denied 
the fact, not one has ever confessed or defended it as permis- 
sible. The surest test for distinguishing what is honourable 
and legitimate, from what is disgraceful and illegitimate, is 
the possibility, or the opposite, of avowing an act without 
losing the respect of the world. Bribery may be permissible 
as a weapon of defence ; as a means of attack it is disallowed, 
but in our Law of Nations no law of war forbids our buying 
off the enemy's fonde de pouvoirs (Gewalthaber). Attack is 
any kind of pressure exercised to make us give up our rights. 
On the other hand it is a wrong when we try to buy the fonde 
de pouvoirs of him who exercises pressure upon us, in order 
to induce him to be disloyal equally to his sovereign and to 
justice." 2 

It seems to us that the Law of Nations is not con- 
cerned with bribery. It is a question of morality alone. 
Since every Government provides itself with a secret 
service fund, it is evident that the practice of purchasing 
secret information is more or less universal. 

144. Callieres relates a pleasing story of a Spanish 
diplomatist who lost his chances of promotion by being 
too outspoken in reports to his Government. 

" Dom Estevan de Gamarre avoit servi le Roy d'Espagne 
un grand nombre d'annees avec zele & avec fidelite tant a la 
guerre que dans les negotiations, particulierement en Hollande, 
ou il a ete longtemps Ambassadeur ; il avoit un parent dans 
le Conseil d'Espagne dispose a y faire valoir ses services, & 

1 Schmalz, Europ. V.R., 98. ~ Ibid., 108. 


cependant il n'en recevoit aucune recompense, pendant 
que de nouveaux venus s'avancoient dans les plus grands 
employs. II se resolut d'aller a Madrid pour decouvrir le 
sujet de sa mauvaise fortune, il en fit ses plaintes au Ministre 
son parent, en luy deduisant ses longs & importans services 
oubliez; ce Ministre apres 1'avoir paisiblement ecoute, luy 
repondit qu'il ne devoit se prendre qu'a lui-meme de sa dis- 
grace, que s'il eut ete aussi bon Courtisan que bon Negociateur 
& fidele sujet, il se seroit avance comme les autres qui 
n'avoient pas si bien servi, mais que sa sincerite s'etait opposee 
a sa fortune, que toutes ses depeches n'etoient pleines que 
de veritez facheuses au Roy son Maitre et a ses Ministres, 
que lorsque les Francois avoient remporte quelque victoire, 
il en faisoit de fideles relations par ses lettres, que quand ils 
assiegeoient une place, il etoit le premier a le mander ; & en 
predisoit la prise si on ne donnoit ordre de la secourir, que 
quand un allie etoit mecontent & degoute de ce que la 
Cour d'Espagne manquoit aux paroles qu'elle luy avoit 
donnees, il la sollicitoit avec importunite de tenir ses pro- 
messes, & 1'avertissoit que cet Allie etoit pret de la quitter 
si on ne le satisfaisoit. Que les autres Negociateurs Espagnols 
mieux instruits de leurs propres interets & des moi'ens de 
faire fortune, mandoient que les Frangois etoient des Gav aches, 
que leurs armees etoient ruinees & hors d'etat de rien entre- 
prendre, que lorsque les troupes Francoises avoient remporte" 
quelques avantages, ils assuroient qu'elles avoient e"te bien 
battues & que leurs ennemis se disposoient a entrer en 
France, a quoi ce Ministre ajouta que le Roi d'Espagne et 
son Conseil croyoient ne pouvoir trop recompenser ceux qui 
leur mandoient de si bonnes nouvelles, ny assez oublier un 
homme comme luy qui ne leur en mandoit que de facheuses. 

" Alors Dom Estevan de Gamarre surpris de ce tableau de la 
Cour d'Espagne que luy fit son Parent : Puisqu'il ne s'agit 
luy repondit-il, pour faire fortune en ce Pays-cy, que de battre 
les Francois par de fausses relations, je ne desespere plus de 
mes affaires, et il s'en retourna aux Pays-Bas, ou il profita 
si bien des avis de son Parent, qu'il s'attira bien-tot plusieurs 
Mercedes, pour me servir du terme Espagnol, & il vit prosperer 
ses affaires a mesure qu'il travailloit par ses depeches a ruiner 
en idee les affaires des Francois." l 

An apologue, even if not founded on fact, which may 
be recommended to the attention of those concerned. 

145. A good diplomatist will always endeavour to 
put himself in the position of the person with whom 

1 Callidres, 307. 


he is treating, and try to imagine what he would wish, 
do and say, under those circumstances. As Callieres 
observes, p. 229 

" II faut qu'il se depoiiille en quelque sorte de ses propres 
sentimens 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 dise 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 6- les memes^ prejugez, 
quels effets produiroient en moy les choses que j'ay a luy 

146. Apropos of the story of Don Estevan de 
Gamarra, the following maxim of the Comte de Garden, 
himself a member of the profession, may be cited : ' Les 
devoirs d'un ambassadeur comprennent 1'obligation a 
1'egard de son pays, s'exposer a tout, meme a deplaire, 
en montrant les choses telles qu'elles sont et non pas telles 
que le desirent le souverain ou ses ministres." 1 

147. 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, nor 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. Many governments expect their 

1 Garden, Histoire generate des Traites de paix, etc., cvi. 


diplomatic agents to further the private commercial 
interests of their individual countrymen, and to endeavour 
to obtain for them the concession of valuable contracts. 
It is highly doubtful whether such intervention is in the 
long run beneficial to the higher interests of the state 
they represent. 

148. The diplomatic agent may issue passports to 
his own countrymen, and may certify signatures to legal 
documents. Members of the English diplomatic service 
may not charge fees for any services of this kind rendered 
to their countrymen. 

149. 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. 

A distinguished Spanish diplomatist has said that : 
" Les chefs sont faits pour que les secretaires en disent 
du mal." In many instances where this apophthegm 
appears to be justifiable, the fault probably lies with 
the elder man not always, however. 

150. 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 nor hold directorships, nor 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. 

151. Before sending home the report of any im- 
portant 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 undertakings of the Government in whose 
name he is assumed to have spoken, it is advisable to 
submit to him the draft report for any observations he 
may desire to make. It is stated 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 

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

153. The man who speaks in a foreign tongue, 
not his own, is to a certain extent wearing a disguise. 
If you want to discover his ideas de derriere la tele en- 
courage 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." 2 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 

1 E. Ollivier, I'Empire Liberal, i. 322. 

3 Busch, ii. 172, and a similar passage, 41. 


relations with, and to understand the feelings of, the 

154. Prudence in regard to written communications 
to a Government is to be recommended. " Que nous 
e"tions deja loin du jour, encore bien pres cependant, ou 
notre ambassadeur a Vienne, M. le Marechal Maison, 
prenait sur lui d'ecrire a son collegue de Constantinople 
(le general Guilleminot) que la guerre generate allait 
eclater, et ou celui-ci se croyait fonde a passer, sur ce 
sujet, un office au Divan, et pour ainsi dire a en donner 
le signal." l 

A diplomatic agent should beware of communicating 
the text of the instructions he receives, whether by 
telegram or written despatch, unless he is specifically 
ordered to do so. It sometimes happens that he is told 
to read a despatch to the minister for Foreign Affairs, 
and to leave, or not to leave with him a copy, as the case 
may be. With this exception, the ambassador should 
generally confine himself to making the sense of his 
instructions known by word of mouth. In communicat- 
ing 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 

155. Palmerston in 1846 gave to the Comte de 

Jarnac, the French Charge d'affaires in London, a copy 

of a despatch he was sending to the British representative 

1 Souvenirs du feu Due de Broglie, iv. 258. This was in 1831. 


at Madrid respecting " the Spanish marriages," in which 
he had also taken occasion to characterize the domestic 
policy of the Spanish Government in no flattering terms. 
This document was promptly forwarded from Paris to 
the French Ambassador at Madrid, who communicated 
it to Queen Christina. It had the result of creating 
prejudice against Great Britain and throwing the Spanish 
Court into the arms of Louis Philippe and Guizot, whose 
policy of marrying the young queen to an unsuitable 
husband and her sister to a French prince was thereby 
rendered successful. The late M. Ollivier suggests that 
it was given in order to alarm Louis Philippe. 1 Palmer- 
ston's own explanation is that to give Jarnac the despatch 
" was the civilest way of conveying to the knowledge of 
Louis Philippe opinions about Spanish questions which I 
well knew to be at variance with his views." 2 It was a 
rash proceeding. 

156. Three days after the coup d'etat of Decem- 
ber 2, 1851, Palmerston addressed to Lord Normanby, 
Ambassador at Paris, the following despatch- 
Foreign Office, Dec. 5, 1851. 

I have received and laid before the Queen your Ex- 
cellency's despatch of the 3rd instant, requesting to be 
furnished with instructions for your guidance in the present 
state of affairs in France. 

I am commanded by Her Majesty to instruct you to make 
no change in your relations with the French Government. 

It is Her Majesty's desire that nothing should be done by 
her ambassador at Paris which could wear the appearance 
of an interference of any kind in the internal affairs of France. 

I am, etc. 


Lord Normanby thereupon visited the minister for 
Foreign Affairs, and informed him that he 

1 I' Empire Liberal, i. 317. 

2 Bulwer, Life of Palmerston, iii. 275. 

3 Evelyn Ashley, Life of Lord Palmerston, i. 294. 


" had received Her Majesty's instructions to say that I 
need make no change in my relations with the French Govern- 
ment in consequence of what had passed. I added that if 
there had been some delay in making this communication, 
it arose from some material circumstances not connected 
with any doubt on the subject. . . . " 

Normanby had not been instructed to say anything. 
The despatch of December 5 was for his own guidance 
simply. How the dismissal of Palmerston followed, in 
consequence of the apparent discrepancy between these 
instructions and a conversation with Walewski, the 
French ambassador, in which Palmerston " expressed the 
view which he held as to the necessity and advantage for 
France and Europe of the bold and decisive step taken 
by the President " may be read in Evelyn Ashley (i. 286), 
and in Sir Theodore Martin's Life of the Prince Consort 
(ii. 411). 

Lord Normanby was succeeded, on February 3, 1852, 
by Lord Cowley, the Government having been obliged 
to recall him at the request of the President, to whom 
he had shown ill-disguised hostility. 1 

157. In 1819 the French diplomatic representative 
at Vienna was a certain M. Caraman, who appears to 
have been a very self-opinionated and indiscreet person. 
The French Government had come to know that Prince 
Metternich had sent to the other Great Powers a memo- 
randum discussing the course they would do well to 
pursue in case of the death of Louis XVIII. Caraman 
was instructed to find out what he could of the contents 
of this document, but he was to use great care, and above 
all, to avoid letting anything be known of the suspicions 
entertained at Paris as to its nature. The memorandum 
was reported to allege that the succession of the King's 
brother (afterwards Charles X) would encounter great 
opposition. Metternich having said something about the 
King's health to Caraman, the latter began to discuss 

1 Ashley, i. 292. 


with him what would probably occur on the death of the 
King. He suggested that nothing could be of greater 
importance than the attitude adopted by the diplomatic 
body at Paris, and even asked whether Metternich had 
any idea of the instructions which would be sent by the 
Powers to their representatives on the occasion. Metter- 
nich replied that as a first step he would propose a meeting 
of the allied sovereigns for the purpose of executing the 
Treaty of Chaumont 1 and thus ensuring the tranquillity 
of Europe. 

Caraman reported the conversation in a despatch which 
was laid before the King, who was much struck by the 
simplicity displayed by his ambassador, in accepting in 
good faith what Metternich had said. He drew up with 
his own hand a memorandum, stating that no instructions 
to the representatives of the Powers would be needed, 
as the new king would ascend the throne by hereditary 
right. This was embodied in a despatch to Caraman, 
who was told that if the subject were again mentioned he 
was to use the language of the King's memorandum, 
but merely as an expression of his own views, and, above 
all, he was not to reveal its origin to any person. What 
did he do ? He actually gave a copy to Metternich, who 
showed it to the Emperor of Austria, and then persuaded 
Caraman that it might suitably form the text of a com- 
munication from France to the other Powers. Austria 
would lend it her support, and it would devolve on each 
Government to address appropriate instructions to its 
representative. By this means Metternich contrived to 
convert into a subject for negotiation with the Powers 
a matter which the King had taken especial pains to 
demonstrate was not open to discussion. Caraman was 
instructed to hold his tongue better in future, but the 
natural course would have been to recall him, if that had 

1 The Treaty of Chaumont bound the four Powers to confine 
France to her old frontiers, and to maintain each an army of 
150,000 men for this purpose (Holland-Rose, Life of Napoleon, 
ii. 402-3). 


been possible without giving umbrage to Metternich, 
with whom Caraman was persona grata. In connexion 
with the so-called Congress of Troppau, in 1820, this agent 
was guilty of similar indiscretions, in communicating to 
Metternich documents which he had been strictly enjoined 
to show to no one. 1 

158. The practice of carrying on secret diplomacy 
behind the back of the responsible minister resorted to 
by Louis XV and Napoleon III led to disastrous con- 
sequences. It may safely be asserted that if Ollivier 
had been consulted in 1870, before orders were telegraphed 
to Benedetti 2 to insist on a guarantee that the proposal 
to place a scion of a German princely house on the throne 
of Spain should never be renewed, the war between France 
and Germany would not have broken out on that issue. 

Equally objectionable, though not attended with such 
fatal results, is the habit indulged in by some Foreign 
Offices of acting on information received from outsiders, 
instead of trusting their own diplomatic agent. In quite 
recent times rumours have been current of a sovereign 
employing a secretary of embassy to write to him direct 
on matters respecting which it was the duty of the 
secretary's chief to report. Telegrams exchanged direct 
between the Heads of States, without the knowledge and 
concurrence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, are often 
followed by misunderstandings. In a constitutional state 
this cannot occur. 

159. A minister for Foreign Affairs should endeavour 
to acquire thorough personal knowledge of all his diplo- 
matic agents, and as far as possible of the senior members 
of the foreign service who are in a position to be left on 
occasion in charge of a mission. It is a curious state of 
mind of a Minister who maintains that the personality 
of his agents is a matter of indifference to him : " When 
I ring the bell, I never know whether it is John or Thomas 

1 Mem. du Chancel. Pasquier, iv. 328-9; v. 17, 32, 45. 

2 A. Sorel, Essais, 169. 


who answers it." 1 It is naturally impossible to ensure 
that all the members of a close service should be equally 
competent to fill every post. The vicissitudes of inter- 
national politics, especially in times of crisis, are such as 
to render it difficult to have the right man always on the 
spot. But if the Secretary of State knows his men, he 
will be able to effect the necessary transfers when occasion 
demands them. 

We venture to suggest that a Minister for Foreign 
Affairs ought always to have a clear idea of the policy 
to be pursued in regard to each separate foreign state, 
and to seize every convenient opportunity of discussing 
it with the heads of the respective diplomatic missions. 
It is to be regretted that the earlier practice of providing 
an envoy proceeding to his post for the first time with 
detailed instructions has in some countries fallen into 
disuse. The French Recueil des instructions donnees aux 
ambassadeurs et ministres de France depiiis les traites 
de Westphalie jusqu'a la Revolution contains admirable 
models of the form such instructions should take. 

160. 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 approved by 
both his own Government and by the Emperor of Russia. 2 
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 

1 Malmesbury, Mem. of an Ex-Minister, ii. 153. It is there 
related of the i3th Earl Derby, and is also attributed to another 
eminent statesman, who was Prime Minister and Secretary of 
State for Foreign Affairs. 

2 Garden, Traite complet de la Dipl., ii. 84. 


ordered to celebrate the triumph of the Russian Govern- 
ment, 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 dav 

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. 1 

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. 

161. Governments sometimes adopt a particular 
course of action in reliance on statements and views 
which are subsequently shown to be untenable, but 
having once committed themselves publicly, they find it 
difficult, nay, almost impossible, to recede from the 
position they have taken up. An instance of this is 
the Crampton case ( 426), in which the United States 
Government based a request for the recall of a diplomatic 
agent on testimony which eventually proved to be 

162. In former times a wide discretion in the inter- 
pretation 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 desir- 
able. 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. 

163. The head of a mission should be careful that 
the affairs, the manners and customs, of the country in 

1 F. de Martens, Recueil, etc., xv. 140. 


which he is residing are not criticized at his table. What 
he or his guests may say on such subjects is sure to be 
repeated to his disadvantage. 

164. In concluding a written agreement with the 
State to which you are accredited, do not be in too great 
a hurry to sign, lest in your haste important stipulations 
should be slurred over or inadequately expressed. As 
far as possible, secure the use of clear and definite language, 
the meaning of which shall not be open to doubt or 

165. In connexion with the second partition of 
Poland, in 1793 

" Lord Grenville declara a Starhemberg que si 1'Autriche 
trempait dans cette operation, 1'alliance en pourrait etre com- 
promise. ' Cette conduite, dit-il, choquerait la nation anglaise, 
deja indignee pour la meme raison contre la Russie et la 
Prusse; la cour de Londres, ne reconnaissant et ne voulant 
jamais reconnaitre une possession aussi injuste, ne pourrait la 
garantir.' Thugut aurait pu repondre que le mot jamais est 
de ceux qu'en diplomatie on peut prononcer impunement, car 
il n'y a pas d'exemple qu'il ait arrete quelqu'un ou empeche 
quelque chose." * 

166. 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. 

" Quand on est sur un point d' Europe, on y rapporte tout, 
et je remarque que les meilleurs esprits se laissent aller a 
penser que tout est perdu, si on ne sacrifie pas tout a 1'extreme 
bienveillance de la cour ou ils resident " (d'Argenson to 
Vaureal, in Due A. de Broglie, Maur. de Saxe et le marq. 
d'Arg., ii. 6). 

1 A Sorel, I' Europe et la Revol. Francaise, iii. 453. 


" Enfin, absorbe par 1'affaire speciale dont ils sont charges, 
ils ne se rendent pas compte de sa veritable place dans 1'en- 
semble meme de la politique ; ils en exaggerent 1'importance, 
au risque, par cette exaggeration, de gener ou de compromettre 
1'action bien plus capitale ailleurs de leur gouvernement " 
(E. Ollivier, I' Empire Liberal, iii. 118). 

But, perhaps, the blame is not all theirs, when they are 
not kept informed what is that general policy, and the 
varying phases it assumes from time to time. 

" Quel rude metier que celui de diplomate ! Je n'en connais 
aucun qui exige autant d'abnegation, autant de promptitude 
a sacrifier ses interests au devoir, autant de patience, et & 
certains moments, autant de courage. L'ambassadeur, qui 
remplit bien les obligations de son etat, ne trahit jamais la 
fatigue, ni 1'ennui, ni le degout. II dissimule les Emotions 
qu'il <prouve, les tentations de defaillance qui 1'assaillent. II 
sait passer sous silence les deceptions ameres qu'on lui menage, 
autant que des satisfactions inattendues dont parfois, mais 
rarement, le hasard le regale. Jaloux de sa dignite", il ne 
cesse jamais d'etre prevenant, a soin de ne se brouiller avec 
personne, ne perd jamais sa seYenite, et, dans les grandes 
crises, quand la question de guerre se pose, se montre calme, 
impassible et sur du succes " (Comte Hiibner, Neuf ans de 
souvenirs d'un ambassadeur , i. 176). 

He must be able to listen to a travesty of the truth, 
without giving any indication of his disbelief. 

167. The moral qualities -- prudence, foresight, in- 
telligence, penetration, wisdom of statesmen and nations 
have not kept pace with the development of the means 
of action at their disposal : armies, ships, guns, explosives, 
land transport, but, more than all, that of rapidity of 
communication by telegraph and telephone. These latter 
leave no time for reflection or consultation, and demand 
an immediate and often a hasty decision on matters of 
vital importance. 

VOL. i. 



168. Ultimatum 169. Russia to Turkey in 1826 170. 
Austria to Piedmont in 1849 171. Palme rston in the Don 
Pacifico case 172. Menschikoff to Turkey in 1853 173. 
Hague Convention No. 3 of 1907 174. Austria to Servia, 
1914 175. Germany and France 176. Germany to 
Russia 177. Germany to Belgium 178. Great Britain 
to Germany 179. Other uses of the term 180. In the 
course of a negotiation 181. La Chetardie's threat to cease 
all communication 182. Used to describe preliminary 
agreement 183. Offer to make peace on terms 184. 
To describe conditions of consent to a marriage 185. 
Thiers' use 186. Peace terms formulated by Austria in 
x85 5 187. The Vienna note 188. Uti possidetis and 
Statu quo 189. Ad referendum and Sub spe rati 190. 
Ne varietur 191. Sine qua non 192. Casus belli and 
Casus foederis 193. Quos Ego. FRENCH TERMS : 194. 
Demarche 195. Fin de non recevoir 196. Prendre Acte 
and Donner Acte 197. Donner la main 198. Denoncer 
199. National (sb.) and ressortissant. 

168. Ultimatum. This term signifies a Note or memo- 
randum in which a Government or its diplomatic repre- 
sentative states 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. 
169. A good example of this is contained in the last 
paragraph of a Note addressed by the Russian Charge 

1 Cussy, Dictionnaire du DipL et du Consul, s. v. 



d'affaires at Constantinople to the Reis-Effendi in 1826, 
which was thus worded 

Le soussigne terminera la tache que lui imposent les in- 
structions de son souverain, en declarant a la Porte Ottomane 
que, si, contre 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 S. H. de prevoir les consequences 
immediates de cet evenement. 

Le soussigne, etc. 



le 5 avril, 1826. 

170. After the battle of Novara (March 23, 1849) 
negotiations for peace took place at Milan between 
Austria and Piedmont, and, difficulties having arisen at 
the last moment respecting an amnesty to the Lombard 
subjects of Austria who had sided with Piedmont, Marshal 
Radetski gave notice that if an agreement was not arrived 
at within four days he would terminate the armistice 
and resume military operations. 2 

171. 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 settlement 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 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 

1 Garden, Traite complet de la Diplomatic, iii. 344. 

2 E. Ollivier, I' Empire Liberal, ii. 241. 

3 Brit, and For. State Papers, xxxix. 491. 


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 

172. On May 5, 1853, Prince Menschikoff demanded 
the exclusive protectorate of the Greek Christians in 
Turkey by an ultimatum, which was rejected by the 
Sultan, and on June 22 the Russian troops crossed the 
Pruth. 2 He had demanded an answer within three days. 
But Menschikoff sent in a further Note, and a last one 
on May i8. 3 

173. 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 prealable et non equivoque, qui aura, soit la 
forme d'une declaration de guerre motivee, soit celle d'un 
ultimatum avec declaration de guerre conditionnelle." 4 

174. Austrian ultimatum to Servia. This took the 
form of a Note, dated July 23, 1914, to the Servian 
Government, containing various demands, and requiring 
an answer by six o'clock in the evening of the 25th. 
The reply of the Servian Government not being regarded 
as satisfactory, the Austro-Hungarian minister left Bel- 
grade, and war was declared against Servia on the 28th. 

175. 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 

1 See also I' Empire Liberal, ii. 320, and F. de Martens, Recueil, 
etc., xii. 262. 

2 I' Empire Liberal, iii. 173, 176. See also Eastern Papers, 
i. 197. 

1 Kinglake, Crimean War, i. 164, 167. 
* Cf. Oppenheim, International Law, ii. 95. 


the following day. On August 3, at 6.45, alleging acts 
of aggression committed by French aviators, he com- 
municated a declaration of war. This does not appear 
to have been preceded by an ultimatum. 

176. At midnight on July 31, 1914, the German 
Ambassador at Petersburg, by order of his Government, 
informed the Russian minister for Foreign Affairs that if 
within twelve hours Russia had not begun to demobilize, 
Germany would be compelled to give the order for 
mobilization, and at 7.10 p.m., on August i, the German 
Government, on the alleged ground that Russia had 
refused this demand, presented a declaration of war. 
The demand for demobilization, then, was in the nature 
of an ultimatum. 

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

" Sollte Belgien den deutschen Truppen feindlich entgegen 
treten, insbesondere ihrem - Vorgehen durch Widerstand der 
Maas-Befestigungen oder durch Zerstorungen von Eisen- 
bahnen, 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 Petersburg, Berlin, London, Paris, Vienna 
and the Hague, that the German Minister had verbally 
required an answer within twelve hours. 

178. On the same occasion the British Government, 
on July 31, 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 constituted a neutral 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 31 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. 

These cases are cited because they are (with the excep- 
tion of the Italian declaration of war against Austria- 
Hungary of May 23, 1915) the most recent ones on record. 

179. 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 agreement, where no resort to 
compulsion is contemplated in case of refusal. Thus, in 
connexion with the delays in payment of the Silesian 
loan, Frederick the Great, in writing to Klinggraff, his 
special envoy to London, on November 25, 1749, said 

' Puisque vous ne desesperez pas encore tout-a-fait de la 
reussite de 1'affaire de la nouvelle convention sur les dettes 
de Silesie, j'attendrai que vous me mandez V ultimatum des 
proprietaries, a fin de pouvoir m'arranger finalement d'une 
fa<pon ou d'autre, pour sortir de cette dette onereuse." 1 

Here there is no question of an appeal to force, but simply 
of a bargain to be struck with the bondholders. 

In subsequent correspondence with Michell, the secre- 
tary of embassy left in charge of the Prussian legation 
in London, and with Earl Marischal at Paris, Frederick 
frequently intimates his willingness to compromise the 
claims of Prussian subjects against the British Govern- 

* Pol, Cor,, vii. 174. 


ment for the losses they had suffered through the capture 
of their ships and cargoes by English privateers, for a 
fixed sum. In a letter to Earl Marischal of August 21, 
1753, he tells him 

" M'etant explique dans la sus-dite depeche [from the 
Prussian Foreign Department] a vous que ma premiere de- 
mande pour le dedommagement de mes sujets etait de 120,000 
ecus d'Allemagne, ou de 20,000 livres sterling, et que, s'il n'y 
avait pas moyen de porter 1'Angleterre a payer cette somme, 
je voudrais me contenter enfin de celle de 100,000 ecus d'Alle- 
magne, comme un ultimatum auquel j'etais resolu de me tenir 
inebranlablement et en qualite de tout dernier mot, je veux 
cependant vous dire encore que, nonobstant ce que dessus, si 
la France trouve le ministere tout-a-fait inflexible sur le susdit 
ultimatum, en sorte qu'il n'y aurait nul moyen d'en obtenir 
la somme de 100,000 ecus, alors mon plus dernier mot sera 
la somme de 80,000 ou quatre vingt mille ecus comme ulti- 
matum de mes ultimata, mais dont aussi je ne me relacherai 
absolument pas." x 

He employs the word in this sense over and over again 
in his correspondence. In the negotiations respecting 
this affair, which Frederick frequently spoke of as une 
bagatelle, it means no more than the irreducible minimum 
sum which he would accept. 

In connexion with the points in dispute between Great 
Britain and France relating to American affairs, Michell 
reported to Frederick, on March 28, 1755, that Mirepoix, 
the French ambassador, had been instructed to inform 
the British Government that his own Government was 
much surprised at the contents of a [counter] proposal 
from them ; whereupon Newcastle had replied to him that 
the proposal in question was not England's ultimatum, 
i. e. her last word. 2 

1 80. For the use of ultimatum in the course of a 
negotiation to describe an " irreducible minimum of what 
would be regarded as satisfactory," reference may be 
made to the discussions carried on in 1761 between 

1 Pol. Cor., x. 55 ; Satow, The Silesian Loan, etc., 176, 

2 Pol. Cor., xi. 112. 


the French and British Governments towards the end 
of the Seven Years War. 1 These were initiated by a 
letter from the Due de Choiseul to Pitt, of March 26, 
enclosing a memorial proposing peace on the basis of 
uti possidetis at different dates for the East and West 
Indies, Africa and Europe. Various papers were ex- 
changed between the two Courts, and it was agreed to 
send M. Bussy to London and Mr. Stanley to Paris to 
carry on the negotiation. An " Answer from the British 
Court to the Memorial of French propositions," also 
headed " A paper of Articles to be delivered to Mr. Stanley, 
as the definitive propositions from the Court of Great 
Britain," dated July 29, was answered by France on 
August 5, in a paper headed " Ultimatum of the Court 
of France, as a reply to the Ultimatum, remitted to the 
Due de Choiseul by Mr. Stanley." In a letter of Bussy 's 
to Pitt enclosing this counter-proposal, he repeatedly 
makes use of ultimatum to denote the respective demands 
made, and so does Pitt in his reply of August 15. 2 These 
were followed by a final proposal delivered by Bussy in 
September, which Flassan terms an ultimatissimum, which 
is equivalent to " a very last offer." The British Govern- 
ment declined it, and the negotiations were broken off. 

In narrating the attempts to agree on terms of 
peace with the Dutch which were made by Louis XIV 
at various times during the War of the Spanish Succes- 
sion from November 1705 onwards, and the successive 
additional demands of the Dutch negotiators, another 
French author says : " Le 23 juin [1710] Louis XIV 
envoie a ses plenipotentiaries rultimatissimum de ses 
concessions." 3 

1 Jenkinson, iii. 128, from An Historical Memorial of the 
Negotiation of France and England, from the 26th of March, 1761, 
to the 2oth of September of the same year, with the Vouchers trans- 
lated from the French original, published at Paris by Authority. 

* Jenkinson, A Collection of all the Treaties, etc., iii. 128, 154 ; 
Flassan, Hist, de la Dipl. Fran$aise, vi. 442. 

? Vast, Les Grands Traites, iii. 37. 


181. In May 1741 La Che'tardie, French ambassador 
to Russia, was ordered to inform Count Ostermann that 
he would break off all communication with the Govern- 
ment of the Regent Anna Leopoldovna unless he were 
allowed to present his credentials to the Tsar himself, 
a child one year of age. 1 This threat Vandal designates 
as an ultimatum. Ostermann and the Regent finally 
gave way on this point. 

182. At the Congress of Teschen the plan of pacifica- 
tion fathered by the King of France was adopted by 
the Court of Vienna, and is described as its ultimatum. 
These terms, with slight modifications, were accepted 
by the King of Prussia, and became his ultimatum, which 
again was adopted by Vienna. Kaunitz, afterwards 
writing to Breteuil, the mediator appointed by the King 
of France, used the following remarkable language 

" L'ultimatum arrete entre les deux puissances belligerantes 
est une loi commune qu'elles se sont prescrite ; elles ne sont en 
droit de se proposer rien au dela de part et d'autre et encore 
moins de rien exiger au dela. 2 

In connexion with the same negotiation " la dernire 
modification de ses pretensions a 1'alleu de la succession 
de Baviere ' becomes the ultimatum of the Elector of 
Saxony, and subsequently it was proposed by the mediators 
to frame a scheme of arrangement of these claims, and to 
impose it upon the Elector Palatine and the Elector of 
Saxony as an " ultimatum." 3 

In connexion with the dispute over the proposed mono- 
poly of the sulphur trade in Sicily ( 636), the Neapolitan 
minister in London wrote to Palmerston on August 13, 
1840, announcing the King of Naples' agreement to the 
' ultimatum " (or plan of arrangement) proposed by the 
Cabinet of the Tuileries on July 5, and already accepted 
by the British Government (P.R.O., F.O. 70/172). 

183. Talleyrand, in his memoirs, 4 speaks of the 

1 Louis XV et Elisabeth, 141. z Sbornik, etc., Ixv. 454. 

3 Ibid., 251, 385. Edited by the Due de Broglie, ii. 148. 


ultimatum of the allies to Napoleon at Chatillon in March 
1814, which was expressed in the draft treaty adopted 
by them on February 17, and sent by Metternich to 
Caulaincourt. 1 This was an offer to make peace on the 
basis of the territorial limits of France as they were in 
1792, and implied the maximum of what one party was 
willing to concede to the other. 

184. In a letter from Louis XVIII respecting a 
proposed marriage between the Grand Duchess Anne and 
the Due de Berry, the King said 

" Je n'ai rien a aj outer a ce que je vous ai dit sur les grandes 
affaires; mais il en est une que, d'une maniere ou d'autre, je 
voudrais voir terminer, c'est celle du mariage. J'ai donne 
mon ultimatum. Je ne regarderai point a ce qui pourra se 
passer en pays etrangers, mais la duchesse de Berry, quelle 
qu'elle puisse etre, ne franchira les frontieres de la France 
que faisant profession ouverte de la religion Catholique, aposto- 
lique, romaine. A ce prix je suis non seulement pret, mais 
empresse de conclure. Si, au contraire, ces conditions ne 
conviennent pas a 1'empereur de Russie, qu'il veuille bien le 
dire : nous n'en resterons pas moins bons amis, et je traiterai 
un autre mariage." 2 

In this case ultimatum merely meant " condition sine 
qua non." 

185. Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia 
had signed, July 15, 1840, a convention by which they 
agreed to impose certain terms of peace with the Sultan 
on Mehemet AH of Egypt. 3 M. Thiers issued a Note in 
which he said 

" La France se croit obligee de declarer que la decheance du 
vice-roi serait une attente a 1'equilibre general. Disposee a 
prendre part a tout arrangement acceptable qui aurait pour 
base la double garantie de 1'existence du Sultan et du vice- 
roi d'Egypte, elle se borne dans ce moment a declarer que, 
pour sa part, elle ne pourra consentir a la mise en execution 
de 1'acte de decheance prononcee a Constantinople." 

1 The date of the first sitting was February 17, according tg 
Fournier, Der Congress von Chatillon, 149. 

2 Mem. du Prince de Talleyrand, ii. 531. 

3 Corresp. Rel. to the Aff. of the Levant, i. 689, 


On this M. Ollivier remarks that the Note had the form 
of a public ultimatum, which its author had never intended 
to be followed up by war. 1 

186. Towards the end of 1855 Gortschakow employed 
his son-in-law, the Saxon minister at Paris, to carry on 
secret negotiations with Walewski. On these coming to 
the knowledge of Buol, the latter offered to act as medi- 
ator, and, if his mediation were not accepted, to present 
an ultimatum to Russia. The terms were reluctantly 
assented to by Palmerston, and Austria notified the con- 
ditions of peace to Russia on December 20, 1855, " sous 
forme d'ultimatum." The Emperor Alexander proposed 
some modifications which Buol refused to admit. He 
asked for " yes or no," and, in the event of a negative, 
the Austrian ambassador was to apply for his passports. 
After consulting his principal advisers the Tsar gave way, 
and expressed his willingness to accept the Austrian 
ultimatum as a basis for peace preliminaries. These were 
signed at Vienna, February i, 1856.2 This action on the 
part of Austria is termed by M. Ollivier " une demarche 

187. The diplomatic document known in history 
as " the Vienna Note " is said by M. Ollivier to have 
been offered to the Porte for its signature sous la forme 
d'un ultimatum.* If the expression is here used with 
propriety, it is very far from implying a threat of hostili- 
ties. It was no more than a strong recommendation to 
the Turkish Government to adopt and sign the Note in 

188. Uti possidetis and Statu 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 

1 I' Empire Liberal, i. 299. 2 Ibid., iii. 330, 335, 

3 Ibid., iii. 177. 


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 Newfoundland. 

Both expressions frequently occur in the course of 
the "Historical Memorial" to which reference is made 
under " Ultimatum." 

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 English reply accepted the statu quo, but it is 
alleged to have said nothing " with regard to the epochas." 
It did, in fact, say 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 precarious : from whence it neces- 
sarily results, that the nature of such operations is by no 
means susceptible, without prejudice to the party who em- 
ploys them, of any other epochas 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 

1 Foster, A Century of Amer. Dipl. 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, 
Intern. Law., ii. 324. 

2 Jenkinson, Treaties, etc., iii. 90. 


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 (i. e. William 
Pitt) 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 proposition of Statu quo, and if His Britannic Majesty 
did not accept of them, what new periods he proposed to 
France ? " * 

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 ulti- 
mately replaced by a series of mutual concessions of 
territory to take place in consequence of the treaty 
which might be eventually concluded. In the pre- 
liminaries of peace finally signed at Fontainebleau, 
November 3, 1762, it was provided, for instance, by 
Art. 7 that the fortresses in Guadaloupe, Mariegalante, 
Desirade, Martinico and Belleisle 2 should be restored in 
the same condition as when they were conquered by the 
British armies, i. e. in statu quo. The French trading 
posts in India " in the condition in which they now are," 
also in statu quo. 3 These stipulations were renewed in 
the definitive treaty of peace of February 10, 1763. 4 

In stipulating for uti possidetis or for statu quo, it is 
consequently 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 belli- 
gerents agree mutually to restore all their conquests, they 
are said to revert to the status quo ante bellum. 5 In 1813 

1 Jenkinson, Treaties, etc., iii. 109, 116. 

2 Ibid., 170. 3 Ibid., 171. * Ibid., 177. 
5 J. W. Foster, A Century of Amer. Dipl., 246. 


Napoleon drafted instructions for his plenipotentiaries to 
the Congress of Prague : " Quant au bases, n'en indiquer 
qu'une seule : I'Uti possidetis ante bellum," meaning by 
that the relative possessions of France and the Continental 
alliance before the invasion of Russia in I8I2. 1 

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 statu quo with respect to the 
Holy Places, i. e. the arrangements that had existed up 
to that time in virtue of the firmans. 2 This is a case in 
which statu 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. 

189. Ad referendum and Sub spe rati. 

When the sovereign whom a diplomatic agent repre- 
sents, 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 expec- 
tation that what he promises will be ratified by his 
sovereign. 3 

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* But in these days, when telegraphic com- 
munication is possible between capitals even the most 
distant from each other, a prudent diplomatist will take 

1 Sorel, I'Europe et la Rev. fran$aise, viii. 159. 

2 E. Ollivier, I' Empire Liberal, ii. 323. 

3 De Martens-Geffcken, i. 187. 4 Pradier-Fod6r, i. 370. 


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 rail may be ex- 
plained 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. 

On the same occasion as that referred to in 188, 
Napoleon's instructions were 

" De ne rien se permettre qui ne respire le desir de la paix, 
et d'une paix honorable. Ils ne doivent pas presser la marche 
des negotiations . . . ils laisseront tout dire et repondront 
en prenant ad, referendum. Ils expedieront un courier en 
attendant la reponse." * 

Anstett, the Russian plenipotentiary at Prague, was 
instructed that 

" Le congres, s'il conduisait a quelque chose, ne devait 
conduire qu'a une entente sur des conditions -preliminaries : 
si 1'Autriche semblait vouloir moderer celles qui avaient ete 
arretees a Reichenbach, Anstett s'y opposerait et reclam- 
erait des conditions plus rigoureuses. Si Napoleon les accep- 
tait, Anstett dirait qu'il n'avait pas de pouvoir pour traiter, 
meme sub spe rati ; il ne pourrait que prendre note ad referen- 
dum du consentement de Napoleon." 2 

190. Ne varietur. 

Louis Philippe wrote to Guizot, July 24, 1846 

" Une lettre de vous a Bresson, qu'il lui serait en joint 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 authority who is competent for the purpose. It has 
a public and permanent character. It is perfect in itself, 
without ratification. It is inserted in the minutes of the 
notaries, ne varietur* 

1 Sorel, ibid., viii. 159. 2 Ibid., 155. 

3 De Maulde-la-Clavie're, ii. 3; 199. 


191. 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. 

192. Casus belli and Casus fcederis. These appear 
to be sometimes confused. 

The former signifies an act or proceeding of a provoca- 
tive nature on the part of one Power which justifies the 
offended Power in making or declaring war. Palmerston 
defined it in 1853 as " a case which would justify 
war." 1 

^ 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 alliance. 

Thus when Frederick the Great fell upon Saxony, at 
the end of August 1756, the King of Saxony being an 
ally of the Empress-Queen Maria Theresa, Louis XV was 
obliged to come to his assistance in virtue of the Treaty 
of Versailles of May i, 1756. As Vandal observes, " Le 
casus fcederis etait flagrant. La Russie, de son cote, ne 
pouvait se dispenser d'executer ses anciens engagements 
avec 1'Autriche, renouveles et etendus en 1746." 

Frederick William IV of Prussia in 1849-50 proposed 
to the kings of Saxony and Hanover the establishment 
of a Northern Confederation, from which Austria was to 
be excluded. Schwarzenberg, the Austrian Chancellor, 
opposed the scheme. " II le notifia d'un ton imperieux; 
il ne tolererait pas la creation d'un etat federe, m^me 
dans le nord de 1'Allemagne, en dehors de 1'Autriche. 
Ce serait un casus fcederis." If by these words the author 
meant that such a proceeding would give to Austria the 
right of appealing to the constitution of the Germanic 
Body as settled at Vienna in 1815, the expression is 

1 E. Ashley, Life of Lord Palmerston, i. 35. 


correct. 1 But if he meant that it would lead to war it 
is not exact. 

After the evacuation of the Principalities by Russia 
on August 2, 1854, Buol accepted the four conditions on 
which France and England were willing to make peace. 
Russia having refused these terms, Paris and London 
pressed Vienna to conclude an offensive and defensive 
alliance. " Si le refus de Russie ne cre"ait pas a 1'Autriche 
un casus belli, il ne lui laissait plus de casus pads? But on 
November 20 Russia intimated her assent to these con- 
ditions as a basis of peace negotiations. Austria, how- 
ever, on December 2 signed a treaty with France and 
England, undertaking to push for the adoption of these 
four conditions, and a secret article was added, stipulating 
that if they could not be obtained by negotiation, measures 
would be taken to give effect to an offensive and defensive 
alliance. The Russian acceptation rendered it possible 
for Austria to decline the obligation to " poser le casus 
belli." In consequence, fresh negotiations were initiated 
at Vienna, while warlike operations continued. 3 

At the Congress of Paris, April 15, 1856, the English, 
French and Austrian plenipotentiaries signed a conven- 
tion 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 mobilized in case this casus foederis 
should arise. 4 

Lord Clanricarde, British ambassador at Petersburg, 
wrote on July 8, 1839, to Palmerston, that Count Nessel- 
rode had on every occasion expressed to him the 
desire of the Russian Government to avoid the possibility 
of a casus fcederis arising in virtue of the treaty of Unkiar- 
Skelessi 5 under the article quoted over-page. 

1 E. Ollivier, I' Empire Liberal, ii. 345. 2 Ibid., iii. 206. 

3 Ibid., p. 260. 4 Ibid., p. 363. 6 Guizot, Memoires, iv. 341 

VOL. I. M ~ 


Article 3. Par suite du plus sincere desir d'assurer la duree-, 
le maintien et 1'entiere independence de la Sublime-Porte, 
S. M. 1'Empereur de toutes les Russies, dans le cas ou les 
circonstances qui pourraient determiner de nouveau la 
Sublime Porte a reclamer 1'assistance morale et militaire de la 
Russie viendraient a se presenter, quoique ce cas ne soit 
nullement a prevoir, s'il plait a Dieu, promet de fournir pat 
terre et par mer, autant de troupes et de forces que les 
deux parties contractantes jugeraient necessaire. 

193. Quos ego is not, properly speaking, a diplomatic 
phrase, but it is often found in French books in the sense 
of " threat." After the shipwreck narrated in Book I of 
the JEneid, Neptune summons the winds which had worked 
the mischief and addresses them in these words 

Tantane vos generis tenuit fiducia vestri ? 
lam caelum terramque meo sine numine, Venti, 
Miscere, et tantas audetis tollere moles ? 
Quos ego -! 

194. There are certain French terms used in diplo- 
macy 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 1'Angleterre avait faite 
du cote de Rome." This " something " may have been 
what in English might be described as an offer, a sugges- 
tion, an advance, a demand, an attempt, a proposal, a 
protestation, a remonstrance, a request, an overture, a 
warning, a threat, a step, a measure according to 
circumstances, and unless the translator happens to know 
what the circumstances were under which the demarche 
was made, he will be at a loss for a precise English 

" II [Frederic II] donnait une premiere audience ce jour la 
a Sir John [Henry] Legge que le roi George, on 1'a vu, s'6tait 
enfin decide bien a regret, et apres bien des hesitations, a 
lui envoyer. Bien que la demarche de 1'oncle ne fut qu'a 
moitie cordiale, etc." x 

1 Due de Broglie, La Paix d'Aix-la-Chapelle, 234. 


Here demarche means the accrediting of an envoy. 

In 1757 the Empress Elisabeth, being desirous that 
Louis XV should stand godfather to the child that the 
Grand-Duchess Catherine was expecting, charged Chevalier 
Douglas, who was about to return to France, to in- 
form the King confidentially of her wish, and the chan- 
cellor mentioned the matter to the French ambassador 
1'Hopital, requesting him to inform Cardinal Bernis 

" Le chancellier ne dissimula point que sa maitresse 
attachait le plus grand prix au succes de la demarche." 1 

In the sense of an official request for information 

' Les ministres de Baviere, de Danemark, de Sardaigne 
commencent a murmurer, et on nous a dit qu'ils se concer- 
taient pour faire envers les grandes puissances une demarche 
tendant a demander si le Congres etait forme, et ou il devait 
s'assembler. C'est nous qui avons insinue cette idee, et nous 
esperons que la demarche aura lieu si les puissances tardent 
trop a s'expliquer." 2 

Talleyrand, writing to Louis XVIII, November 30, 
1814, reports that 

" Les affaires de Pologne et de Saxe sont tou jours dans la 
meme situation; la demarche que M. de Metternich avait 
fait faire par M. de Hardenberg, et que Lord Castlereagh n'a 
point approuvee, ayant ete sans resultat, aussi bien que la 
discussion de Lord Castlereagh avec 1'empereur Alexandre." 

In order to understand this statement it is necessary 
to refer to a letter of November 24, which states that 

" Lord Castlereagh ayant echoue, ils ont voulu mettre de 
nouveau en scene le prince de Hardenberg. Mais il ne put 
voir, ni avant-hier ni hier, 1'empereur Alexandre, qui, quoi- 
que beaucoup mieux, garde encore la chambre, et je ne crois 
pas qu'il 1'ait vu aujourd'hui." 3 

1 Vandal, Louis XV et Elisabeth de Russie, 334. 

2 Mem. du Pr. Talleyrand, ii. 333. 3 Ibid., 491, 499. 


The demarche was an endeavour to persuade the 
Emperor Alexander to give up his plan of a kingdom of 
Poland, united with Russia by a personal union, and the 
annexation of Saxony to Prussia as compensation for the 
Prussian-Polish territory which he would take for that 

Guizot, addressing the French diplomatic agent at 
Madrid, in March 1834, informed him that 

" Le Roi a juge convenable de vous prescrire, dans les 
circonstances actuelles, une demarche directe aupres de la 
reine Christine." 

This demarche consisted in showing to her a despatch 
composed for the purpose, and also placing before her 
viva voce certain observations and offering advice confi- 
dentially, which were transmitted to the agent in a 
confidential despatch. 1 

" Des qu'il fut convenu qu'un congres se reunirait 
dans ce but a Verone, M. de Chateaubriand fit de vives 
demarches, directes et indirectes, pour y etre envoye." 
What was the form of these vives demarches the author of 
these memoirs does not tell us. Probably they consisted 
of suggestions made personally to Villele, the prime 
minister, and indirectly to the King through Chateau- 
briand's friends. Perhaps " set every wheel in motion ' 
would convey the sense. 

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

" toute espece de demande, pretention ou exception presentee 
au tribunal par les parties. Fin de non-recevoir, refus d'ad- 
mettre une action judiciaire, en pretendant, par un motif 
pris en dehors de la demande elle-meme et de son mal-fonde, 
que celui qui veut 1'intenter n'est pas recevable dans sa de- 
mande. 2 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." 

1 Mini., iv. 408. 

2 The English legal equivalent, in equity, is " demurrer "; at 
Common law, " plea in bar." 



' Cette locution, en usage dans les tribunaux, signifie les 
exceptions diverses qui forment autant d'obstacles a ce que 
le juge saisi d'une instance puisse s'occuper, au moins immedi- 
atement, de la connaissance et de 1'appreciation de la de- 
mande; 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." 1 

This latter explanation corresponds better to the notion 
conveyed when the expression is used to describe the 
diplomatic practice which consists in rejecting an official 
complaint or demand without examining into the merits. 
At Tilsit Napoleon talked to Alexander I about the future 
of Turkey in Europe, tempting Russian cupidity and yet 
avoiding any definite promise; nevertheless, as Vandal 
says, Alexander remained under the impression that 

" loin d'opposer aux convoitises de Russie une fin de non- 
recevoir, Napoleon les encourageait a se produire, a s'affirmer, 
leur annon$ant sous peu une satisfaction quelconque." 2 


' Les assauts reiteres du general Andreossy n'ont pu arra- 
cher a M. de Stadion une reponse favorable ; apres s'etre long- 
temps retranche derriere des formules dilatoires, le ministre 
a fini par declarer, en evitant soigneusement le mot de recon- 
naissance, ' que les relations politiques entre les cours respec- 
tives seraient retablies lorsque les deux rois [d'Espagne et de 
Naples, i. e. Joseph. Bonaparte a Madrid et Murat a Naples] 
seraient arrives dans leur capitale et auraient notifie leur 
avenement' ; c'est une fin de non-recevoir prononcee sous la 
forme la plus blessante, puisque 1'Autriche subordonne sa 
conduite aux evenements et meconnait le droit de souverains 
crees par Napoleon pour ne s'incliner devant le fait." 8 

' Evasive reply " is the best rendering here. 

196. Prendre Acte. Donner Acte. 
The legal definition of acte is ' ' a declaration made 
before a court, whether spontaneously or in consequence of 

1 Diet, du diplomate, etc., s.v., 323. 

2 Nap. et Alex. I, i. 78. 3 Ibid., 429. 


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 obliga- 
tion is undertaken ; such as, for instance, the convention 
for the suspension of hostilities of April 23, 1814, signed 
between France and the four allied Great Powers. 1 " In- 
/ strument " is the proper English equivalent, though we 
sometimes find it rendered by " Act." 
s 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 some- 
times conveniently be rendered by " recognize." 

" 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 leur 
affaires et leur destinee. Dans le deplorable etat ou 1'entre- 
prise d'un egoisme heroique et chimerique avait jete la France, 
il n'y avait evidemment qu'une conduite a tenir : reconnaitre 
Louis XVIII, prendre acte de ses dispositions liberates et se 
concerter avec lui pour traiter avec les etrangers." 2 

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

197. 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 1765 to have bestowed 
this mark of deference on the Imperial Ambassador, 
" which certainly no crowned head in Europe would do." 3 
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, 

1 Mem. du Pr. de Talleyrand, ii. 175, in the preamble. 

2 Guizot, Mem., etc., i. 95. 

3 H. Temperly, Fred, the Great and Kaiser Joseph, 67. 


i. e. to place them on his left hand. See also on this 
point 38s. 1 

198. 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. 

199. National. This French term, of which the 
convenience must be admitted, corresponds in English 
to "subject or citizen." We sometimes find it simply 
adopted as an English word, but surely it is not desirable 
to introduce neologisms into our own language which are 
understood only by the initiated. A similar observation 
applies to " ressortissants," one who is subject to a par- 
ticular 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 treaty 
stipulations that formerly existed with that country, 
were entitled to French protection as being brokers or 
semsars and mokhalata or employes of French commercial 

1 O. Browning, The Despp. of Earl Gower, 2. 




200. Sir Henry Wotton's witticism 201. His advice to 
Milton 202. Izaak Walton's anecdote of Wotton 203. 
Various opinions concerning diplomatists, by Massinger, 
Frederick the Great, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Torci, 
La Bruyere, Louis XI, E. Ollivier, Guizot, Brewer 204. 
De Martens on diplomatists 205. Diplomatic agent or 
public minister 206. His duties. 

200. 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 em- 
ployed by diplomatists is the perversion of truth. Izaak 

Walton, in the life prefixed to the Reliquice Wottoniana, 

" At his first going ambassador into Italy, as he passed 
through Germany, he stayed some days at Augusta [Augs- 
burg], 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 1 to write some 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 : 

1 John Christopher Flechammer or Fleckammer. See Logan 
Pearsall-Smith, i. 49 n., 127 n; ii. 10. Also an article by E. Nys 
in Rtvue de Droit International, xxi. 388. 



" Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus ad mentiendum 
Reipubliccs causd. 

" Which Sir Henry Wotton could have been content should 
have been thus Englished : 

"An Ambassadour is an honest man, sent to lie abroad for 
the good of his Country. 

" 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 construc- 
tion as Sir Henry thought in English. Yet as it was, it slept 
quietly among other Sentences in this A Ibo, 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 spite- 
fully declared to be Sir Henry Wotton s. 

" This coming to the knowledge of King James, he appre- 
hended 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 

" iocosam Legati definitionem, quam iam ante octennium istac 
transiens apud amicum virum Christophorum Fleckamerum 
forte posueram in Albo Amicorum more Teutonico, his ipsis 
verbis ; ' Legatus est vir bonus, peregre missus ad mentien- 
dum reipublicae caussa.' Defmitio aded fortasse catholica, ut 
complecti possit etiam Legates a latere." * 

This seems a sufficient exoneration as far as Sir Henry 
Wotton is concerned. 

1 L. P. Smith, ii. 9, Reliq. Wotton., 4th edit. 


201. Wotton, in a letter to Milton of April 13, 1638, 
giving him some suggestions for his intended journey into 
Italy, tells him the story that when he was at Siena, pre- 
paring to set out for Rome, an old Roman courtier, with 
whom he had lodged, gave him the following piece of 
advice : " Signor Arrigo mio, I Pensieri stretti, il viso 
sciolto will go safely over the whole world. Of which 
Delphian Oracle (for so I have found it ) your judgment 
doth need no Commentary." 1 

202. Sir Henry Wotton's views on the utility of the 
truth may be collected from the following anecdote told 
of him by Izaak Walton 

" A Friend of Sir Henry Wotton's, being designed for the 
imployment of an Ambassador, came to Eaton, and requested 
from him some experimental Rules for his Prudent and Safe 
Carriage in his negotiations ; to whom he smilingly gave this 
for an infallible Aphorism, That, to be in safety himself, and 
serviceable to his Countrey, he should always, and upon all 
occasions speak the truth (it seems a State-Paradox) for, says 
Sir Henry Wotton, you shall never be believed ; and by this 
means, your truth will secure yourself, if you shall ever be called 
to any account; and 'twill also put your Adversaries (who 
will still hunt counter) to a loss in all their disquisitions and 
undertakings." 2 

203. As an illustration of the common opinion of the 
character of diplomatists in that age, Mr. Pearsall-Smith 
quotes from Massinger's Renegado [1624] the lines spoken 
by Gazet 

' I am bound there, 

To swear for my master's profit, as securely 
As your intelligencer must for his prince, 
That sends him forth an honourable spy, 
To serve his purposes." 

Frederick the Great, much later, somewhere calls 
ambassadors, " Les moins honorables des espions." 
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1689-1762,) is the 

1 ReliqJ Wotton., 343. 

? The}Life of Sir^Henry^Wotton, in Reliq. Wotton., p. d 4. 


authority, perhaps not a very trustworthy one, for the 
similar story of Earl Stanhope (1673-1721). Her 
account is 

' I can truly affirm, I never deceived anybody in my life, 
excepting (which I confess has often happened undesignedly) 
by speaking plainly ; as Earl Stanhope used to say (during 
his ministry) he always imposed on the foreign ministers by 
telling them the naked truth, which, as they thought impos- 
sible to come from the mouth of a statesman, they never 
failed to write informations to their respective courts directly 
contrary to the assurances he gave them : most people con- 
founding the ideas of sense and cunning, though there are 
really no two things in nature more opposite." x 

Flassan tells the same story of the celebrated French 
statesman Torci, whom Sorel describes as " Un des hommes 
les plus honnetes qui aient jamais ete aux affaires," that 
he said 

"Que le meilleur moyen de tromper les cours c'etait d'y 
parler tou jours vrai." 2 

La Bruyere, in his portrait of the diplomatist, remarks 

" Toutes ses vues, toutes ses maximes, tous les raffine- 
ments de sa politique tendent a une seule fin, qui est de 
n'etre point trompe, et de tromper les autres. II est pro- 
fond et dissimule, pour cacher une verite en I'annon^ant, 
parce qu'il lui importe qu'il 1'ait dite, et qu'elle ne soit 
pas crae ; ou il est franc et ouvert, afm que, lorsqu'il dissimule 
ce qui ne doit pas etre su, Ton croie neanmoins qu'on n'ignore 
rien de ce que Ton veut savoir, et que Ton se persuade qu'il 
a tout dit." 3 

Louis XI, when sending du Bouchage and de Solliers 
to the Dukes of Guyenne and Bretagne, is said to have 
instructed his envoys : " S'ils vous mentent, mentez-les 
encore plus," 4 and we are told of a Spanish ambassador 
who, on starting for his post, gave out : " s'ils mentent, 

1 Letters and Works, new edition, 1887, ii. 240. 

2 Hist. Gener. des Traites de Paix, iv. 412. 

3 Quoted by Sorel, I'Europe et La Republique fran$ aise, i. 21-2. 

4 Nys in Rev. de Droit Diplom., t. xxi. 388; Flassan, ii. 247. 


je leur mentirai deux cent fois plus." But that was long 
ago. The late Emile Ollivier, who had no lofty idea 
of the intelligence, judgment and good sense of diploma- 
tists in general, does not go farther than to say that 
' croyant etre malins, ils sont bien sou vent dupes." 1 
Guizot had a better opinion of the profession 

" Les diplomates de profession forment, dans la societe 
europeenne, une societe a part, qui a ses maximes, ses mceurs, 
ses lumieres, ses desirs propres, et qui conserve, au milieu des 
dissentiments ou meme des conflits des Etats qu'elle represente, 
une tranquille et permanente unite. Les interets des nations 
sont la en presence, mais non leurs prejuges ou leurs passions 
du moment; et il pent arriver que 1'interet general de la 
grande societe europeenne soit, dans ce petit monde diplo- 
matique, assez clairement reconnu et assez fortement senti 
pour triompher de toutes les dissidences, et faire sincerement 
poursuivre le succes d'une meme politique par des hommes qui 
ont longtemps soutenu des politiques tres-diverses, mais ne 
se sont jamais brouilles entre eux, et ont presque toujours vecu 
ensemble, dans la meme atmosphere et au meme niveau de 
1'horizon (Mem., ii. 266). 

In the reign of Henry VIII English diplomatic agents 

' began to display the peculiar temper and genius of the 
nation. Plodding and cautious, not easily susceptible of 
emotion, they look with apparent stolidity, real or assumed, 
on what is before them. Inferior in statecraft to the French- 
man or the Spaniard, the veteran diplomatists of Europe 
thought it scarcely worth while to deceive such inexperienced 
negotiators. It was no credit to assume the mask before men 
who had never sounded the turbid depths of political intrigue. 
Everywhere on the Continent the notion prevailed that 
England was wealthy and easily duped. . . ." z 

" Le caractere national etablissait parmi les diplomates 
des distinctions .typiques. A 1'Allemand, on reprochait la 
morgue; le diplomate Italian etait perfide et dangereux; 
1'agent Bourguignon passait pour tres intelligent, le Frangais 
n'avait pas toujours reputation d'habilite, mais il 6tait 
honnete. . . . Le ministre espagnol etait impenetrable, mais 
la diplomatic espagnole avait comme marque distinctive 
la lenteur. Sous Philippe II surtout apparait ce reproche. 

1 E. Ollivier, iii. 119. z Brewer, i. pref. xx. 


' Dans cette cour/ ecrit quelqu'un de la suite du nonce extra- 
ordinaire que Clement VIII envoie aupres du roi d'Espagne en 
1594, ' on ne tient nul compte du temps ; la moindre affaire 
exige des annees pour etre conclue.' " 1 

The experienced modern diplomatist will be able to 
judge for himself how far the national types here drawn 
have persisted to our own day. 

204. De Martens says 2 

" Pour que 1'agent diplomatique inspire la confiance si 
necessaire au succes des affaires, il faut que, sans abandon 
affecte, son caractere fasse croire a sa franchise. Le soupcon 
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." 

205. 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. 3 It is not meant that their official 
intercourse is limited to the head of the foreign depart- 
ment. 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, such as in England are denomi- 
nated under-secretaries of State. Questions affecting the 
vital relations of the two nations will, however, be treated 
with the head of the office. A parliamentary under- 
secretary is not, as a rule, charged with the direction of 
office business. His function is to assist in the representa- 
tion of the Office in the legislature, to answer questions 
and afford explanations of the course adopted with respect 
to particular matters of policy. 

1 Nys, 324. 2 Guide Dipl, 152 (edit, of 1866). 

3 " Ministere public " in French means the procureurs-generaux 
(public prosecutors). The law-officers of the Crown in England 
would probably be regarded as being included in this category. 


206. 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 Govern- 
ment on all matters of real 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 and commercial attaches. 

In addition to the head of the permanent mission, other 
agents are sometimes deputed for special purposes of a 
ceremonial character, to represent the Sovereign at a 
coronation, a royal wedding or funeral, or to invest the 
foreign Sovereign with a high decoration. It is usual also 
to appoint special agents for particular objects, such as 
the negotiation of commercial treaties, in which case the 
permanent representative is often joined with the business 
expert, or to attend conferences on postal and telegraph 
conventions, questions of hygiene, the protection of literary 
and artistic property, trade marks and patents. Com- 
missioners may also be appointed to regulate boundary 
questions, or other matters requiring adjustment which 
are outside the scope of the ordinary duties of the per- 
manent diplomatic representative. These persons do not 
enjoy all the privileges and immunities of diplomatic 
agents, described further on, in Chapter XVI. 



[Fr. Droit de legation, ou d'ambassade, actif et passif ; Get. 
Gesandtschaftsrecht, actives und passives, i. e. the right to send 
and the right to receive diplomatic agents.] 

207. Right of every independent state 208. Semi-independent 
states 209. Who has the right in each state 210. 
Right of a regent 211. Of a monarch who is prisoner-of 
war 212. In civil war or revolution 213. Delegatus 
non potest delegare 214. Right of the Holy See 215. 
Only one diplomatic agent usual 216. In war-time, agent 
of friendly neutral protects subjects of other belligerent 
217. May be accredited to more than one country 218. 
Determination of the class of agent to be sent 219. What 
states may appoint ambassadors 220. Continuous residence 
of agent not a matter of strict right. 

207. EVERY recognized 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. 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 is, however, not 
exclusively modern. In 1614 it was provided by a treaty 
between Sweden and Holland that the two states should 
mutually accredit resident envoys. Holland had a simi- 
lar agreement, also of 1614, with Brandenburg, Anhalt, 
Baden, Oettingen and Wurttemberg. 

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, 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. 1 Great Britain, up to December 
1914, maintained no regular diplomatic 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 
has a legation at Rome, while not receiving a nuncio at 
Berlin; so also Russia. 

208. 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. 

209. In monarchical states the sovereign has the 
right of making appointments. Generally speaking, this 
right is defined 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. 

210. 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. Thus, during the minority 
of Louis XV, the Duke of Orleans being regent, Car- 
dinal Dubois negotiated the Triple Alliance of the Hague 
in 1717, in virtue of credentials, full-powers and instruc- 
tions made out in the name of the King. In England, 
1 Koch and Schoell, xiv. 


during the periods when George III was incapacitated by 
mental derangement 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. 1 

211. A monarch who is a prisoner-of-war cannot 
accredit diplomatic agents. 2 

212. 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 recognized 
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. 3 During the continuation 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 
recognizes the new power which has been set up, and 
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 
recognized 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. 4 In 1871 
Count Bismarck insisted that, in order that the Govern- 

1 Phillimore, ii. 141. 

* G. F. de Martens, Precis du droit des gens, ii. 40. 
3 Oppenheim, i. 362. * de Martens-Geffcken, i. 39. 

VOL. I. N 


ment of the National Defence should be recognized as 
having the right to represent France diplomatically, it 
must be recognized 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 recog- 
nized by other Powers. On the occasion of the coronation 
of King William I, Prussia not having recognized 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. 

213. The maxim delegatus 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 Oxenstierna. Grotius, nominated by him 
as ambassador to France, had credentials in the Chan- 
cellor's name. He was received as the ambassador of 
Sweden, and not of the Chancellor who had appointed 
him, and in virtue of the procuration of the Senate. 

During the period when Spain governed Naples by a 
viceroy, Milan by a governor, and the Spanish Nether- 
lands by a governor-general, the right to appoint 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 Netherlands (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. 1 

214. The right of the Holy See to diplomatic repre- 
sentation has not been affected by the annexation of the 
States of the Church to the Kingdom of Italy. 

215. It is the general practice to have only one per- 
manent diplomatic agent at each capital. When more 
than one are deputed to a Conference or to a Congress, 
one of the number is usually designated as the First 

216. 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. 

217. 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 missions. 

218. What class of agents shall be accredited is a 
matter for arrangement between the governments con- 
cerned, the usual practice being to exchange agents of 
the same class. France, however, appoints an Ambassa- 
dor to Berne, while the Swiss Confederation sends an 
Envoy and Minister to Paris. Generally, however, only 
the Great Powers are represented by Ambassadors, 
though up to 1893 the United States made it a rule to 
appoint agents of not higher rank than Envoy and 
Minister. At the beginning of Queen Victoria's reign 
Great Britain had Ambassadors at Paris, Petersburg 
and Constantinople, but from 1844 to 1860 the post at 

1 Phillimore, ii. 142-3. 


Petersburg was occupied by an Envoy and Minister. 
The legation at Vienna was raised to an embassy in 
1860, that at Berlin in 1862, at Rome in 1876, at Madrid 
in 1887, and at Tokio in 1905. In all these cases the 
change of status has taken place by mutual consent, and 
the head of the legation has, as a matter of usual prac- 
tice, been promoted to be 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 Extra- 
ordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary, as a mere matter 
of international compliment and in recognition of the 
growing importance of the political and commercial 
relations of states. 

219. It is sometimes said that only states of which 
the Heads are entitled to " Royal honours " have the 
right of sending ambassadors. On the other hand, the 
enumeration of royal honours is stated to include " the 
right of nominating public ministers of the first class to 
diplomatic missions," 1 so that the former statement has 
the appearance of arguing in a circle. 

220. 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 con- 
sent have incorporated this permission of strict residence 
into the practice of nations, that the gross discourtesy 
of refusing it would require unanswerable reasons for 
its justification, and would place the refusing in so un- 
friendly an attitude towards the refused state as to be 
little removed from a condition of declared hostility/ 

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 

1 de Martens-Geffcken, i. 199. z Phillimore, ii. 154. 



221. Methods adopted in various countries 222. Diplo- 
matists' wives 223. British Royal Commission of 1914 
224. Qualifications desirable in a diplomatist 225. 
Schmelzing's opinion 226. Schmalz's opinion 227. Age 
of diplomatists 228. Callieres on age. 

221. IN theory the selection of heads of missions will 
be determined with reference to the absolute fitness of 
the man for the particular post. (The qualifications and 
characteristics of the perfect diplomatist have been dis- 
cussed in Chap. IX., see also p. 183.) Here it is only in- 
tended to describe different methods of selection adopted 
in different countries. Most European states confine diplo- 
matic appointments, at least to ranks below that of ambas- 
sador, to a close service consisting of trained men who have 
begun at the lowest step qf the ladder and risen gradually. 
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 ambas- 
sadors are now usually taken from one of the two former, 
rarely, indeed, 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 combination of 
foreign office and diplomatic service appears to exist 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 ambas- 
sador is not infrequent, but in Great Britain no instance 

of the kind has occurred, at least in recent times, doubt- 



less because of the strictness of party government. 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 Office till 1853. 
The first Earl of Kimberley was envoy at Petersburg 
under his earlier title of Lord Wodehouse from 1856 to 
1858, but did not become Secretary of State till 1894. 
In the interval he had filled a variety of other offices. 

In the United States diplomatic appointments to 
embassies and to missions of all classes are conferred 
almost without exception on political supporters of the 
party whose nominee has been elected President, and 
it is usual for them to send in their resignations as soon 
as a President is elected from the opposite side in 

In Japan there have been several instances of the inter- 
change of minister for Foreign Affairs and ambassador. 

222. If the diplomatist suggested for appointment 
of 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 deter- 
mination of his appointment or rejection. 

There have been cases, like that of the celebrated 
Mme. de Lieven, where the lady was the more important 
of the two heads of an embassy, and unofficially wielded 
far greater influence than her husband. 

223. In 1914 a British Royal Commission on the 


Civil Service presented a report containing a series of 
recommendations with respect to the organisation and 
recruitment of the diplomatic service. 1 One of these was 
that the Diplomatic establishment 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. 
They proposed that the existing property qualification 
(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. The 
only part of their report of immediate interest in this place 
is that which deals with recruitment, and here they do not 
make any revolutionary proposals ; but they desire to 
widen the area of selection, having discovered to their 
surprise that twenty-five out of thirty-seven successful 
candidates came from Eton, while all but a very small 
fraction had been educated at one or other of the more 
expensive public schools. It would have been more to 
the purpose to have given the proportion between the 
candidates, unsuccessful as well as successful. The 
present system, however, ensures that the candidates 
belong to families not oppressed from their earliest year 
by the res angusta domi, and that they have at least had 
the opportunity of mixing in society where good manners 
are to be expected. 

224. We should, in contrast with these Royal Com- 
missioners, 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 a 

i [Cd. 7748-] 


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 pretty sure to be a 

Science is not necessary. Geography, beyond elemen- 
tary notions, is not of great value. The diplomatist 
will acquire what geographical knowledge he needs of the 
country to which he is appointed while residing at his post. 
Few men can know it in sufficient detail beforehand. 
The writer has heard of a case where the experts of the 
Royal Geographical Society, on being applied to for in- 
formation respecting the navigability of a river, gave a 
seriously misleading answer, and that, too, in spite of 
having on their shelves a scientific traveller's narrative 
from which they could have learnt the facts. 

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. 

225. We take the following weighty observations on 
the qualifications requisite for a diplomatist or envoy 
from Schmelzing. They may seem to border on a de- 
scription of the unattainable, but it is by aiming at the 
unattainable that the best obtainable is secured. 1 

Die zeitgemasse Leitung der auswartigen Staatsverhaltnisse 
ist fur jegliches Volk von der grosten Wichtigkeit. Es kann 
demselben niemals gleichgiiltig seyn, welche Personen von 
dem zeitlichen Souverain zur Mitleitung ausersehen worden 
sind. Wenn auch die Wahl derselben immerhin grossen 
Schwierigkeiten unterworfen seyn wird, da ofters die indivi- 
duellen Einsichten oder personlichen Rucksichten des Regenten 
hierin einen grosen Spielraum haben, so fordern doch forthin 
Rechtlichkeit, wahrhafte Politik des zeitlichen Regenten und 
dessen Liebe fiir des Staates Wohl, dass er nur solchen Mannern 

1 Schmelzing, ii. no. 


die Leitung der auswartigen Verhaltnisse unmittelbar oder 
mittelbar anvertraue, welche 

1. Die fur eine so wichtige Stelle erforderlichen Kenntnisse 
oder wissenschaftliche Bildung erprobt haben. Hierunter ist 
Kenntniss der lebenden Sprachen, und sogar in manchen 
Fallen auch die Kenntniss einzelner todten Sprachen, keine 
der letzten Forderungen. Die Gabe des miindlichen und 
schriftlichen Vortrags muss hier gleichfalls nicht ausser Acht 

2. Rechtlichkeit und Wahrheit seyen ein auszeichnendes 
Merkmal im Karakter solcher Personen, die sicherlich mehr 
durch diese erhabenen Eigenschaften, als durch Verstellung, 
falsche Kiinste und Betrug, fur ihres Staates Wohl bewerk- 
stelligen werden, sowie Treue gegen ihren Souverain und 
Liebe fiir ihr Vaterland sie stets auch beseelen moge. 

3. Frei vom Ehrgeize und eitlen Prunke, mogen sie bei 
jeglicher ihrer Handlungen nur ihres Staates Wohl, und ohne 
alle Eigenniitzigkeit beabsichten. 

4. Mit tiefer Menschenkenntniss, Umsicht, mit Freiheit 
von Vorurtheilen und Leidenschaften, mogen sie fiirhin 
Besonnenheit, Ruhe und die Festigkeit eines edlen und reinen 
Willens verbinden. 

5. Ihre rechtliche Wirksamkeit sey durch ununterbrochene 
Thatigkeit, durch einen klaren und schnellen Ueberblick, 
Geschaftsgewandtheit, und sorgfaltige Wahl giinstiger Zeit- 
momente, ausgezeichnet. 

6. Um so besser, wenn sie dem empfehlenden Aussern der 
Person, ihrem gefalligen, anziehenden Benehmen, und ihrem 
edlen Anstande, auch ein tadelloses Betragen, gluckliche 
Privatverhaltnisse und erspriessliche Famihenbeziehungen 

226. To the foregoing may be added some remarks 
of Schmalz 1 

Die Kunst der Unterhandlung auf Regeln bringen, ist so 
eitel als thorigt, wie die Kunst des Umganges mit Menschen 
lehren zu wollen. Was den geschickten Unterhandler macht 
(ausser der Kenntniss der Geschafte und der Vortheile seines 
Vaterlandes) als : Kenntniss der Menschen, welche in Mienen 
und Blicke zu lesen weiss, die eigene Haltung, welche hier 
den Schwachen durch Ernst, dort den Starken durch Sanft- 
heit zu uberwaltigen geschickt ist, und die Leichtigkeit die 
Absichten Anderer zu begreifen, ihre Einwiirfe gewandt zu 
widerlegen ; das Alles sind Eigenschaften, welche nur die 
Natur, das Leben in der Welt, und Uebung in den Geschaften 

1 Cited by Schmelzing, ii. 105. 


geben, aber niemals ein Buch durch Belehrung uns aneignen 
kann. . . . Der Mann den Wissenschaft und Welt gebildet, und 
den Geschaften geiibt haben, wird von innerer Rechtschaffen- 
heit auch besser geleitet werden, als der verdorbene Weltmann 
durch alle Schlauheit. Wer mil Treue gegen seinen Souverain 
und mit Liebe seines Vaterlandes Liebe der Menschen vereint, 
wer bei griindlichem Wissen nur das Rechte, Gute und 
Edle will, der wird sicher den Weg zu der wahren Krone 
des Verdienstes finden, die wahrlich nicht Anerkennung der 
Welt ist. Gelingen oder Verfehlen ist zufallig, und darnach 
urtheilt die Welt allein. Unbeholfene Menschen haben oft 
Geschafte gliicklich zu Stande gebracht, weil ihrer Gegner 
Schwache oder Interesse ihnen entgegen kam; wahrend 
Klugheit und Erfahrung der trefflichsten Staatsmanner ihres 
Ziels verfehlten. Nicht das Einzelne, was gelingt, oder mis- 
lingt, sondern der ganze Geist der Amtsfuhrung macht den 
Werth des Staatsmanns ; am Ende wird auch dieser von der 
Welt erkannt. 

We have attempted the following rendering of these 
observations of Schmalz. 

" 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 characteristic 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 earnest- 
ness 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 inter- 
course and practical acquaintance with affairs ; but they 
can never be gained from book-learning. A man who 
has been educated by study, by mixing in society, and 
by the practice of affairs will be better guided by his 
own sense of honour than the corrupt man of the world 
by cunning. He who combines love of mankind with 
loyalty to his sovereign and love of his native country, 
who, with thorough knowledge, aims solely at what is 


just, good and lofty, will assuredly find his way to the 
genuine crown of merit, which is not identical with public 
recognition. Success or failure is a matter of chance, 
and by them alone the world judges. Blunderers have 
often achieved success because they were aided by the 
weakness or egotism of their opponents, while the wisdom 
and experience of the greatest statesmen have missed 
their aim. The worth of a statesman is to be measured 
not by a single success or failure, but by the whole spirit 
of his administration; and the world will recognize this 
worth in the long run." 

227. Age of Heads of Missions. 

In the British diplomatic service the age of retirement 
is fixed at seventy years, but cases have occurred in 
which, for special reasons, it has been thought desirable 
to extend the period of service. The French rule is 
retirement at sixty-five years of age. Other states have 
no age limit. Count Nigra is reported to have said : 
" A diplomatist begins to be capable of rendering service 
to his country at the age of seventy-five." x 

228. The author of De la Maniere de negocier avec 
les Souverains, who is frequently quoted in this book, 
observes that 

" un jeune Negociateur est d'ordinaire presomptueux, vain, 
leger & indiscret, & il y a du risque a le charger d'une affaire 
de consequence, a moins que ce ne soit un sujet d'un merite 
singulier & dont 1'heureux naturel ait prevenu les dons de 
1'age & de 1'experience. 

" Un vieillard est chagrin, difficultueux, trouvant a redire 
a tout, blamant les plaisirs qu'il ne peut plus prendre, peu 
propre a s'insinuer dans les bonnes graces d'un Prince & de 
ses Ministres, & hors d'etat d'agir par la lenteur & les incom- 
moditez attachees a la vieillesse. 

" L'age mediocre est le plus propre aux negociations, parce 
qu'on y trouve 1'experience, la discretion & la moderation 
qui manquent aux jeunes gens, & la vigueur, 1'activite & 
1'agrement, qui abandonnent les vieillards." 2 

1 Villa-Urrutia, ii. 143. 2 Callieres, 356. 



229. Right of refusing a diplomatic agent 230. Submission 
of name for approval 231. Instances of refusal Stratford 
Canning case 232. Keiley 233. Blair 234. United 
States practice 236. Other cases 235. Subject of the 
State to which he is accredited 237. Pozzo di 'Borgo, 
Count de Bray, Count Rossi, Sir Patrick Lawless, Cardinal 
Hohenlohe Wicquefort 238. United States Law 
Bu rlingame Camacho . 

229. 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 towards the state to which it is proposed to 
accredit him. A diplomatic agent may be declined be- 
cause 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 were to announce his intention of 
sending a legate or nuncio to Great Britain, it is cer- 
tain that such a representative would not be received. 
The Ottoman Porte for a long time declined to ex- 
change 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 

230. Agreation. 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 and by word of mouth, though from 

1 J. W. Foster, Diplomatic Practice, 1906, 31. 



the fact that forms of acceptance are to be found in books, 
it might be inferred that the matter is sometimes arranged 
by an interchange of letters. The channel generally 
employed is the retiring diplomatic agent of the Court 
which appoints, or more often the Charge d'affaires ad 
interim. Sometimes it is done by the minister for Foreign 
Affairs addressing himself to the diplomatic representative 
of the Power to which the diplomatist is to be accredited. 
When the Pope is about to appoint a nuncio or legate to 
the Court of Austria-Hungary, or Spain (formerly also 
to France and Portugal) he submits a list of three names, 
called a terna, to the Sovereign, who then is at liberty 
to make his choice. If there exist no special reasons 
for exercising the power of choosing, it is usual to take 
the name that stands first. 

It is a matter of dispute whether a refusal must be 
accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which it is 
made, but it can safely be asserted that if in such a case 
the reasons are asked for, and they are not given, or if 
it appear 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. 

231. 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 to receive Sir Stratford Canning, in 
1832, as successor to Lord Heytesbury. 

The Russian account of this case is that the nomination 
of Sir Stratford was made suddenly and without previous 
notice. It was only ten days after the appointment had 
been notified in the London Gazette that Palmerston 
mentioned it to Prince Lieven, the Russian ambassador, 
who remonstrated with him on the unusual character 
of this proceeding. Palmerston replied vehemently that 
a Government was perfectly free in the choice of its 


representatives at foreign Courts, and that the latter 
could not, without, so to speak, desiring to interfere in its 
councils, have any influence in the matter. He main- 
tained that the refusal of the Emperor of Russia to receive 
Stratford Canning as British ambassador was equivalent 
to a veto imposed on a decision of the King of England. 
Two months later he declared that the nomination would 
not be cancelled, and that Stratford Canning would 
shortly betake himself to his post at Petersburg. Even- 
tually Nesselrode instructed Lieven to declare categori- 
cally that Stratford Canning would not be received by 
the Emperor, and that if Palmerston persisted the Russian 
ambassador would have to quit his post and be replaced 
by a Charge d'affaires. Already in 1831 Lord Durham 
had been nominated special ambassador to Petersburg 
without the Russian Government having been previously 
consulted. Lieven had known of this latter appointment 
only on the day it was signed by the King. He gave 
Palmerston a frank statement of his views on this subject 
but recommended his Government not to take any notice 
of this flagrant violation of established usage. 1 

In 1832, September 3, the Hon. J. D. Bligh had been 
transferred from the Hague, where since June 16 he had 
held the post of minister plenipotentiary ad interim (equi- 
valent to Charge d'affaires) to Petersburg in the same 
capacity. Stratford Canning's appointment was dated 
October 30, but as the Emperor refused to receive him he 
did not proceed. On December 30 of the same year he 
was sent on a special mission to Spain and Portugal. 
Lord Durham was appointed a second time July 5, 1835, 2 
and ordinary relations were resumed. 

1 F. de Martens, xii. 9-10. Durham wrote from Petersburg 
to Palmerston that Nesselrode wished Canning should not be 
sent, even before his name had been mentioned by Palmerston. 
S. J. Reid's Life of Durham, i. 315. This writer's statement, on 
p. 320, that "it was only when the Tsar stated that he should 
decline to receive Canning, that Palmerston, with considerable 
ill grace, yielded," is not quite accurate. 

2 F. O. List for 1869. 


Lieven, nevertheless, did not receive his recall till August 
30, 1834. He had been appointed governor (curateur) of 
the Grand Duke Alexander on April 30. The story given 
in E. Daudet's Une Vie d'Ambassadrice, is that Nessel- 
rode entrusted to Mme. de Lieven the delicate task of 
informing Palmerston that Canning could not be accepted ; 
he was " un homme impossible, pointilleux, defiant " ; 
there were reasons to believe that he had been guilty of 
rudeness towards the Tsar, when the latter was still 
Grand-Duke; Palmerston promised her that Canning 
should not be appointed, but broke his word, and the 
Tsar threatened to recall his ambassador. Madame de 
Lieven rushed off to Petersburg, and conjured away the 
danger (p. 181). The lady, as is well known, was much 
more the representative of Russia than her husband. 

Stanley Lane Poole, in a long account of this affair, 1 
quotes Bligh's correspondence to show that the allegation 
of discourtesy towards the Emperor in 1825, before he 
ascended the throne, was without foundation, but states 
that Nicholas' objections were such as would place 
him under the disagreeable necessity of objecting to 
the nomination if it were pressed. Planta, a former 
Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs, in a letter to Canning, 

" I cannot understand any foreign Power being allowed to 
take such a course as this, or that things should not be so 
managed by our Foreign Office as to prevent it. ... I have 
often heard of soundings and confidential communications, 
and inquiries " would this or that man be fitting," but then 
these always preceded the public declaration of an embassy, 
and its formal announcement in the Gazette." 


In Canning's credentials to the King and Queen of 
Spain he was styled " Ambassador to the Emperor of 
all the Russias." While he was at Madrid Palmerston 
offered to appoint him permanent ambassador there, but 
he refused. 

' Life of the Rt. Hon. Stratford Canning, ii. 18. 


The probabilities are that Nicholas thought Canning 
knew too much about Turkish affairs and Russian policy 
in that country, and that this was the unavowed reason 
for the refusal; and that Palmerston was aware of this, 
but resolved to try to force Canning's appointment. 
Possibly, too, rumours of the stormy interviews between 
him and John Quincy Adams, the American Secretary of 
State, during Canning's mission to the United States, may 
have reached Petersburg and rendered the Emperor 
unwilling to have such a diplomatist at his Court. 

At the present day the practice of making inquiry 
beforehand is recognized by most States as thoroughly 
well established, with one important exception. 

232. In 1885 Mr. A. M. Keiley was appointed United 
States minister at Rome. The Italian Government, on 
being apprised of the fact by their minister at Washington, 
at once requested that another choice might be made, 
without however assigning any reason. But it is evident 
that the ground of the refusal to receive him was a speech 
made by Mr. Keiley in 1871 at a public meeting of Roman 
Catholics, at which a protest was made against the annexa- 
tion of the Papal States to the Kingdom of Italy. Mr. 
Bayard on that occasion recognized " the full and inde- 
pendent right " of the King of Italy " to decide the question 
of personal acceptability to him of an envoy " of the United 
States, and Mr. Keiley, on being made acquainted with 
the refusal of the Italian Government, promptly resigned 
his commission ; in consequence no ill-feeling between the 
two Governments resulted. 

Almost immediately afterwards, Mr. Keiley was ap- 
pointed to Vienna, and the Austro-Hungarian minister 
at Washington, who had telegraphed the news to his 
Government, received instructions by telegraph to say that 
since, as at Rome, scruples prevailed against this choice, 
he was to direct the attention of the American Govern- 
ment, in the most friendly way, to the generally existing 
diplomatic practice to ask, previously to any nomination 


of a foreign minister, the consent (agrement) of the Govern- 
ment to which he is to be accredited. He was earnestly to 
entreat them that the newly nominated minister might 
not reach Vienna before the confidential consent to his 
nomination had taken place. 

Unluckily, Count Kalnoky added that " the position of 
a foreign envoy wedded to a Jewess by civil marriage 
would be untenable and intolerable in Vienna," and un- 
luckily, too, the Austro-Hungarian minister handed to 
Mr. Bayard a copy of the telegram. This afforded to the 
latter 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, inasmuch as it was contrary to the United 
States constitution, which forbids religious tests as a 
qualification for any office or public trust, and to the 
principle of religious liberty which was the chief corner- 
stone of the American system of government. Mr. 
Bayard, at the same time, in the conclusion of his Note to 
Baron Schaeffer, stated that the President fully recognized 

" 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 presented." 

In another Note, dated two days 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. As the result of search in the archives 
of the department for the past ninety years he found 
that there was no instance of this having been done by the 
United States, and he explained that the reason of the 
practice 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 
VOL. i. o 


superseded one whose policy was more in accord with 
that of the foreign Government concerned. 

Subsequently letters were received from the outgoing 
United States minister at Vienna, reporting that 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 expres- 
sion 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. Then 
the Vienna Press took the matter up, and explained that 
the refusal to receive Mr. Keiley arose from a desire to 
manifest regard for the feelings of the King of Italy, whose 
father, it was alleged, had been spoken of by him in some- 
what unmeasured terms. Finally, the Austro-Hungarian 
Government definitely refused to receive Mr. Keiley, who 
thereupon sent in his resignation. The result of the 
controversy was that the President declined to make a 
fresh nomination, and left the legation in the hands of a 
secretary as Charge d'affaires* 

233. In 1891 the United States appointed Mr. Henry 
W. Blair minister to China. In April, when he was 
already on his way thither, the Chinese Foreign Office 
and Li, the viceroy of Chihli, telegraphed their objection 
to the appointment on the ground that in 1882 and 1888 
he had " bitterly abused China in the Senate," and that he 
had " abused the Chinese labourers too bitterly while in 
the Senate and was conspicuous in helping to pass the 
oppressive Exclusion Act." Thereupon the Department 
of State telegraphed to him to return to Washington. 
After his return he defended himself against these accusa- 

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1866. 


tions ; he quoted, however, from the congressional record, 
showing that he had said the coming of the Chinese 
labourer was as harmful as the yellow fever, that the 
Chinaman was detrimental to the civilization of the 
American people, and described the Chinese quarter at 
San Francisco as a " seething, roaring, blood-curdling 
curse." He concluded his defence by saying 

" If the tests applied to my conduct in this case are to be 
acquiesced in by our Government, freedom of discussion in 
and out of the halls of legislation, and of intercourse between 
the Executive and Congress, will be ended on the one hand, 
or, on the other, representation of our country abroad by men 
who have taken part in public affairs must cease." 

At the same time he placed his resignation in the 
hands of the President. In response to a request made 
by the Secretary of State through the Chinese minister 
at Washington, that the Chinese Government would con- 
sent 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 Exclu- 
sion 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." The message from Peking 
quoted some of the language used by Mr. Blair, and 
questioned whether before any satisfaction was given 
to China or answer returned to Notes addressed by the 
previous Chinese minister to Mr. Bayard and to Mr. 
Blaine it was reasonable to ask the Chinese Government 
to receive as minister one of the men who voted for that 
law and had made such speeches against the Chinese as 
those which had been seen by the Chinese Foreign Office. 
This message being communicated to Mr. Blair, he again 
addressed the President, suggesting that if he were to 
instruct the minister at Peking to negotiate a new treaty 
upon the subject of Chinese immigration, the Chinese 
Government might embrace the opportunity to "with- 


draw its objections to the minister, or rather to the country 
which he represents." To this he added a further ex- 
planation of his action and language in the Senate. After 
the lapse of nearly three months, the President wrote to 
Mr. Blair, finally accepting his resignation, and stating 
that he had directed the Secretary of State to protest to 
the Chinese Government against the insufficiency of the 
objections presented by it, and to say that he had ter- 
minated the correspondence by a peremptory resignation. 
The published papers show that he had withdrawn his 
resignation some days before the further explanations 
which he furnished to the President, and there is no 
record of its having been renewed. 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. 

" If Mr. Blair may not be received as minister while that law 
[of 1888] 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." x 

There was no interruption of the diplomatic repre- 
sentation at Peking. 2 

234. The United States has observed the practice 
of inquiring in advance as to the acceptability of persons 
whom it has desired to nominate as ambassadors since the 
Government began to appoint diplomatic agents of that 
grade, 3 but it adheres to its ancient rule with respect to 
its envoys and diplomatic representatives of a lower 
grade. 4 

235. It is seldom that the subject of another State 

1 Nouveau Recueil General de Trails, t. xxii. 271-91. 

2 Hall, 6th edit., 294 . 3 Moore's Digest, iv. 483. 
* J. W. Foster, Dipl. Mem., 37. 


is employed as envoy to his own sovereign. Before he 
can appear in that capacity he must apply for the approval 
of his own sovereign. 

236. Many courts go too far in their suspicions and 
motives of refusal ; e.g. Sweden in 1757 refused to accept 
the envoy of Great Britain, Goodrich, because, after his 
appointment, he had visited a prince with whom Sweden 
was at war. Great Britain consequently broke off diplo- 
matic relations with Sweden. 1 In 1792 the King of Sardinia 
refused to receive Semonville as French minister, and 
in 1820 the Prussian envoy, Baron von Martens, because 
he had married the daughter of a regicide. In 1847 the 
King of Hanover refused Graf von Westphalen because 
he was a Roman Catholic. 

237. In France it has been for some time settled as 
a constitutional maxim that subjects are not admissible 
as ambassadors. An exception appears to have been 
formerly made in favour of the ambassador from Malta. 
But a more unusual case was that of Pozzo di Borgo, 
Corsican by birth and consequently a French subject, 
who was Russian ambassador in Paris from 1815 to 
December 1834. The Emperor Nicholas, after 1830, 
became convinced that " ce Corse etait un etranger, qui 
ne comprenait la Russie, ni ses interets politiques." 2 
" Pozzo di Borgo etait Fran9ais dans Fame et Russe par la 
force des circonstances." 3 But Pozzo di Borgo was a 
naturalized Russian of French origin, like the Count de 
Bray, who was received at Paris as Bavarian envoy extra- 
ordinary. 4 Another case is that of Count Rossi, a native 
of Ferrara, but naturalized in France, who was French 
ambassador at Rome in 1846. In 1714 Sir Patrick Law- 
less was Spanish envoy in London, and General Wall 
from 1748 to 1762 : both were Irishmen by birth. In 
1875 the Pope declined the appointment of Cardinal 
Hohenlohe on the ground of his ecclesiastical rank. The 

1 Schmalz, Europ. V.R., 87 ; Holtzendorf, iii. 632 ; Schmelzing, 
ii. 153. 2 F. de Martens, xv. 101. 

3 Ibid., p. 100. 4 De Martens-Geffcken i. 41 n. 


work quoted in the last footnote states that 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. Wicque- 
fort had been resident of the Duke of Liineburg at the 
Hague, though he was a Dutch subject born at Amster- 
dam. The objection to receiving subjects as members of 
a foreign mission does not apply to secretaries in England. 
The Chinese, Japanese and Siamese legations in London 
have often employed British subjects in this capacity. 

A State may declare beforehand the terms under which 
it will consent to receive its own subject as a foreign 
diplomatic agent. But if the subject be received without 
any such previously promulgated stipulation he will be 
entitled to the full jus legationis. 1 

238. " The laws of the United States forbid the employ- 
ment 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 representative of a foreign govern- 
ment, but this rule is of a flexible character in its applica- 
tion. 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 naturalized 
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 

1 Phillimore, ii. 152. 

z For the official communication of their mission by Burlingame 
and his two Chinese colleagues to the Secretary of State, asking 
for an audience of the President for the purpose of delivering 
their credentials, and Mr. Fish's reply informing them of the time 
fixed for their reception, and for the address of Mr. Burlingame 
to the President and the President's reply, see Foreign Relations 
of the United States, 1868-9, P ar t i, 601-4. For the correspondence 
relating to this appointment see the same vol., 493. 


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 Government 
claimed was a suzerain state." x 

" In late years a practice grew up of securing the insertion 
in the Diplomatic List, published monthly by the State 
Department, 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." 2 

Holtzendorf is under a misapprehension, therefore, 
when he states that the United States Government de- 
clined to recognize Burlingame as a commissioner without 
diplomatic character. 3 

1 This is not quite correct. The British Government claimed 
to be the suzerain of the Transvaal Republic. " Vassal State " 
would be the better term, to use. 

2 J. W. Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 49-50. 

3 iii. 631. 



239. What he will find there, and take with him 240. 
Passport 241. Instructions Hon. Henry Legge's in 1748 
242. Delegate to a Congress or Conference receives full 
powers 243. Former practice of formal entry 244. 
Proceedings on arrival 245. Until credentials presented, 
no formal visits 246. Speech on presenting credentials 
247. Segur's audience of Catherine the Great 248. 
Chateaubriand's speech to the Conclave 249. Language 
of the speech 250. Examples of speeches 251. Ex- 
amples of a Sovereign's reply 252. Speech of Spanish 
Ambassador to French President 253. President's reply 
254. Reception of Ambassador by Head of the State 
255. Reception of an Envoy 256. Ceremony at Washing- 
ton 257. Audiences of members of reigning family 
258. Reception of Envoy where there are no ambassadors 
259. Ceremonial at the Vatican 260. At the Court of 
Russia 261. At the Court of Great Britain 262. In 

239. UNDER ordinary circumstances a newly appointed 
diplomatic agent proceeding to his post will most probably 
find there an established mission, fully provided with 
archives containing previous correspondence with his 
own Foreign Office, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
of the State to which he is accredited, and with miscel- 
laneous 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 ascertain 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 creden- 
tials, he may receive for answer that his predecessor is 
not yet functus officio, and so his own recognition may be 
delayed until the necessary document can be procured 
from home. Meanwhile reports will, perhaps, be circu- 
lated throwing doubt upon his own acceptability to the 

Forms of letters of credence are given in Chapter VIII. 

240. A passport will be found useful. Callieres 
recommends the perusal of the despatches exchanged 
with his predecessor by the foreign department, 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 
disposition. He should also be careful in the choice of 
the servants he takes with him. 1 

241. Most of the books seem to assume that a diplo- 
matic agent, on proceeding to his post, is provided, as a 
matter of course, with written instructions 

" On y trace la marche a suivre dans les negotiations de 
toute nature ; on y renseigne le ministre sur le personnel de 
la cour oii il est envoye, sur les membres du corps diplo- 
matique ; on y expose sommairement le systeme de politique 
adopte, les relations plus ou moins amicales, les affaires pen- 
dantes ou recemment terminees ; en un mot, tout ce qui peut 
servir de guide ou de regie au diplomate dans 1'exercice de 
ses fonctions." 2 

This is not, however, always done. It will depend on 
circumstances, as, for instance, whether there is any 

1 L'art de negocier, etc., 211. 2 De Martens-Geffcken, i. 69 n. 


particular question in course of negotiation between the 
two Governments or not. Even then, since important 
instructions are in these days generally sent by telegraph, 
written instructions carried by an agent would often 
be out of date by the time he reached his post. Con- 
sequently, the usual practice is to inform him that in the 
archives of his mission he will find most of the instructions 
he needs, and that others will reach him from time to 
time. Even at earlier periods, before the advent of the 
electric telegraph and submarine cable, the written in- 
structions given to an agent were often of a merely formal 
nature. When the Hon. Henry Legge was sent to Berlin, 
in 1748, besides his formal instructions, he received others 
much longer, of a very confidential character, relating to 
proposed negotiations for an alliance between George II 
and Frederick the Great. Two years later, when Sir 
Charles Hanbury Williams was appointed, his formal letter 
of instructions was word for word identical with what 
had been given to Legge, but he does not appear to have 
been provided with others. 

242. The case of a negotiator at a Congress or Con- 
ference is naturally different. On such occasions special 
written instructions are indispensable. The delegate to 
such gatherings receives only full powers, not credentials. 
An ordinary permanent diplomatic agent is not pro- 
vided with full powers, unless he is entrusted with the 
negotiation of a treaty or a convention. 

Before starting for his post the agent should take care 
to let the probable date be known of his intended arrival, 
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 
Custom House. 

243. Formerly 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 often 
welcomed at the railway station on his arrival by the 
minister for Foreign Affairs. But, generally speaking, 
diplomatic 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 below, 348. 

244. On reaching the capital he should at once 
notify his arrival to the minister for Foreign Affairs, and 
at some capitals also to the Grand Master of the Cere- 
monies or to the Introductor of Ambassadors. This may 
be done by letter. He calls on the minister for Foreign 
Affairs, and requests him to take the orders of the Head 
of the State respecting an audience for the purpose of 
presenting his credentials, of which he must also furnish 
a copy beforehand. 

245. 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 least 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 pre- 
sentation of his credentials, the audiences of members of 
the reigning family for which he will 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 Grand Master 
of the Ceremonies or the Introductor of Ambassadors, 
are the authoritative exponents of the local etiquette. 
He may even call unofficially on the minister for Foreign 
Affairs, in order to make his acquaintance. Thus, as was 


reported in The Times of March 5, 1915, the new Belgian 
Envoy, who arrived on March 3, called on the Secretary 
of State and the Permanent Under-secretary on the 
following day. 

246. On being informed by the proper authority, 
who is the minister for Foreign Affairs, in the first place, 
of the day and hour at which his audience is to take place, 
if it is the received 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 commences by a 
statement of the agent's satisfaction at having been 
appointed to represent his country, conveys assurances 
of friendship on the part of his own Sovereign or Presi- 
dent, his own wishes for the prosperity and welfare of 
the Sovereign or President whom he is addressing, for 
those of his family and people ; it promises that he will 
do all in his power to cement the friendly relations which 
exist between the two countries, and bespeaks the friendly 
co-operation of the Sovereign's or President's ministers 
in his endeavours to fulfil the purpose of his mission. 
He mentions also his credentials (when doing so 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 employment in the country, 
e. g. as secretary, a graceful allusion to an agreeable 
sojourn will be in place. 

The 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 instance 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 a South American 
republic 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 
beforehand is to give the Head of the State, to whom it 
is to be addressed, an opportunity of requesting modifica- 
tions, and it has happened on more than one occasion 
that this has been done. 1 

247. Besides committing his speech to memory as 
far as he is able, the agent would do well to have a copy 
in his pocket. In 1785 the Comte de Segur, on proceeding 
to the Palace for his audience of Catherine the Great, 
while waiting in the ante-room, engaged in a conversa- 
tion with his Austrian colleague, which proved of such 
an absorbing character that the speech which he had 
prepared faded wholly 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 improvised an entirely new speech t 
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 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. Every one had his 
failings, and one of hers was easily to conceive pre- 
judices. ' I remember that one of your predecessors 
was so perturbed on the occasion of his presentation to 
me, that he could only say, ' Le Roi mon maitre. Le Roi 
mon maitre.' The third time he repeated these words, I 
interrupted him by saying that I had long been aware 
of his master's friendship for me. Everybody assured 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 635. 


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." i 

248. One of the most eloquent discourses ever 
delivered at a solemn reception was that of Chateau- 
briand, when presenting his condolences to the Conclave 
on the death of Pope Leo XII, but it was considered 
by some to have been far too long-winded. It extended 
to seven hundred and eighty-four words. 2 Without 
doubt it is a magnificent composition, worthy of the 
author and of the occasion. 

249. It is not usual for the diplomatic agent to 
speak again in reply to the answer made to him by the 
Sovereign or President. 

The language of the speech may be that of his own 
nationality, or the universally recognized diplomatic 
language, namely, French, whichever is most convenient, 
and the reply of the Head of the State will be framed 
accordingly. In Oriental countries the former is most 
usual, the speech being translated into the language of 
the country by an official interpreter. The sovereign 
replies in his own tongue, and the reply is then translated. 

250. The following will serve as a model for 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 per- 

1 Memoires et Souvenirs de M. le Comte de Seguv, 3rd edit., 
ii. 215. 

2 Memoires d'Outretombe, edit. Ed. Bir6, v. 614, app. ii. ; Garden, 
Traite Complet de Diplomatic, iii. 245. 


mettre d'ajouter 1'hommage de mon profond respect. Pen- 
dant 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 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 



J'ai 1'honneur de remettre a Votre Majeste, les lettres par 
lesquelles le . . . m'accredite aupres de votre auguste per- 
sonne en qualite de Son . . . 

Le . . . mon auguste Souverain, a voue a Votre Majeste 
une profonde sympathie personnelle et un sincere interet ; 
et il espere que les relations amicales entre les deux pays, 
basees sur des sentiments et sur des traditions de veritable 
amitie, continueront a etre des plus cordiales. Ces relations 
entre deux grandes nations seront un gage de plus pour la 
paix de 1' Europe, qui est un des vceux les plus chers de . . . 
mon maitre. 

Je suis infiniment heureux, Sire, d'avoir eu 1'honneur 
d'etre designe comme Ropresentant de . . . dans un pays 
rempli de si belles pages historiques et vers lequel j'ai ete 
tou jours attire par la plus vive sympathie; et j'ose esprer 
que 1'indulgence de Votre Majeste a mon egard ne manquera 
pas de faciliter ma haute mission." 2 

251. The reply of the Sovereign may be worded in 
some such form as the following 

Je regois avec un veritable plaisir les assurances que vous 
venez de me donner, au nom de . . . des sentiments qui 
1'animent pour ma couronne et de ses vceux pour la felicite 
de ma famille . . . et de mes sujets. 

Extremement sensible a ce te"moignage de vif interet, je 
vous demande de vouloir bien assurer Sa Majeste que j'em- 
ploierai tous mes efforts pour y correspondre et pour resserrer 
de plus en plus les liens d'amitie qui existent si heureusement 
entre les deux pays. 

Quant a vous.M. le . . . je me plais a vous annoncer que 
le choix de votre personne par S. M. . . . ne peut pas manquer 
de m'etre agr cable et d'etre pour vous une garantie de ma 

Or, Je suis tres-sensible a la preuve (nouvelle preuve) 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 636. z de Castro y Casaleiz, ii. 291. 


d'amitie que me donne S. M. . . . en accreditant un . . . 
aupres de ma personne, et il m'est fort agreable, Monsieur, 
que son choix se soit fixe sur vous. 

Or, Les qualites qui vous distinguent, le zele et talent dont 
vous avez fait preuve dans le service de votre pays, sont pour 
vous une garantie de ma bienveillance et de la valeur que je 
donne au choix que Sa Majeste ... a daigne faire de votre 
personne pour son representant a ma Cour." * 

252. 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'Ambassadeur Extraordinaire et Plenipotentiaire aupres du 
President de la Republique Fransaise. 

C'est avec empressement que je saisis cette occasion solen- 
nelle pour exprimer, au nom de mon auguste Souverain, les 
vceux tres sinceres qu'il forme pour la prosperite de la 
France et pour le bonheur de rhomme d'Etat eleve par ses 
concitoyens a la premiere magistrature du pays. 

Quant a moi, porte vers la France par toutes mes sympa- 
thies, j'accepte avec joie 1'honorable mission de maintenir, 
de developper et de rendre encore plus intimes les bons rap- 
ports deja existants entre deux nations sceurs par la race et 
1'origine, par le voisinage et la communaute des interets. 

J'apporterai tout mon zele dans raccomplissement 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 gouvernement. 

253. Reply of the President of the French Republic 


Je remercie S. M. le roi d'Espagne des vceux que vous 
m'apportez en son nom pour la France et pour le President 
de la R6publique. J'ai eu recemment 1'honneur de dire a 
votre illustre predecesseur, et je saisis avec empressement 
cette nouvelle occasion de repeter, combien je desire ardem- 
ment le bonheur de la noble nation espagnole et de son auguste 

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 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 636. 


trouverez aupres de son gouvernement, dans 1'accomplisse- 
ment de votre mission, tout le concours et toute la cordialit 
que vous pouvez souhaiter. 1 

254. At most Courts there is a marked distinction 
between the reception of Ambassadors, on the one hand, 
and of Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipoten- 
tiary and diplomatic agents of lesser rank on the other. 

An Ambassador is fetched to the Palace by a Court 
official with one or more Court carriages for himself and 
his suite, 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 Courts 
he is introduced to the presence of the Sovereign by the 
Grand Master of the Ceremonies or by a Court official of 
equivalent importance, at others by the " Introductor of 
Ambassadors." He does not always make a set speech; 
this is a point regulated 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 Ambassador makes the first official 
call on the other Ambassadors, but he receives the first 
call from Envoys and Ministers resident. He also holds 
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 official. 
If he is married, the Ambassadress will at the same time 
receive the wives of the before-mentioned persons. 

In general, an Ambassador, on retiring from his post, 
goes to the Palace in his own carriage, without the mem- 
bers of his mission, and presents his letters of recall at a 
private audience. If he is unable to present them him- 
self, they are delivered by his successor together with his 
own credentials. 

1 de Castro y Casaleiz, ii. 291-2. 
VOL. I. P 


Ambassadors on all public occasions rank after the 
members of the Imperial and Royal families, and members 
of foreign reigning families who may happen to be present. 

255. An Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 
potentiary, or a Minister Resident, 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 Paris and Madrid, however, he takes 
his personnel with them, and presents them at the end of 
his audience. Altogether it is a much simpler affair than 
the audience accorded to an Ambassador. 

256. At Washington an Envoy goes in his own 
carriage to the Department of State, whence he is accom- 
panied without display to the White House by the Secre- 
tary 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 establish- 
ment of Embassies at Washington, the practice has been 
to send a member of the President's military staff in 
one of his carriages, with a cavalry escort, to bring the 
Ambassador to the White House. 1 

257. Besides the audience for the presentation of 
credentials to the Sovereign, there are other audiences 
of the Sovereign's Consort, and presentations to members 
of the Imperial or Royal Family. To give all the details, 
as they are laid down in the Guia 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 Court official. No attempt is therefore made to 
supply them here. 

1 J. W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, etc., 63. 


258. 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 presen- 
tation 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. 

259. Ceremonial of the Vatican. 

When an Ambassador arrives at Rome he announces 
his arrival to the Cardinal Secretary of State through the 
Secretary of Embassy who has discharged the functions 
of Charge d'affaires, who, in handing to His Eminence the 
usual copy of the credentials, solicits, in the Ambassador's 
name, the necessary audience for their formal delivery 
to the Holy Father. 

The Ambassador, accompanied by the first secretary 
of the Embassy, pays a private visit to the Cardinal 
Secretary of State, to whom he hands a copy of the 
discourse, which he will deliver at the formal audience 
on the occasion of the presentation of his credentials. 

When the day and hour of the audience have been 
fixed, the Ambassador proceeds to the Vatican accom- 
panied by the whole personnel of the Embassy and his two 
pages in state carriages. The cortege is formed in the 
following manner : 

In the first carriage go the two pages of the Embassy 
in full uniform. 

In the second the secretaries and attaches. 

In the third the Ambassador, and opposite to him, in 
the front seat, the first secretary or whoever has dis- 
charged the functions of Charge d'affaires, carrying the 
red despatch-box with the arms of his sovereign, in which 
are the credentials. 

These carriages and the liveries of the servants have 
to be de gala, and on the Ambassador's carriage, besides 
the coachman and two lacqueys, the chasseur of the 
Embassy goes. 


On the Ambassador and his suite entering the gate of 
the Vatican on the side of the Mint, the Swiss Guard 
forms up and presents arms. 

Two chamberlains di cappa e spada await the Ambas- 
sador at the foot of the principal staircase in the Court 
of San Damasus, and accompany him to the pontifical 
apartments. The Monsignore Secretary of the Holy 
Congregation of Ceremonial receives the Ambassador in 
the Sala Clementina, and accompanies him to the Sala 
degli Arazzi, where he has to wait for his reception. 

The gendarmes are drawn up in the first antechamber, 
the Guardia Palatina in the second, and in the last the 
Guardia Nobile of His Holiness. 

The Holy Father, seated on the throne, surrounded 
by his Court and having the Monsignore Maggiordomo 
and the Monsignore Maestro di Camera at his side, receives 
the Embassy, which on entering kneels down three times, 
once on the lintel of the door, a second at the middle of 
the room, the third in front of His Holiness. The Ambas- 
sador comes up to the steps of the throne, kneels down, 
and kisses the foot of the Holy Father, and, rising up, 
delivers a discourse, which may be, more or less, as 


J'ai 1'honneur insigne de deposer entre les augustes mains 
de Votre Saintete, les lettres par lesquelles le Roi, mon maitre, 
m'accredite en qualite d'Ambassadeur Extraordinaire et 
Plenipotentiaire aupres de Votre Beatitude. 

Le Roi, mon Auguste Souverain, dont les sentiments de 
tendresse filiale envers le Supreme Pontife sont un doux 
heritage, precieusement transmis par ses glorieux ancetres, 
adresse aujourd'hui au tres-Haut les prieres les plus ardentes 
pour qu'il daigne accorder a Votre Saintete de longues annees 
de bonheur et de paix, telles que les hautes vertus de Votre 
Saintete les meritent, telles que notre Sainte Religion les de- 
mande; telles que mon Auguste Souverain et [name of the 
country] entiere les implorent du Tout Puissant. 


Le Roi mon maitre, en m'accordant 1'honneur insigne 


de le representer aupres de Votre Saintete, m'a impose 
le devoir de cultiver et de resserrer les liens d'amitie etroite 
et sincere qui unissent les deux Cours. Ce devoir je le rem- 
plirai de toutes les forces de mon ame, et je suis sur de reussir 
dans la haute mission que m'a confiee la bonte de mon Roi, 
si Votre Beatitude daigne m'accorder sa haute bienveillance 
et sa protection paternelle. 

In delivering this discourse, when he comes to the 
paragraph in which he mentions the credentials, he will 
place them in the hands of His Holiness, who hands them 
to the Monsignore Maggiordomo. 

This discourse may also be pronounced in the ambas- 
sador's native language, or in Italian, if he is a master 
of it. This was always done by His Excellency Senor 
Don Francisco de Cardenas during the five years that 
he was Ambassador of Spain to the Holy See. 

But in view of the fact that His Holiness, as a general 
rule, replies in Italian, it seems more natural to employ 
the diplomatic language. 

His Holiness replies to the Ambassador's discourse in 
a short allocution, after which he invites the Ambassador 
to pass into his room, and, whilst they are alone, to take 
his seat on a stool close to the throne, and inquires 
respecting pending negotiations and any that have to 
be undertaken, conversing for a half or three-quarters 
of an hour. At the termination of the interview the 
Ambassador asks leave to present the personnel of the 
mission. His Holiness then calls, and the Monsignore 
Maestro di Camera presents the secretaries and attaches 
one by one, who, in the order of their categories and 
seniority, kneel down and kiss the foot of His Holiness, 
who usually addresses a few words to each. When this 
ceremony is over, the Embassy takes its leave with the 
same ceremony, kneeling down three times before issuing 
from the hall; and, accompanied by the Secretary of 
the Holy Congregation of Ceremonial, by some of the 
Swiss Guards and by the pages of the Embassy, who 


in accordance with custom have remained in the Sala 
della Contessa Matelda, descends to the apartments of 
the Cardinal Secretary of State, who at once receives 
the Ambassador, the whole of the personnel waiting in the 
next room, except the pages who remain in the ante- 
chamber, and are not received by His Eminence. 

After this conference, the Cardinal invites the personnel 
to pass into his study, and the Ambassador presents them 
to His Eminence. The visit being concluded, the Am- 
bassador and his suite, accompanied by the Swiss Guards 
and the chamberlains di cappa e spada of His Holiness, 
and by the Secretary of the Holy Congregation of Cere- 
monial, pass by the inner galleries to the court of St. 
Peter, at the door of which the palace functionaries leave 
them, and they are received by two Canons, who accom- 
pany them to pray before the Sacrament and to kiss the 
foot of the statue of St. Peter, after which they return to 
the Embassy in the same style as that in which they 
went to the Vatican. 

The reception of Ministers Plenipotentiary, Ministers 
Resident and of Charges d'affaires is, with a slight 
difference, the same as has just been described. 

The Ambassador next pays visits (in uniform and 
accompanied by the personnel of the Embassy) to the 
Dean of the Sacred College and to Cardinals related to 
His Holiness (if there are any), and the latter return the 
visit in formal style, the Ambassador and personnel of 
the Embassy receiving them in uniform. 

The secretaries and attaches await his Eminence in 
the ante-chamber of the Embassy or at the top of the 
staircase; at the bottom he is received by the pages, 
and the Ambassador awaits the visit in the first drawing- 

Besides sending circulars to the diplomatic body 
accredited to the Holy See, the Ambassador addresses a 
Note to the heads of missions accredited to His Holiness, 
framed in the following terms 


" L'Ambassadeur de . . . aura 1'honneur de recevoir 
le Corps diplomatique accr6dite pres le Saint Siege, le 
dimanche, lundi et mardi, . . . courant de 2 a 4 heures 
de 1'apres midi. 

" (En toilette de matin.)" 

At these receptions attends the whole Diplomatic 
Body, whom the Ambassador receives in frock-coat, 
accompanied by the personnel of the Embassy, the guests 
being announced by the pages, who are also in frock-coat. 

Lastly, the Ambassador sends out invitations to a 
grand evening reception, which are addressed individually, 
and he receives in evening coat, but the pages who 
present the guests to the Ambassador as they arrive 
have to wear uniform. 

The form of invitation for this reception is the same as 
for ordinary receptions 

" L'Ambassadeur de . . . pres le Saint Siege prie . . . 
de mi faire 1'honneur de venir passer la soiree chez lui, 
le ... a ... heures. 1 

260. Russian Ceremonial. Etiquette observee pour 1'intro- 
duction des Ambassadeurs aupres de Leurs Majestes 
1'Empereur et 1'Imperatrice. 

L'arrivee d'un Ambassadeur, nouvellement accredite 
aupres de la Cour Imperiale de Russie, est notifiee par 
le Charge d'Affaires de 1'Ambassade au Ministre des 
Affaires Etrangeres et au Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies 
de la Cour Imperiale. 

Le jour et a 1'heure convenus, 1' Ambassadeur se rend 
chez le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, pour lui com- 
muniquer ses lettres de creance et solliciter ses audiences 
de presentation a Leurs Majestes 1'Empereur et 1'Im- 
peratrice; il fait egalement une visite d' etiquette au 
Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies et a la Grande-Maitresse 
de la Cour Imperiale. 

Le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, ayant pris les ordres 
de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur, informe 1' Ambassadeur du 
jour ou il aura 1'honneur d'etre recu en audience solennelle. 

L'Ambassadeur est informe egalement par le Grand- 
Maitre des Ceremonies, du jour et de 1'heure fixes pour 

1 de Castro y Casaleiz, ii. 482, brought up to date. 


Le jour et 1'heure de 1'audience chez Sa Majeste 1'Im- 
peratrice sont annoncees a 1'Ambassadeur par le Grand- 
Maitre des Ceremonies. 

Le jour fixe pour 1'audience chez Sa Majeste 1'Em- 
pereur, un Maitre des Ceremonies et deux Secretaires de 
la Direction des Ceremonies se rendent a 1'Ambassade. 
Le Maitre des Ceremonies invite 1'Ambassadeur a se 
rendre au Palais Imperial, accompagne de tout le per- 
sonnel de 1'Ambassade, ainsi que des attaches militaires 
et navals, tous en grande tenue. 

Des carrosses de la Cour Imperiale sont mis a la dis- 
position de 1'Ambassadeur et du personnel de 1'Am- 

Le cortege se rend au Palais dans 1'ordre suivant : 

1. Un carrosse de la Cour, attele de 4 chevaux, occupe 
par deux Secretaires de la Direction des Ceremonies. 

2. Le carrosse de gala, attele de 6 chevaux, occupe 
par 1'Ambassadeur et le Maitre des Ceremonies. Ce 
dernier prend place sur la banquette de devant, en face 
de 1'Ambassadeur. 

Le carrosse de 1'Ambassadeur est escorte par un 
officier des Ecuries Imperiales, a cheval, et suivi de 
quatre piqueurs, egalement a cheval. 

3. Les carrosses de la Cour, occupes par le personnel 
de 1'Ambassade, ainsi que par les attaches militaires et 

Le cortege entre dans la Cour du Palais par la grille 
d'honneur. La garde du Palais presente les armes. 

Descendu de carrosse, 1'Ambassadeur monte 1'escalier 
d'honneur du Palais, ayant a sa gauche le Maitre des 
Ceremonies. II est precede des deux Secretaires de la 
Direction des Ceremonies et suivi par le personnel de 

Deux coureurs du Palais, deux founders de la Cour 
et un fourrier de la Chambre ouvrent la marche. 

Au haut de 1'escalier d'honneur le Gerant de la Direc- 
tion des Ceremonies et un Gentilhomme de la Chambre 
de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur recoivent 1'Ambassadeur et 
se joignent au cortege, le Gentilhomme de la Chambre 
suivant les Secretaires, et le Gerant de la Direction des 
Ceremonies marchant a la droite de 1'Ambassadeur. 

Dans la premiere piece du Palais, le Grand-Maitre des 
Ceremonies et le Marechal de la Cour viennent au devant 
de 1'Ambassadeur. 

Le cortege se rend ensuite dans la salle d'attente, le 
Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies marchant a la droite de 
1'Ambassadeur, suivi du Gerant de la Direction des 


Ceremonies et le Marechal de Cour a sa gauche, suivi 
du Maitre des Ceremonies. 

Dans la salle d'attente I'Ambassadeur est recu par le 
Grand-Marechal de la Cour Imperiale et le Grand- 

Les gardes de faction presentent les armes a I'Am- 
bassadeur, et, sur son passage, toutes les portes du 
Palais sont ouvertes a deux battants. 

Sur 1'ordre de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur, le Grand-Maitre 
des Ceremonies introduit I'Ambassadeur dans la salle 
d'audience. Apres avoir annonce I'Ambassadeur a Sa 
Majeste 1'Empereur, le Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies se 
retire dans la salle d'attente. 

L'audience terminee, I'Ambassadeur, sur 1'autorisation 
de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur, presente a Sa Majeste le 
personnel de 1'Ambassade. 

Apres la presentation a Sa Majeste 1'Empereur du 
personnel de 1'Ambassade, I'Ambassadeur est conduit 
dans les appartements de Sa Majeste 1'Imperatrice, en 
suivant 1'ordre observe prcedemment. 

Le Cavalier attache a 1'Auguste Personne de Sa Majeste 
1'Imperatrice et le Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies viennent 
au devant de I'Ambassadeur dans le premier salon des 
appartements de Sa Majeste. Dans la salle d'attente 
1'Ambassadeur est recu par la Grande-Maitresse de la 
Cour Imperiale et par deux demoiselles d'honneur de la 
Suite, de service aupres de Sa Majeste. 

Sur 1'ordre de Sa Majeste 1'Imperatrice le Grand-Maitre 
des Ceremonies introduit I'Ambassadeur dans la salle 
d'audience et le presente a Sa Majeste. 

Apres 1'audience, sur 1'autorisation de Sa Majeste 
1'Imperatrice, I'Ambassadeur presente a Sa Majeste le 
personnel de 1'Ambassade. 

L'audience terminee, I'Ambassadeur est reconduit 
jusqu'au vestibule du Palais avec les memes honneurs 
et rentre chez lui, accompagne du personnel de 1'Am- 
bassade, en carrosses de la Cour dans 1'ordre observe 
pour son arrivee au Palais. 

Le meme Ceremonial est observe pour la reception de 
I'Ambassadeur toutes les fois que Sa Majeste 1'Empereur 
le reoit en audience solennelle. 

Si 1'audience solennelle de I'Ambassadeur a lieu dans 
une des residences Imperiales situees hors de la Capitale, 
un Maitre des Ceremonies et deux Secretaires de la Direc- 
tion des Ceremonies recoivent I'Ambassadeur a la gare 
du chemin de fer ; un wagon du train Imperial est mis a 
la disposition de I'Ambassadeur ; les carrosses de la Cour 


Imperiale viennent prendre 1'Ambassadeur ainsi que le 
personnel de 1'Ambassade a leur descente de wagon. 

Apres son audience de presentation, 1'Ambassadeur fait 
une visite d' etiquette au Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, 
qui la lui rend le jour et a 1'heure convenus. 

Si 1'audience de 1'Ambassadeur aupres de Sa Majeste 
I'lmperatrice a lieu un autre jour que le jour fixe pour 
1'audience aupres de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur 1'Am- 
bassadeur se rend au Palais dans sa propre voiture et 
sans etre accompagne du personnel de 1'Ambassade. 

Arrive au Palais 1'Ambassadeur se rend dans la salle 
d'attente precede de deux coureurs du Palais, deux 
fourriers de la Cour et un fourrier de la Chambre. 

Dans la premiere piece du Palais 1'Ambassadeur est 
regu par le Gerant de la Direction des Ceremonies. 

Le Cavalier attache a 1'Auguste Personne de Sa Majest6 
I'lmperatrice, le Marechal de la Cour Imperiale et le 
Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies viennent au devant de 
1'Ambassadeur dans le premier salon des appartements 
de Sa Majeste I'lmperatrice. 

Dans la salle d'attente 1'Ambassadeur est regu par la 
Grande-Maitresse de la Cour Imperiale et par deux 
demoiselles d'honneur de la Suite, de service aupres de 
Sa Majeste. 

Sur 1'ordre de Sa Majeste I'lmperatrice le Grand- 
Maitre des Ceremonies introduit 1'Ambassadeur dans la 
salle d'audience et le presente a Sa Majeste. 

L'Ambassadeur, ayant eu 1'honneur de remettre a Sa 
Majeste 1'Empereur ses lettres de creance et d'etre pre- 
sente a Sa Majeste I'lmperatrice, s'adresse au Grand- 
Maitre des Ceremonies pour solliciter 1'honneur d'etre 
presente a Leurs Altesses Imperiales Messeigneurs les 
Grands-Dues et Mesdames les Grandes-Duchesses. 

II informe ensuite tous les dignitaires des trois premieres 
classes, les Gentilhommes de la Cour et la Maison militaire 
de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur, ainsi que les Maisons de Leurs 
Altesses Imperiales Messeigneurs les Grands-Dues, du jour 
fix6 pour sa reception omcielle. 

Tous ces dignitaires se rendent a 1'Ambassade en uni- 
forme. L'Ambassadeur les recoit, ayant a ses cotes les 
personnel de 1'Ambassade, ainsi que les attaches militaires 
et navals tous en uniforme. Un Maitre des Ceremonies, 
assiste d'un Secretaire de la Direction des Ceremonies, 
presente les dignitaires a 1'Ambassadeur. 

Les audiences privees, accordees par Sa Majeste 
1'Empereur, lui sont annoncees par le Grand-Maitre des 
Ceremonies. L'Ambassadeur se rend a 1'audience en 


uniforme. A son arrivee au Palais, 1'Ambassadeur, pre- 
cede par un coureur du Palais et un fourrier de la Cour, 
est conduit a la salle d'attente, ou. il est regu par un 
Secretaire de la Direction des Ceremonies. L'Aide de 
Camp de Sa Majeste, de service, annonce 1'Ambassadeur 
a Sa Majeste. 

Si 1'audience privee a lieu dans une des residences 
Imperiales situees hors de la Capitale, 1'Ambassadeur est 
re$u a la gare du chemin de fer par un Secretaire de la 
Direction des Ceremonies designe pour 1'accompagner. 
Au Palais, dans la salle d'attente, 1'Ambassadeur est re$u 
par 1'Aide de Camp de service, qui annonce son arrivee 
a Sa Majeste 1'Empereur. 

Toutes les fois que 1'Ambassadeur se rend au Palais 
Imperial la garde lui rend les honneurs militaires. 

Les invitations a toutes les Ceremonies de Cour 
sont adressees a 1'Ambassadeur par le Grand-Maitre des 

Lorsque 1'Ambassadeur est appele par son gouverne- 
ment a un autre poste, il s'adresse au Ministre des Affaires 
Etrangeres pour solliciter 1'honneur de remettre a Sa 
Majeste 1'Empereur ses lettres de rappel. 

Le jour fixe pour son audience de conge 1'Ambassadeur 
se rend au Palais en uniforme, sans etre accompagne du 
personnel de 1'Ambassade. 

Si 1'audience a lieu dans la Capitale, le Gerant de la 
Direction des Ceremonies vient inviter 1'Ambassadeur a 
se rendre a 1'audience Imperiale. Un carrosse de la Cour 
Imperiale, attele de 4 chevaux, escorte par un officier des 
Ecuries Imperiales a cheval et suivi de deux piqueurs 
a cheval, conduit 1'Ambassadeur au Palais, ou il descend 
au perron d'honneur et monte 1'escalier precede par 
deux Secretaires de la Direction des Ceremonies. Deux 
coureurs du Palais, deux fourriers de la Cour et un 
fourrier de la Chambre ouvrent la marche. Les honneurs 
militaires sont rendus a 1'Ambassadeur et les portes sont 
ouvertes a deux battants sur son passage. 

Au haut de 1'escalier du Palais 1'Ambassadeur est recu 
par le Gerant de la Direction des Ceremonies. 

Le Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies et le Marechal de la 
Cour viennent au devant de 1'Ambassadeur dans le 
premier appartement du Palais, et 1'accompagnent a la 
salle d'attente. Dans la salle d'attente 1'Ambassadeur 
est re9u par le Grand-Marechal de la Cour Imperiale. 
Sur 1'autorisation de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur, le Grand- 
Maitre des Ceremonies introduit 1'Ambassadeur dans la 
salle ou Sa Majeste le re9oit en audience de conge. 


L'audience terminee, I'Ambassadeur est conduit, dans 
1'ordre observe precedemment, a 1'audience de conge qui 
lui est accordee par Sa Majeste 1'Imperatrice. 

Dans les appartements de Sa Majeste I'lmperatrice 
I'Ambassadeur est recu selon 1'etiquette observee pendant 
son audience de presentation. 

Sur 1'ordre de Sa Majeste I'lmperatrice le Grand- 
Maitre des Ceremonies introduit I'Ambassadeur dans la 
salle d'audience. 

Si les audiences de conge ont lieu dans une residence 
Imperiale situee hors de la Capitale, deux Secretaires de 
la Direction des Ceremonies recoivent I'Ambassadeur a 
la gare du chemin de fer. Un wagon du train Imperial 
est mis a la disposition de I'Ambassadeur, et un carrosse 
de la Cour Imperiale, attele de 4 chevaux, escorte par un 
officier des Ecuries Imperiales a cheval et suivi de deux 
piqueurs a cheval, attend I'Ambassadeur a son arrivee, 
pour le conduire au Palais. 


La presentation de 1'Ambassadrice a Sa Majeste 
rimperatrice est sollicitee par I'Ambassadeur aupres du 
Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres. 

Le Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies informe 1'Ambassa- 
drice du jour et de 1'heure designes par Sa Majeste pour 
sa reception. 

Prealablement 1'Ambassadrice fait, le jour et a 1'heure 
convenus d'avance, une visite d'etiquette a la Grande- 
Maitresse de la Cour Imperiale. 

L'Ambassadrice, a son arrivee au Palais, est recue par 
le Gerant de la Direction des Ceremonies qui accompagne 
1'Ambassadrice dans les appartments de Sa Majeste 
I'lmperatrice. Un coureur du Palais et un fourrier de 
la Chambre ouvrent la marche. Dans le premier salon 
des appartements de Sa Majeste le Grand-Maitre des Cere- 
monies, le Marechal de la Cour Imperiale et le Cavalier 
attache a 1'Auguste Personne de Sa Majeste I'lmpera- 
trice viennent au devant de 1'Ambassadrice. 

Dans la salle d'attente 1'Ambassadrice est recue par 
la Grande-Maitresse de la Cour Imperiale, et par deux 
demoiselles d'honneur de la Suite, de service aupres de 
Sa Majeste. 

Le Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies, ayant re$u les ordres 
de Sa Majeste, introduit 1'Ambassadrice dans la salle 
d'audience, et, apres 1'avoir annoncee a Sa Majeste 
I'lmperatrice, se retire dans la salle d'attente. 


L'audience terminee, 1'Ambassadrices est reconduite 
avec les memes honneurs jusqu'au vestibule du Palais. 

L'Ambassadeur s'adresse ensuite au Grand-Maitre des 
Ceremonies pour solliciter des audiences de presentation 
pour rAmbassadrice aupres de Leurs Altesses Imperiales 
Mesdames les Grandes-Duchesses. 

L'Ambassadrice, ayant eu 1'honneur d'etre presentee 
a Sa Majeste 1'Imperatrice, informe les Dames de la 
Cour Imperiale et des Cours Grand-Ducales, les Dames 
des trois premieres classes, les epouses des Dignitaires 
et des Gentilhommes de la Cour Imperiale et des Cours 
Grand-Ducales, les epouses des dignitaires de la Maison 
militaire de Sa Majeste 1'Empereur et des Maisons 
militaires de Leurs Altesses Imperiales Messeigneurs 
les Grands-Dues et les Dames, anciennes demoiselles 
d'honneur du jour de sa premiere reception. 

Pendant cette reception les Dames, ainsi que les 
dignitaires du pays, sont presentes a I'Ambassadrice 
par un Maitre des Ceremonies, assiste d'un Secretaire de 
la Direction des Ceremonies. 

L'Ambassadrice recoit les dames et les dignitaires du 
pays ayant a ses cotes les dames de 1'Ambassade. 

Les invitations a toutes les Ceremonies de Cour sont 
adressees a rAmbassadrice par le Grand-Maitre des 

Si la presentation de rAmbassadrice a Sa MajestelTm- 
peratrice a lieu dans une des residences Imperiales situees 
hors de la Capitale, rAmbassadrice est recue a la gare 
du chemin de fer par le Gerant de la Direction des Cere- 
monies qui 1'accompagne a la residence Imperiale. Un 
wagon est mis a la disposition de I'Ambassadrice et une 
voiture de la Cour Imperiale vient prendre I'Ambassadrice 
a son arrivee, pour la conduire au Palais. 

There are similar regulations for presentation of 
Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary, 
Charges d'Affaires en titre and other diplomatic agents, 
as well as of their wives, to the Emperor and Empress 


La presentation du personnel des Ambassades et des 
Legations est sollicitee par les Chefs de Mission respectifs 
aupres du Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres. 

Le jour et 1'heure design es par Leurs Majeste"s pour 
la presentation sont communiques par le Grand-Maitre 


des Ceremonies aux Chefs de Mission, qui informent les 
personnes auxquelles 1'honneur d'etre presente a 6te 

Les personnes a presenter se rendent au Palais Imperial 
en uniforme. 

Arrivees au Palais Imperial, les personnes a presenter 
sont introduces dans la salle d'attente, ou elles sont 
recues par le Gerant de la Direction des Ceremonies 
et rangees d'apres 1'ordre dans lequel aura lieu la 

La presentation a Leurs Majestes se fait par les Chefs 
de Mission respectifs, s'ils sont recus le meme jour; dans 
le cas contraire elle est faite par le Grand-Maitre des 

Si la presentation est fixee pendant un bal de la Cour 
Imperiale, le personnel des Ambassades et des Legations 
est presente a Leurs Majestes par les Chefs de Mission 
respectifs et en cas d'absence du Chef de Mission par 
le Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies. 

Si la presentation a lieu dans une des residences Im- 
periales situees hors de la Capitale, les personnes a pre- 
senter sont re9ues a la gare du chemin de fer par un 
Secretaire de la Direction des Ceremonies, qui les accom- 
pagne jusqu'a la residence Imperiale. A la gare du 
chemin de fer de la residence Imperiale des voitures de 
la Cour viennent prendre les personnes a presenter pour 
les conduire au Palais. 

Les invitations aux Ceremonies de Cour sont adressees 
au personnel des Ambassades et des Legations par le 
Grand-Maitre des Ceremonies soit personnellement, soit 
par 1'entremise des Chefs de Mission. 

Other regulations provide for the presentation of the 
ladies of the Diplomatic Body to the Empress, for the 
presentation of foreigners not forming part of the Diplo- 
matic Body to the Emperor and Empress, of foreign 
ladies not forming part of the Diplomatic Body to the 
Empress, as well as for the presentation of Ambassadors, 
Envoys and all other members of the Diplomatic Body, 
as well as of other foreigners and foreign ladies, to the 
Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses, and of the ladies of 
the Diplomatic Body to the Grand Duchesses. 

The regulation for the court costume of foreign repre- 


sentatives and foreigners of distinction, who have no 
uniform, prescribes a black or dark blue tail coat, with 
velvet collar of the same colour, and gilt buttons, and a 
white waistcoat with gilt buttons, except on open-air 
occasions, when a cloth waistcoat of the same colour as 
the coat, with gilt buttons may be substituted; trousers 
are worn, except at Court festivities, where small-clothes 
and silk stockings are required, white cravat, black silk 
or felt three-cornered hat, sword without sword-knot and 
white gloves. 1 

261. Ceremonial of the Court of Great Britain. 

Ambassadors on arrival 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 pre- 
senting their credentials, at the same time furnishing the 
usual copy. They write also to the Secretary of State 
asking when he can receive them. 

If the audience takes place in London, the Ambassador 
is fetched to it by the Master of the Ceremonies in a 
town-coach drawn by two horses. The personnel of the 
Embassy follow in other town-coaches, and its members 
are presented to the Sovereign at the end of the audience. 
Ambassadors never make set speeches. 

The Ambassador is received at the Grand Entrance 
by the Master of the Household, and conducted by him 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, 
the Groom in Waiting and the Equerry in Waiting. 

The personnel of the Embassy are also shown into the 
Bow Room. 

The Secretary of State having taken His Majesty's 
commands, the Ambassador is conducted to the Presence 
by the Secretary of State and the Lord-in- Waiting, and is 
announced to His Majesty by the Master of the Ceremonies. 

1 From the regulations authorized by the Emperor, 
December 27, 1911. 


The Lord-in- Waiting and the Master of the Ceremonies 

The reception over, the Ambassador is conducted to 
the Grand Entrance by the Master of the Household, 
and is accompanied to the Embassy by the Master of 
the Ceremonies, the personnel following as before. 

If the Ambassador's audience takes place at Windsor, 
he is taken to the Paddington station in a town-coach by 
the Master of the Ceremonies, who travels down with 
him. The personnel of the Embassy find their own way 
to Paddington. On arrival at Windsor, carriages with 
semi-state liveries are provided to take the Ambassador 
and the members of the Embassy to the Castle. 

At audiences granted to Ambassadors the Secretary of 
State for Foreign Affairs is present, but in his unavoidable 
absence the Under-Secretary of State attends in his 
place. The presentation of the Ambassador is made by 
the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary as the 
case may be. 

Arrangements for subsequent receptions by members 
of the Royal Family are made through the Master of the 

Ambassadors do not hold receptions after the pre- 
sentation of their credentials, as is the custom in some 
other countries. With respect to ordinary visits, heads 
of missions generally have recourse to their doyen for 
help and assistance. 

An Ambassador applies for an audience of the Sovereign 
(other than that for presenting his credentials) either to 
the Master of the Ceremonies, or, in his absence, to the 
Private Secretary direct. 

An Ambassador yields precedence only to members of 
the Royal Family. 

An Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 
or a Minister Resident, finds his own way to the Palace, 
and attends the audience alone. 


He is met at the Grand Entrance by the Master of the 
Ceremonies, and conducted to the Hall, where he meets 
the Master, or Deputy Master, of the Household, and is 
taken by him to the Bow Room. 

Here he meets the Permanent Under-Secretary of 
State, the Lord-in-Waiting, the Groom-in-Waiting, and 
the Equerry-in-Waiting. 

The Under-Secretary of State having taken His Majesty's 
commands, the Minister is conducted by him and the 
Lord-in-Waiting to the Presence, and announced by the 
Master of the Ceremonies. 

The Lord-in-Waiting and the Master of the Ceremonies 

At the conclusion of the Audience, the Minister is 
conducted to the Hall by the Master of the Household, 
and to his carriage by the Master of the Ceremonies. 

The procedure is the same as in the case of ambassadors, 
as far as asking for an audience and calling on the Secretary 
of State are concerned. 

A Minister by Custom ranks between Dukes and 

Reception of a Foreign Envoy or Special Ambassador : 
The ceremonial is the same as in the case of a Permanent 

A titular Charg6 d'affaires is presented to the Sovereign 
at a Levee or a Court by the Secretary of State for Foreign 
Affairs. The precedence of Charges d'affaires amongst 
Englishmen has not yet been settled. 

A Charge d'affaires ad interim will have been presented 
in his proper rank Councillor, First Secretary, or what- 
ever 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 Repre- 
sentative goes on leave, he writes to the Foreign Office 

VOL. I. Q 


to announce his departure and states whom he has left 
in charge. 

The Heads of Missions are expected to attend Levees. 
They and the personnel of their missions have the 

The wives of the members of the Diplomatic Body are 
entitled to precedence corresponding to that of their 

Members of the Diplomatic Body are invited to Court 
Balls and Concerts. 

Visit of a Foreign Sovereign 

Presentation of the Corps Diplomatique : The Chefs 
de Mission are presented to the Sovereign by the Am- 
bassador, assisted by the Master of the Ceremonies. 

262. Diplomatic Receptions in Peru, from the Regle- 
ment of November 19, 1892. 

i. Of an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 

The Foreign Minister announces his arrival by letter 
to the Minister of Foreign Relations, enclosing the usual 
copy of his credentials, and asking an audience for the 
purpose of delivering them to the President. 

When the day and hour have been fixed, the Minister 
of Foreign Relations informs the foreign minister by 
letter, and the latter sends a copy of his official speech. 

On the day fixed, the Master of the Ceremonies, accom- 
panied by the ayudante of the Ministry of Foreign Rela- 
tions, proceeds to the residence of the foreign minister 
to bring him in a Government carriage. The Master of 
the Ceremonies places himself on the left of the minister. 
If the personnel of the Legation consists of more than 
three persons, two official carriages are sent. 

At his entrance into the Palace, military honours are 


accorded to the minister by the usual guard, which 
forms up. 

The reception takes place in the presence of the Minister 
of Foreign Relations. The diplomatic agent addresses 
his speech to the President, which is replied to by His 
Excellency, who receives the credentials, handing them 
at once to the Minister of the Department. The speech 
and reply are published in the official journal. 

If the foreign minister is accompanied by any members 
of the Legation who have not been previously presented 
to His Excellency the President, this can be done on the 
same occasion. 

When the ceremony is over, an aide-de-camp of His 
Excellency the President accompanies the minister to 
the door of the reception-hall; the guard presents arms 
and strikes up a march, if the minister is Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. The guard simply 
forms up if he is only Minister Resident. The minister 
returns to his residence as he came, the Master of the 
Ceremonies and the Palace carriage or carriages taking 
leave of him there. 

After the visit which the diplomatic agent pays to the 
Minister of Foreign Relations, the Master of the Cere- 
monies accompanies him to call on the other Ministers 
of State at their respective offices, in the established 

In case of temporary farewells, returns to his post, 
presentations, delivery of letters respecting notification 
of birth, etc., the Foreign Minister is received in private 
audience by His Excellency the President of the 

2. Reception of an effective Charge d'affaires. 

A Charge d'affaires being accredited by his Minister 
of Foreign Affairs is not received by His Excellency 
the President of the Republic, but by the Minister for 
Foreign Relations in the presence of the Under-Secretary 
(Oficial Mayor). The delivery of the Lettre de Cabinet 


always takes place at a private audience and without 

When this proceeding is over, if the Charge d'affaires 
asks for a private audience in order to pay his respects 
(saludar) to His Excellency the President, this is granted. 
The Master of the Ceremonies accompanies him in order 
to make the presentation. 



263. Division into classes 264. Derivation of " ambassador " 
265. Legates and Nuncios 266. To what capitals ap- 
pointed 267. Origin of permanent diplomatic missions 
268. Meaning of envoye 269. Of "extraordinary" 
270. Internonce and internuncius 271. Regulation of 
Vienna, 1815 272. Additional regulation of Aix-la- 
Chapelle, 1818 273. Precedence in signature 274. 
Seniority 275. Agent and Consul-general 276. Their 
relative rank 277. Representative character of ambas- 

263. DIPLOMATIC agents are now divided into the 
following classes 

1. Ambassadors. Legates; who are papal ambas- 
sadors extraordinary, charged with special missions, 
primarily representing the Pope as Head of the Church, 
always cardinals, and sent only to states acknowledging 
the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Nuncios, who are 
ordinary ambassadors resident, and are never cardinals. 

2. Envoys and ministers plenipotentiary. 

3. Ministers resident, accredited to the sovereign. 

4. Charges d'affaires, accredited to the minister of 
foreign affairs. 1 

264. The derivation of Ambassador seems to be as 
follows : Fr. ambaxadeur (i.5th cent.), OSp. ambaxador, It. 
ambasciatore, from ambaxade, OSp. ambaxada, It. ambas- 
ciata ; all these from ambactidre, a word not found but 
inferred to have existed, and this formed on ambactia, 
ambaxia in the Salic and Burgundian laws, meaning 

1 Hall, 6th edit., 294. 


charge, office, employment, name of an office formed on 
ambactus, a servant (? vassal, retainer). See Oxford 
Dictionary, and note to Rice Holmes' Ccesar 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 ambaxiator continuus atteste deja la stabi- 
lite de 1'institution." " Du VIII e au X e siecle, dans les 
actes de la chancellerie, le verbe d'origine germanique 
ambasciare designe 1'intervention de quelque grand per- 
sonnage dans le but de faire obtenir une concession du 
souverain ; I'intermediaire s'appelle V ambasciator . 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) - 1 

265. Legates and Nuncios. 

The following may be regarded as an authoritative 
explanation of these two designations 

Legati in jure canonico sunt in triplici differentia, nempe 
legati a later e, legati missi seu nuncii apostolici, et legati 
nati . . . Legati a latere alii sunt ordinarii et alii extraord- 
inarii. 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, Ferrariae, Romandiolae, etc. [The 
so-called Legations] . . . Legati a latere extraordinarii sunt 
illi qui mittuntur occasione alicujus emergentis necessitatis 
Ecclesias 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 Summis 
Pontificibus pro simili bus 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 

1 " D'autres enfin, et ce n'est pas 1'origine la moins piquante, 
pretendent qu'il est tire de 1'Italien ambascia, chagrin, peine, 
affliction ' comme si Ton avait voulu marquer les travers qu'un 
ambassadeur essuie dans ses negociations ' ' (Garden, i. 12 .). 
A sarcastic friend suggests ambages, as being the sort of wares 
dealt in by ambassadors. 


eis titulus legati a latere, sed missus nominatur. nuntius cum 
-potestate 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 Germaniae, 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 fuerit praefectus, una simul etiam 
fiat, ac veluti nascatur legatus apostolicus, utpote cujus munus 
suae dignitati de jure annexum habet. Sic legatus natus a 
jure dicitur archiepiscopus Cantuarensis in Anglia, archi- 
episcopus Eboracensis item in Anglia . . . Archiepiscopus 
Rhemensis in Gallia ... In Germania plures archiepiscopi 
legatorum natorum nomine insigniuntur, ut archiepiscopus 
Salisburgensis, elector Coloniensis, archiepiscopus Pragensis. 1 

266. 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 diplo- 
matic agent at all. In 1914 the Holy See was represented 
by nonces apostoliques in Bavaria, Austria-Hungary, 
Belgium, 2 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 (Holtzendorf, iii. 630). 

267. Venice originated the institution of permanent 
diplomatic 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 

1 Ferraris, iv. 1401. See also Schmelzing, ii. 120, 

2 Almanack de Gotha, 


bailo (bajulus). 1 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. 2 In the sixteenth century the 
less honourable title of agent began to fall into disuse, and 
the process continued during the seventeenth century 
(Krauske, 160). 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 the 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 altissime memoratae Regiae Sacrae Majestatis 
Suecias Residens," and also as " Dominus Residens," 
both in the preamble. Frederick William of Brandenburg 
(Der Grosse Kurfiirst), from motives of economy, ap- 
pointed no ambassadors. In 1651 he had Residents 
at the Hague, Vienna, Paris, Stockholm, Cologne and 
Brussels (Krauske, 129). Bonet was the King of 
Prussia's Resident in London in 1710. In 1745, France 
had a Resident at Geneva. The German Emperor in 
1727 had residents at London, Lisbon and Constanti- 
nople. Vattel, in 1758, speaks of ambassadors, envoys, 
residents and ministers. 3 

268. 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. 4 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 

1 Nys, Origines, 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). 

2 Schmelzing, ii. 115; de Martens-Geffcken, i. 59. 

3 Nys, Droit Intern., ii. 345. 4 Krauske, 163. 


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 envoy e with the additional qualifica- 
tion of extraordinaire pushed the resident ever further 
into the background. 

269. In the second half of the seventeenth century 
arose the practice of designating resident ambassadors as 
" extraordinary." Originally this term had been applied 
only to those who were sent on special missions. The 
disputes about precedence between ordinary and extra- 
ordinary 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 regulated 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 extra- 
ordinary 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 recognize 
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 diplo- 
matic functions at all 1 (much in the same way as in more 
recent times they have conferred their 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. Plenipotentiarii nomine tales magis in usu sunt, 
quam vere tales, says a writer of 1740 quoted by Krauske. 
At the negotiations which preceded the peace of Nijmegen 
(1678), the conjunction of the two titles of envoy extra- 

1 Krauske, 165, 172. 


ordinary 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. 

The common practice now is to give to an agent of the 
second class the double title of envoy extraordinary and 
minister plenipotentiary. 

270. The Holy See sometimes employs for its ministers 
of the second class the title of internonce apostolique, some- 
times that of envoy extraordinary and delegate apostolic, 
sometimes that of delegate apostolic alone. 1 From the 
middle ages onwards internuncius was in use to denote 
the diplomatic agent 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 seventeenth century 
onwards it became the technical term for the Austrian 
agent at Constantinople from 1678 to 1856. 2 Its use by 
Austria is thought to have been adopted in order to 
avoid conflicts of precedence with the French ambas- 
sador, to whom Solyman the Magnificent (1520-1566) had 
undertaken by treaty to accord precedence over the 
representatives of all other potentates, and it was con- 
tinued down to the time of the Crimean War. The 
internonce always belonged to the second class of diplo- 
matic agents, when there were only two. 3 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 (C. O. L. 
v. Arnim, cited by Miruss, 115). 

The third and fourth classes (see p. 229) are a develop- 

1 Almanack de Gotha for 1914. 2 Heffter, 8te Ausg., 447. 

3 Krauske, s.v. 


ment of the " resident " and " charge d'affaires " of the 
eighteenth century. 

271. The classification at the head of this chapter 
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 diplomatiques. 1 

" Pour prevenir les embarras qui se sont sou vent presentes, 
et qui pourraient naitre encore des preventions de preseance 
entre les divers agents diplomatiques, les plenipotentiaries 
des puissances signataires du traite de Paris sont convenus 
des articles qui suivent ; et ils croient devoir inviter les re- 
presentants des autres tetes couronnees a adopter le meme 

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 caractere representatif. 2 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, i. 53. 

2 This expression means that the agents of the first-class are 
considered as representing the person of their sovereign,' although 
they do 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, because 
they deal, as a rule, only with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. 
It is sometimes supposed that an ambassador can demand access 
to the person of the sovereign at any time, but this is not the case, 
as the occasions on which the ambassador can speak with the 
sovereign are limited by the etiquette of the court to which he 
is accredited. Whether the Ambassadors of the United States 
can be said to have a ".representative character" is highly 
doubtful, since they do not represent the President, but the 
United States. It is not customary in that country to issue new 
letters of credence on the inauguration of a President (de Martens- 
Geffcken, i. 57; Nys, D.I., 344; Calvo, iii. 185; Wheaton, I.L., 
326; Moore, Dig., iv. 463). 


Art. 3. Les employes diplomatiques en mission extra- 
ordinaire 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 
relativement aux representatifs du pape. 

Art. 5. II sera determine dans chaque Etat un 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 

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. 

Le present reglement sera insere au protocole des pleni- 
potentiaires des huit puissances signataires du traite de 
Paris, dans leur seance du 19 mars 1815. 

(Suivent les signatures des plenipotentiaries d'Autriche, 
d'Espagne, de France, de la Grande-Bretagne, de Portugal, 
de Prusse, de Russie, et de Suede.} 

272. 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 Vienna par laquelle les questions de 
rang ont ete reglees ne parait pas avoir prevu, il est arrete entre 
les cinq cours que les ministres-residents accredited aupres 
d'elles formeront, par rapport a leur rang, une classe inter- 
mediaire entre les ministres du second ordre et les Charge's 

(Vide Protocole de la Conference du 21 november 1818.) 1 
1 See Chap. XXV, 462. 


It was signed Metternich, Wellington, Nesselrode, Riche- 
lieu, Hardenberg, Capo DTstria, Castlereagh, Bernstorff, 
i. e. in no regular order.) x 

273. It appears from the foregoing that on neither of 
these two occasions did the plenipotentiaries act in con- 
formity with what they had laid down in Article 7 of 
the Vienna regulation, but signed in the alphabetical 
order, according to the French language, of the names of 
the states they represented, or else pe'le-me'le. The former 
is the modern usage in similar cases. 

274. A question of precedence sometimes arises, 
which was not decided by the preceding regulations 
namely, what is to be the order of seniority when the 
death of the sovereign or a change in the form of govern- 
ment necessitates the presentation of new credentials 
by diplomatic agents already accredited. Further re- 
marks on the subject of precedence will be found in 
Chap. XXIII. 

275. Formerly it was the practice of some governments 
to accredit representatives with the title of " agent and 
consul-general" or "commissioner and consul-general," 
and these may be regarded as forming a fifth class. Thus, 
Great Britain was represented by an agent and consul- 
general in Servia 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 
in question was a vassal-state. In Egypt, a vassal-state 
of Turkey till 1914, the representatives of the Powers 
were "agent and consul-general." 2 Legally they were 
consuls-general with a Mr at from the Porte. But for 
a long time the title of agent (or diplomatic agent) 
had been recognized. Most of the great Powers gave 
local diplomatic rank to their agents. Thus the Russian 
was envoy extraordinary and consul-general. Many of 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, i. 54; Calvo, iii. 183 n. 

2 Almanack de Gotha. 


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 is now much the same, and the 
agents rank according to seniority, no matter whether 
they are charge d'affaires in absence of a minister or not. 
Fifty years ago Holland was represented in Japan by an 
agent and consul-general. It may, however, be concluded 
that this class of diplomatic agent was, as a rule, ap- 
pointed only to states which were not fully sovereign. 

276. Ullmann says : 1 "In 1875 a dispute about re- 
lative 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. 2 
The German Government recognized 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 : 
" In die vierte Klasse der diplomatischen Agenten gehoren 
iiberhaupt alle iibrigen diplomatischen Agenten ohne 
Riicksicht auf ihren weiteren Titel (die bei dem auswar- 
tigen Amte beglaubigten Minister-residenten, einfachen 
Residenten und Konsuln, wenn sie, wie dies im Orient 
der Fall ist, als diplomatische Agenten fungieren.)" 3 
The English Foreign Office List shows that an agent 
and consul-general is regarded as a diplomatic agent in 
the ordinary sense of that term. 

1 166 n. 

z 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). 

3 p. 172. 


277. The so-called " representative character " of the 
Ambassador extends no farther, as Leibniz says, than 

" quantum fert ratio aut consuetude." 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 nor 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 negotia- 
tions 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 , z 

1 Holtzendorf, iii. 641. 

2 But he by no means refused to discuss business with either 
envoys or ambassadors when it suited him. 



278. DEFINITION. Exterritoriality (or extraterritori- 
ality) is the term used to denote the immunities accorded 
to foreign sovereigns, and to diplomatic agents, their 
families and staff, as well as to foreign residents in certain 
non-Christian countries in virtue of special treaty pro- 
visions. The use of the term, like that of " diplomacy," 
is more modern than the application of the principle. 
Grotius * says : " 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 reipublicce, 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." 
In this passage jus civile is to be taken as meaning the 
territorial, or municipal, law of the state, as opposed to 
the law of nations, jus gentium. The word extraterri- 
torialitas was used by Wolff in 1749, and G. F. de Martens, 
writing towards the end of the eighteenth century, 
converted it into exterritorialite and Exterritorialitat in 
French and German respectively. 2 

The term is not to be strictly interpreted according to 
its literal meaning; it is a metaphor, not a legal fact, 

1 Whewell's edition, ii. 209 (Book II. chap, xviii. 4, no. 5). 
See also Nys, Droit International, ii. 368. 
1 Nys, 371. 



and it is better, therefore, to drop it in considering what 
are the immunities of the different classes of persons 
enumerated. 1 2 

1 Hall, 6th edit., p. 166. 

2 Thus it is sometimes pretended that the residence of a diplo- 
matic agent is part of the territory of his own country. A public 
armed ship lying in a foreign port, to which it is admitted as a 
matter of courtesy, is held to be virtually part of the territory of 
the sovereign whose flag it flies. Attempts have often been made 
to extend this fiction to private ships, and to derive from this 
extension a claim to the inviolability of merchant ships on the 
high seas, but as they clearly are not endowed with inviolability 
while in a foreign port, or in territorial waters, but are subject 
to the local jurisdiction, the fiction cannot in their case be 

VOL. I. 



279. Inviolability 280. Couriers 281. Case of Gyllenborg 
and Gortz 282. Cellamare 283. Bruneau 284. Inde- 
pendence 285. Immunity from local criminal jurisdiction 
286. Case of Pantaleon de Sa 287. Case of Italian secre- 
tary who committed suicide in London 288. Immunity 
from local civil jurisdiction 289. Exceptions 290. 
Statute of 7 Anne, c. 12 291. Practice in other countries 
292. Case of the Baron de Wrech 293. Berlin house- 
owner against United States Minister in 1839 294. 
Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin 295. Republic 
of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate 296. Taylor v. Best 
297. Immunities of wife and children, members of the 
mission and servants 298. Case of Carlos Waddington 
299. Tchitch^rine 300. Errembault de Dudzele 301. 
Jurisdiction of the agent over members of the suite 302. 
Marriages in a diplomatic house 303. Early attempts to 
exercise criminal jurisdiction Sully 's case 304. Wartens- 
leben 305. Lucien Bonaparte 306. Distinction between 
offences committed within and without envoy's residence 
307. Case of Sun Yat Sen 308. Evidence of diplomatic 
agent, mode of obtaining 309. Case of refusal by Nether- 
lands minister 310. United States service regulation 
311. Opinions of text-writers. 

279. Inviolability. 

This term implies a higher degree of protection to the 
person of a diplomatic agent and his belongings than is 
accorded to a private person. It is the source of the 
exemption from the local criminal and civil jurisdiction, 
as well as of other exemptions, which will be found 
treated of further on. In some countries, especially 
France, Germany and Great Britain, 1 special legislation is 

1 Every one is guilty of a misdemeanour who, by force or 
personal constraint, violates any privilege conferred upon the 
diplomatic representatives of foreign countries by the Law of 
Nations, as collected by Her Majesty's courts from the practice 
of nations, and the authority of writers thereon. 

Every one commits a misdemeanour who sets forth or prosecutes 



provided to ensure this inviolability. It extends to the 
wife and children of the diplomatic agent, to official and 
non-official members of the mission, to the servants of 
the agent and of the other persons here enumerated, to 
his house, carriages, movable property belonging to him 
as agent (including, of course, Government furniture), 
archives, documents of whatever sort, and to his official 
correspondence carried by his couriers or messengers 
employed by his Government. It is doubtful, however, 
whether his official correspondence through the post 
office would escape examination in countries where that 
practice is still carried on. The State archives of every 
country doubtless possess, in the shape of intercepted 
despatches, evidence that it was quite common in the 
eighteenth century, and there seems to be no reason to 
suppose that it has been altogether abandoned. 

Of course, an agent cannot expect to enjoy inviolability 
when he commits an illegal act necessitating the imme- 
diate application of personal restraint; for instance, if 
curiosity induced him to break through the cordon of 
police drawn round a burning building, or if he exceeded 
the legal limit of speed when motoring on a high road or 
through the streets. 1 It may be generally said that the 
condition of his personal inviolability is the correctness 
of his own conduct, just as if he were a private individual. 

The right in question attaches from the moment that he 
has set foot in the country to which he is sent, if previous 
notice of his mission has been imparted to the Govern- 
ment of the receiving State, or, in any case, as soon as 
he has made his public character known by the production 
either of his passport or of his credentials. It extends, 

or executes any writ or process whereby is arrested or imprisoned 
the person of any ambassador or other public minister of any 
foreign prince or state, authorized and received as such by Her 
Majesty, or any domestic servant of any such ambassador or 
minister, registered as such in the office of a principal Secretary 
of State, or in the Office of the Sheriff of London and Middlesex 
(Stephens, Digest of the Criminal Law, 5th edit., Arts. 100 and 101). 
1 See cases quoted in J. W. Foster's Practice of Diplomacy. 


at least so far as the State to which he is accredited is 
concerned, over the time occupied by him in his arrival, 
his sojourn and his departure. 

It is not affected by the breaking out of war between 
his own country and that to which he is sent. 1 

In the case mentioned in the immediately preceding 
paragraph it is the duty of the Government to which he 
was 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 
his right of inviolability, or against his residence or 
baggage, and to escort him to the frontier or to his place 
of embarkation with the most careful courtesy. To 
place him under military guard or to threaten him with 
the use of armed force if he looks out of the window of 
the railway carriage in which he is travelling is a gross 
violation of international decency. 

280. Couriers. 

" For the discharge and expedition of his business and 
negotiations an uninterrupted exchange of correspondence 
with his own Court or government is necessary to the envoy. 
He employs messengers, whom he despatches to convey infor- 
mation to his sovereign, or to his colleagues at other Courts 
with the least possible delay. 

" The correspondence of an envoy sent through the ordin- 
ary 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 be distinguished by 
some external sign, and carry proper passports. To such mes- 
sengers must be accorded every possible facility for pursuing 
their journey. Articles which they carry with them, as well 
as the correspondence in their charge, are not subject to the 
regulations affecting the property of private persons, so long 
as they do not forfeit their privilege by its misuse ; as, for 
instance, a Turkish messenger, in 1819, who had declared at 
Strassburg that he was only carrying despatches, was found to 
be in possession of fifteen bales of Cashmere shawls, valued 
at 400,000 francs." 2 

i Phillimore, ii. 172. 2 Schmelzing, ii. 224. 


Copies of the ciphered telegrams of diplomatic agents 
are, of course, accessible to the telegraphic administrations 
of the States where they reside, and of the territories 
across which they are transmitted. 

281. Gyllenborg and Gortz. Baron Jean Henry de 
Gortz, up to the end of 1716 in the service of the 
Bishop of Liibeck, also acting as a secret agent of Charles 
XII of Sweden, had conceived a plan for reconciling his 
master with Peter the Great, with the object of replacing 
Stanislas Leczinski on the throne of Poland, recovering 
Bremen and Verden from Hanover and depriving George 
I of the throne of Great Britain in favour of the Pretender. 
He proposed that Charles XII should surrender to Peter 
Livonia, Ingria, Carelia and perhaps even a part of 
Finland, in order to be better able to recover what he had 
lost in Germany, and make a descent upon Scotland, 
whilst the Jacobite party acted in England. Instructions 
were sent to Count Gyllenborg, Swedish minister in 
London, and while the latter entered into consultation 
with the leading Jacobites, Gortz opened negotiations 
in Holland, France, Spain and even in England for 
funds with which to prosecute his designs. Suspicion 
had been aroused by his relations with the English Jacob- 
ites, and his movements while in Paris, where he had gone 
with a view to detaching the Regent from his understand- 
ing with England, had attracted the notice of Lord Stair, 
the British ambassador. An unforeseen accident revealed 
the plot. A Swedish packet carrying important letters 
relating to the conspiracy was driven by a storm to take 
refuge in a Norwegian port, and the Danish Government 
communicated to the King of England the letters found 
on board. The first result was the arrest of Gyllenborg 
on the night of February 9, 1716/17 and the seizure of his 
papers. This measure was immediately made known to 
the diplomatic body in London by a circular from James 
Stanhope, Secretary of State for the Southern department, 
and the intercepted letters, as well as those found among 


Gyllenborg's papers, were printed and distributed 
among the foreign ministers as well as sold to the public. 1 
The former protested against Gyllenborg's arrest, as a 
violation of the Law of Nations, 2 and the Spanish 
ambassador, Marquis de Monteleon, replied to Stanhope 
embodying this opinion. Hall says that they after- 
wards withdrew their protest. 3 The British Govern- 
ment instructed Leathes, the Minister Resident at 
the Hague, to ask for the arrest of Gortz, who by 
this time had betaken himself thither; he had how- 
ever left for Amsterdam, whence he fled to Arnheim, 
where he was finally captured. As soon as the King 
of Sweden learnt of the arrest of Gyllenborg and Gortz, 
he ordered a similar measure to be taken with respect to 
Jackson, the British Minister Resident at Stockholm, 
and forbade Rumpf, the Dutch Minister at Stock- 
holm, to appear at Court. Peter the Great, who was 
then at the Hague, where he had several times secretly 
conferred with Gortz, caused Wesselowsky, his Secretary 
of Embassy in London, to offer assurances to the British 
ministry of his own innocence of all participation in the 
schemes of the king of Sweden, his particular enemy. 4 
Charles XII also disavowed the proceedings of his two 
agents. 5 It was finally arranged through French media- 
tion that Gyllenborg should be exchanged for Jackson, 
and Gortz was set at liberty by the Estates of Gelderland. 
The latter, after his return to Sweden, was placed on his 
trial on various political charges, and condemned to death. 

282. Cellamare Case. The prince of Cellamare, who 
in 1 715 was appointed ambassador extraordinary at Paris 

1 The order to print is dated Feb. 19, 1716/17. The letters 
begin with one from Baron Sparre, Paris, Sept. 25, 1716, to 
Gyllenborg, and end with one from Gyllenborg of Feb. 10, 1717, to 
Gortz, addressed to the Hague . The perusal of the correspondence 
proves quite clearly that Gyllenborg was guilty of conspiring with 
English Jacobites against the Sovereign to whom he was accredited. 
De Martens does not reproduce it. 

2 C. de Martens, i. 83. 3 Sixth edition, 171 n. 
* Q. de Martens, 107. 5 Ibid., 121. 


by Philip V of Spain, was employed by Cardinal Alberoni 
in 1718 to conduct a conspiracy having for its object to 
deprive the due d' Orleans of the Regency and to transfer 
it to the King of Spain. 1 Knowledge of this affair was 
communicated to the Abbe Dubois, then Secretary of State 
in the Department of Foreign Affairs, by a woman with 
whom he maintained relations, and also by a copyist who 
worked for Cellamare. The plan, comprised in a number 
of documents, was found in the possession of two young 
Spaniards as they were passing through Poitiers on their 
way to Madrid. Cellamare with great audacity went to 
the Minister of War to claim the restitution of his packet 
of letters, whereupon the latter and Dubois carried him 
back to his house, and having examined his papers in his 
presence, sealed them up. At the same time a guard of 
soldiers had been placed at the doors, with instructions 
to keep him under surveillance. Cellamare addressed a 
circular to his colleagues of the diplomatic body, com- 
plaining of what he called a violation of the Law of 
Nations, but none of them cared to take up his cause. 
On his part, the Regent also caused a circular to be ad- 
dressed to them, stating what had been discovered from 
the papers seized at Poitiers, and that it had been found 
necessary to seal up Cellamare's papers. The following 
day the seals were removed, the papers examined and 
three cases taken away to the Louvre, to be kept there 
until the King of Spain should send to fetch them. The 
guard of soldiers was then removed and a single gentle- 
man of the royal household left in charge of the ambas- 
sador. Two days later the latter was conveyed to the 
castle of Blois, to be kept there until the due de St. 
Aignan, French ambassador at Madrid, should have 
arrived safely in France. The latter, having meanwhile 
given offence to Cardinal Alberoni, had been ordered to 
quit the capital in twenty-four hours ; and after he had 
started, news having been received of the occurrences at 

* C. de Martens, i. 139. 


Paris, orders were sent to arrest him and bring him back 
to Madrid. But the French ambassador, not feeling 
reassured as to the intentions of Alberoni, on reaching 
the frontier of Navarre with his wife, mounted with her 
on mules, leaving the valet and lady's maid in their coach, 
who were accordingly brought back in triumph. As soon 
as information was received at Paris of St. Aignan's safe 
arrival at Bayonne, orders were despatched to conduct 
Cellamare to the frontier. A manifest was published on 
January 8, denouncing the conduct of the Spanish Govern- 
ment, which was followed the next day by a formal 
declaration of war. An army was marched into Spain 
in the following year, but hostilities were averted by 
the King of Spain proposing a truce, and finally, on 
February 17, 1720, Spain acceded to the quadruple 
alliance formed by Great Britain, France, the Emperor 
and the States-General. 

Cellamare 's papers were eventually given up to his own 
Government. 1 

283. Arrest of Bruneau, in 1605, secretary to the 
embassy of Spain, who was found to be conspiring with 
one Mairargues to deliver the port and town of Marseille 
to the Spaniards, in time of peace. The Ambassador Don 
Balthazar de Zuniga complained to Henri IV, who justi- 
fied the arrest. They indulged in a series of mutual 
reproaches and accusations of bad faith and underhand 
intrigue. Mairargues was condemned to be beheaded and 
quartered. The case was proved against the Secretary, 
but the King stopped the trial, and handed him over to 
the ambassador on condition that he should be sent 
back to Spain. It was shortly afterwards discovered 
that the French ambassador at Madrid had been in secret 
communication with the people of Pampeluna, to the 
disadvantage of the Spanish King. 2 So it was a case of 
" Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other." 

1 Recueil des Instructions, Espagne, ii. 383. 

? Flassan, ii. 233, Ch. de Martens, ii. 373, and Callieres, 171, 


284. Independence. 

' We have seen that international law regards the inviola- 
bility 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 indepen- 
dence of the nation of which the public minister is the man- 
datory. But in order that this independence may be pre- 
served fully and entire, it is necessary for the diplomatic 
agent to maintain his moral freedom, and that for this end 
he abstain from everything that could impair it. He will 
not accept, and still less will he solicit, from the sovereign at 
whose court he resides, any court function, any public or 
secret pension, no matter on what pretext or under what name : 
honour and loyalty equally render this a duty. He must not 
either, without the express authorization of his principal, 
accept any dignity, title or decoration, kindness or favour 
whatsoever from that sovereign or from any foreign prince. 

' When, as an exception, a foreign minister is a subject of 
the State to which he is accredited, and his principal consents 
to his continuing to be regarded as such, he remains subject 
to the laws of the state in all matters not connected with his 
diplomatic mission ; but, although a subject of the Court 
at which he resides, he must, as far as his character of public 
minister is concerned, enjoy the independence 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." 1 

Thugut, who rose to be the director of the foreign 
policy of Austria at the end of the eighteenth century 
in succession to Prince Kaunitz, 2 while a mere clerk in the 
Austrian Chancery received a pension from Louis XV, in 
return for the secret information which he used to furnish 
to that monarch. In 1769 he was sent to Constantinople 
as Resident, where he had been dragoman from 1754 to 
1756, and while there continued his traitorous relations 
with the King of France. In 1772 he represented Austria 
at the Congress of Fokchany ( 454) . But though he 
continued to receive money from Louis XV, he served 
the political objects of Austria. 3 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, i. 88. 2 From 1794 onwards. 

3 A. Sorel, La Question d' Orient au XVIJl' Siecle, 156. 


285. Immunity from the local Criminal Jurisdiction. 
If the diplomatic agent commits an ordinary crime, he 
cannot be arrested nor tried nor punished by the local 
courts. His Government must be asked to recall and 
punish him. But a political offence against the State 
to which he is accredited will justify the latter in seizing 
his person and delivering him over to the authorities of 
his own country. This may, however, only be done in a 
case of urgent danger. His immunity from criminal 
process is provided for by the legislation of most countries. 

Cases of conspiracy against the Head of the State are : 
Mendoza in 1584, 1'Aubespine in 1585, Bruneau in 1605, 
Le Bas in 1654, Gyllenborg in 1717, Cellamare in I7T.8. 1 

286. Connected with the right of members of a 
mission to be exempt from the local criminal jurisdiction 
is the famous case of Pantaleon de Sa. 

On the evening of November 21, 1653, a dispute oc- 
curred at the New Exchange in the Strand, between 
Pantaleon de Sa y Menezes, brother of the Portuguese 
ambassador, and two others of the ambassador's family 
[i. e. household], and Colonel Gerhard, in which the latter 
was stabbed. On the following night the Portuguese 
returned, and shot a Mr. Greneway, and wounded several 
other persons. Some of the assailants were captured by 
the horse-guards, of whom a party beset the ambassador's 
house, and obliged him to surrender his brother and one 
of his companions who had taken part in the fray. On 
July 5, 1654, de Sa and two others were put on their trial 
in the King's Bench. He pleaded that he was not only 
the ambassador's brother, but had a commission to him- 
self to be ambassador when his brother should be absent, 
and that by the Law of Nations he was privileged. The 
court found that the plea of privilege was not good, and 
the following day he was put on his trial before a jury 

1 For the last two cases see 281, 282, Bruneau in 283. Those 
of Mendoza, 1'Aubespine and Le Bas are narrated further on, 
in Chap. 


of six Englishmen and six aliens. The jury found him 
and four more guilty of murder, and they were sentenced 
to be hanged. One of the prisoners, an English servant 
of de Sa, was hanged at Tyburn. De Sa was beheaded on 
Tower Hill, the sentence of hanging having been com- 
muted to decapitation. The rest of the convicted men 
were reprieved. 

It is clear that de Sa was not entitled to the privilege 
of an ambassador, as he had only a dormant commission, 
and that his plea of relationship to the ambassador was 
not good. 1 

287. The Solicitor's Journal for February 19, 1916, 
reports a curious claim on the ground of diplomatic 
immunity from the local criminal jurisdiction, in the 
case of the first secretary of the Italian embassy, who 
was found shot in his bedroom at a London hotel. It 
was primd facie the duty of the coroner to hold an 
inquest into the cause of death, but the Italian ambas- 
sador appears to have objected. As the jurisdiction of 
the coroner in such a case, it is pointed out, is clearly 
criminal, " the well-settled rule of International Law 
which exempts a diplomatic envoy and his suite from 
civil or criminal process excludes the jurisdiction over 
the dead body of any member of an ambassador's suite." 

288. Immunity from the local Civil Jurisdiction. 
The diplomatic agent is not liable to the local civil 
jurisdiction in such a manner as to impede the exercise 
of his diplomatic functions, nor can the property belong- 
ing to and used by him in his official capacity be seized. 
Real property belonging to him is subject to the local 
jurisdiction on the principle of the lex loci rei sit a, with 
the exception, however, of the house which he occupies 

1 Somers Tracts, Whitelocke's Memorials, and Zouch's Solutio 
qucsstionis de Legati delinquents competente judicio, republished 
in 1717, with an English translation, on the occasion of the pro- 
ceedings against Count Gyllenborg, are the chief authorities 
quoted by various writers. Carlyle's account is based on White - 
locke, 550, 577. The best account is in the State Trials, v. 461. 


as his embassy house or legation, if it should happen to 
be owned by him. He must also comply with ordinary 
police and sanitary regulations. 

A diplomatic agent will do well to inform himself of 
all local legislation respecting diplomatic immunities. 

289. There are, however, exceptions to this rule of 
exemption from civil jurisdiction. 

1. When he submits to the local jurisdiction (a very 
unlikely case). Some writers insist that the consent of 
his Government is necessary, and so it may be, as 
between him and them. But the local court is not 
bound to inquire whether he has obtained their consent. 
As far as the court is concerned his submission is sufficient. 
He can only be held to have submitted to the jurisdiction 
so far as that the judgment of the court does not inter- 
fere with his personal liberty, or the property exempted 
in virtue of his office. 1 

2. If he has chosen to bring an action himself. In 
this instance he merely obliges himself to plead to a 
cross-action, and, like a sovereign in similar circum- 
stances, 2 to comply with the rules of the court. The 
plaintiff ambassador makes himself liable to the counter- 
demands, which are a mode of defence, and to condemna- 
tion in costs, if the suit fails. On the other hand, if the 
suit succeeds, and the defendant prosecutes an appeal, 
which is also a mode of defence, the ambassador cannot 
decline the jurisdiction of the superior court. 3 

3. All private property except what is necessary for 
the exercise of his functions is subject to the local juris- 
diction. Thus he is subject to actions for breach of 
contract ; if he goes into trade, or becomes a shareholder 
in a local company, his property is liable to seizure and 
condemnation at the suit of his creditors; if he acts as 
executor he is liable to suits brought against him in that 
capacity. 4 " But in any suit or seizure intended to bind 

1 Hall, 172. 2 Hall, 173. 

3 Phillimore, ii. 195. * Hall, 174. 


them [i. e. lands or goods held by him in any of those 
capacities] through the action of the local courts, the 
fiction of the minister's exterritoriality must be kept up 
by proceeding against him in the form usually employed 
against any other absent person reputed to be out of the 
country." 1 

The above statement is, however, rather too sweeping, 
inasmuch as, even if a judgment were obtained against a 
foreign diplomatist in a suit involving other than real 
property, it could not be executed. 

290. The statute of 7 Anne, c. 12, however, declares 

"all writs and processes whereby the goods or chattels" of a 
diplomatic agent " may be distrained, seized or attached 
shall be deemed and adjudged to be utterly null and void to 
all intents, constructions and purposes whatever " ; 

and as this statute does not exclude such an envoy as 
embarks on mercantile ventures from the benefit of the 
Act, the English courts will grant exemption to foreign 
envoys even in such cases. 2 See the case against Monsieur 
Drouet, Secretary of Legation to the King of the Belgians, 
one of the directors of a society formed in Belgium and 
London for working the Royal Nassau Sulphate of Baryta 
Mines, quoted by Phillimore, ii. 202-5. 

The United States statute which corresponds to the 
statute of 7 Anne provides that 

' 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 public 
minister of a foreign state or prince, authorized and received 
as such by the President, or any 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." 3 

1 Hannis Taylor, Treatise on Internal. Public Law, 340. 
a Oppenheim, i. 465. Cases arising under this statute are 
mentioned in Phillimore, ii. 198. 
3 Hannis Taylor, 339. 


In France, the law and practice are the same, and a 
diplomatic agent 1 who was about to quit his post with- 
out paying his local creditors would no longer be sub- 
jected to the treatment experienced by the Baron von 
Wrech, Minister of Hesse-Cassel, who was refused his 
passports until they had been satisfied (see 292). 

291. In Austria, the civil code merely confers on a 
diplomatic agent whatever immunities are established 
by International Law a somewhat uncertain criterion. 2 
The German code uses similar language, and it is infer- 
able from language used in 1844 by Baron von Billow, 
in writing to the United States minister, Mr. Wheaton, 
that the widest possible interpretation would be given 
to such a provision (see 293). In Spain, an ambassador 
is exempt from being sued for debts incurred before the 
commencement of his mission, but is deprived of this 
immunity during its continuance. 3 In Russia, a claim 
against a diplomatic agent must be presented to the 
Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 4 In Japan, some years ago, 
a British subject employed in another legation than that 
of his own country asked his own minister to intervene 
in order that he might obtain payment of his salary ; he 
was told to apply to the British representative at the 
Court which his employer represented, who could, if 
he thought fit, bring the complaint to the notice of 
the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of that country. As the 
privilege is accorded to the suite on account of the 
ambassador, and not on account of his sovereign, it may 
be waived by the former; and it was waived by the 
ambassadors at the Congresses of Minister and Nijmegen. 
But it cannot be waived in the case of any subordinate 
officer of the embassy or legation appointed by the 
sovereign himself. 5 

As a diplomatic agent ought carefully to avoid giving 

1 Phillimore, ii. 207. 2 Ibid., 208. 

3 De Castro y Casaleiz, i. 832. * Phillimore, ii. 208. 

5 Ibid., 197. 


rise to any questions touching the extent of his im- 
munities between his own Government and that to which 
he is accredited, the obvious recommendation to make is 
that he should not acquire any kind of personal interest 
or accept any duty such as those mentioned. It will be 
better, for more reasons than one, to eschew all specula- 
tions or investments of money, of whatever nature, in 
the country where he is serving, and to pay his local 
tradesmen's bills with regularity and despatch. 

292. Creditors of Diplomatic Agent. Case of the 
Baron de Wreck in IJJ2. 1 In 1772 the Baron de Wrech, 
minister plenipotentiary of the Landgrave of Hesse- 
Cassel, being recalled, was on the point of leaving Paris 
without paying his debts, when the Due d'Aiguillon, at 
the request of certain of his creditors, refused him his 
passports. De Wrech applied to his colleagues for their 
assistance, who accordingly addressed a joint note to 
the Duke, protesting against the service of a writ upon 
one of the foreign ministers, on the ground that it was 
contrary to the Law of Nations and to the liberty, that 
was necessary for them to possess, of quitting the court 
to which they were accredited whenever circumstances 
might require it, and they appealed to the justice and 
equity of His Most Christian Majesty to protect their 
rights and privileges. 

The Duke replied that the circumstances of the case 
which had given rise to the protest of the diplomatic 
body were such that it could not lead to any infringe- 
ment of their rights and privileges, and that the King 
had charged him to give the assurance that he would 
always be most scrupulously careful to maintain the 
immunities attaching to the character of diplomatic 
representative (ministre public}. 

Subsequently the French Ministry communicated to 
the members of the diplomatic body a long memorandum 
setting forth the official view of the question. The 

1 Ch. de Martens, ii. no. 


following summary gives the important portions of this 

' The immunities of diplomatic representatives are based 
on the principle that nothing should be done to disturb 
them in the exercise of their official functions, and there are 
limits to the immunity known as exemption from civil juris- 
diction, e. g. in respect of immovable property owned by a 
minister in the country to which he is accredited, or of a 
contract entered into before a notary-public. A minister 
cannot take advantage of his privilege in order to avoid 
paying debts contracted by him in the country where he 
resides, because such evasion would be contrary to the 
intentions of his sovereign, while it could not be intended by 
the sovereign to whom he is accredited that his subjects 
should be subjected to loss in consequence of the public 
character of the diplomat. The privilege of diplomatists 
only concerns what they possess in their official character, 
and without which they could not exercise their functions. 
It is a rule admitted by all the courts that a diplomatic 
representative ought not to leave the country without satisfy- 
ing his creditors. The only question, therefore, that arises 
is : when a minister neglects the performance of this duty, 
what is to be done ? 

" At Vienna, the marshalate of the empire claims jurisdic- 
tion over everything not connected with the person of the 
ambassador and his functions, to an extent sometimes regarded 
as difficult to reconcile with the generally received maxims. 
This court watches over the payment of debts contracted by 
ambassadors, especially at the moment of their departure. 
Of this an example was seen in 1764, when the effects of 
Count Czernicheff, Russian ambassador, were detained until 
Prince Liechtenstein became surety for him. 

" In Russia, a diplomatic representative has to publish 
three notices of his intended departure. The children, 
papers and effects of M. Bausset, French ambassador, were 
detained until the King undertook to see to the payment of 
the ambassador's debts. 

" At the Hague, the Council of Holland claims jurisdiction 
in those states where the interests of subjects are prejudiced. 
In 1688 a writ was served on a Spanish ambassador in person, 
who complained ; the States decided that the complaint was 
well founded, in so far that the writ ought to have been 
served on one of his suite. 

" At Berlin, in 1723, the Baron de Posse, minister of 
Sweden, was arrested and kept in custody because he refused 
to pay a saddler's bill, in spite of repeated warnings from 
the magistrate. 


" At Turin, an ambassador's coach was stopped in the 
reign of Emanuel. The Court of Turin cleared itself of this 
act of violence, but no one objected to the proceedings which 
had been taken to condemn the ambassador to pay his 
debts." 1 

Grotius, Bk. II. cap. xviii. ix., in Barbeyrac's version, 
is quoted to the effect that "if an ambassador has con- 
tracted debts and has no immoveable property in the country, 
he must be told politely to pay; if he refused, he who sent 
him would be applied to, after which recourse would be had 
to the proceedings taken against debtors who are out of the 

" The most moderate opinion is that it is proper in all 
cases to abstain, as far as possible, from infringing on the 
decency which ought to surround his public character; but 
the sovereign is entitled to employ that kind of compulsion 
which causes no disturbance in his functions, and consists in 
prohibiting the ambassador from quitting the country until 
he has satisfied his engagements. It is in this sense that 
Bynkershoek advises the employment against ambassadors 
of proceedings which imply rather a prohibition than an 
order to do such or such a thing. It is then a simple pro- 
hibition, and no one would venture to maintain that it is 
unlawful to defend oneself against an ambassador, who 
ought not to disturb the inhabitants by using violence and 
carrying off what belongs to another. This maxim is all the 
more appropriate, when particular and aggravated circum- 
stances charge the minister with bad faith and reprehensible 
proceedings. When he thus violates the sacredness of his 
character and public security, he cannot demand that others 
respect him. It is sufficient to recall the conduct of the 
Baron de Wrech since his arrival at Paris, and above all 
during the last eight months. The indecent methods he had 
adopted to procure money having been stopped, he gave 
himself up to all sorts of proceedings, which consideration 
for his position prevent me from characterizing. It is enough 
to remark that everything conduces to the belief that he had 
formed the design of disappointing his creditors by quitting 
the kingdom, and this circumstance is sufficient to authorize 
taking against him the same measures that would be taken 
if he had in effect left the kingdom, after having laid aside 
his character by presenting his letters of recall. The minister 

1 Aiguillon says : " Nothing will be said about England, 
where the spirit of legislation, confined to the letter of the law, 
admits neither of tacit convention nor of presumption, and where 
the danger of a positive law in a matter so delicate has hitherto 
prevented the prerogatives of public ministers from being legally 
fixed ? " Apparently he had not heard of the Act 7 Anne, cap. 12. 
VOL. I. S 


for Foreign Affairs caused him to be exhorted by the magis- 
trate charged with the police, and himself exhorted him to 
do honour to his obligations. It was in consequence of 
these considerations that, on the repeated complaints of the 
creditors of the Baron de Wrech, the minister for Foreign 
Affairs thought fit to suspend the preparation of the passport 
he had asked for in order to leave the kingdom, until the 
intentions of his master the Landgrave could be ascertained 
through the minister who resides on the part of the King 
at his Court. In order to reconcile the protection which the 
King owes to his subjects with the consideration due to a 
diplomatic position (caractere public], and in order to dis- 
charge all the processes which the rules of the Law of Nations 
may dictate, the ministry for Foreign Affairs has informed 
the Landgrave of the conduct of his minister. That sovereign 
will have the less ground for objecting to the course pursued 
towards his minister in that he caused to be imprisoned, four 
or five years ago, the Count de Wartensleben, Dutch minister, 
in order to compel him to give account of a trust of which he 
was the executor. It is true that the action taken against 
the person of the minister was condemned, but the States- 
General did not contest the jurisdiction of the Landgrave, 
and, in the case of the Baron de Wrech, the principles which 
that sovereign (prince) has maintained will not allow him to 
shield his minister from the measures calculated to ensure 
the rights of the King's subjects, nor to deprive them of the 
only pledge they have of the execution of their agreements 
with him." 

Flassan (vii. 98) remarks : " Telle fut la jurispru- 
dence adoptee dans cette occasion. Ne"anmoins, cette 
jurisprudence n'a pas e'te' suivie constamment, et la 
complaisance du ministre des affaires 6trangeres, 
comme la dignit6 du ministre endett6, peuvent la faire 


This memorandum was published in the Gazette de 
France, to the great annoyance of the Baron de Wrech. 
He complained to the Duke, but all the satisfaction he 
obtained was an assurance of his regret that a matter 
that ought to have been kept secret had found its way 
into print, and that he applauded the intention of the 
Baron to proceed against the publishers. 

The passports of the Baron de Wrech were not delivered 


to him until the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel had under- 
taken to meet the obligations of his minister. 1 

293. Case of House-owner against the United States 
Minister at Berlin in 1839. 

The Prussian Civil Code [then in force] declares that 

" the lessor is entitled, as a security for the rent and other 
demands arising under the contract, to the rights of a Pfand- 
glaubiger, upon the goods brought by the tenant upon the 
premises, and there remaining at the expiration of the 

The same code defines the nature of the right of a 
creditor whose debt is thus secured. 

" A real right, as to a thing belonging to another, assigned 
to any person as a security for a debt, and in virtue of which 
he may demand to be satisfied out of the substance of the 
thing itself, is called ' Unterpfands-Recht.' ' 

Under this law the proprietor of the house in which 
the minister of the United States accredited at the Court 
of Berlin resided, claimed the right of detaining the 
goods of the minister found on the premises at the 
expiration of the lease, in order to secure the payment 
of damages alleged to be due on account of injuries done 
to the house during the contract. The Prussian Govern- 
ment 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 this 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. In thus granting to the 
proprietor the rights of a creditor whose debt is secured 
by hypothecation (Pfandgldubiger) , not only in respect 
to the rent, but as to all other demands arising under 
the contract, the Prussian Civil Code confers upon him a 
real right as to all the effects of the tenant which may 

1 Schmelzing, ii. 231, remarks on this case that the proceedings 
of the French Government were " Unstreitig eine Verletzung des 


be found on the premises at the expiration of the lease, 
by means of which he may retain them as a security for 
all his claims derived from the contract. . . . The con- 
troversy having been terminated, as between the parties, 
by the proprietor of the house restoring the effects which 
had been detained, on the payment of a reasonable com- 
pensation for the injury done to the premises, the matter 
was further argued between the Prussian and American 
Governments, without their being able to come to an 
agreement on the point of law. 1 

294. In the case of the Magdalena Steam Navigation 
Co. v. Martin, " the defendant, who was envoy extra- 
ordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Guatemala and 
New Grenada, was sued for a sum of 600 alleged to be 
due from him as a contributory in respect of shares held 
by him in the plaintiff company. The defendant pleaded 
to the jurisdiction, alleging his privilege as an ambas- 
sador. On demurrer it was held that the public minister 
of a foreign state accredited to the sovereign, having no 
real property in this country, and having done nothing 
to disentitle him to the privileges usually belonging to 
such public minister, could not be sued in an English 
court for a debt while he remained a public minister, 
even though neither his person nor his goods might be 
touched by the suit." 2 

295. The following recent case is taken by permission 
from Law Reports, CH. 1914, p. 139 

In re Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate, Limited, 
per Astbury, J. 


Both under the common law and under the Diplomatic 
Privileges Act, 1708, a diplomatic agent accredited to the 
Crown by a foreign State is absolutely privileged from being 

1 Wheaton, 341-53 ; the author refers to an article by M. 
Foelix, in Revue du Droit Franpais et Etr anger, ii. 31. 

* Pitt Cobbett, Cases and Opinions on International Law, 3rd 
edit., 1909, i. 294, based on 28 L. J.Q.B. 310. The case was heard 
in 1859. 


sued in the English Courts, and any writ issued against him 
is absolutely null and void. 

This diplomatic privilege can be waived, if at all, only 
with full knowledge of the party's rights, and (semble) with 
the sanction of his sovereign or (if he is of inferior rank to 
a minister plenipotentiary) of his official superior. 

Except, in cases like Taylor v. Best, 1 where the agent is 
merely joined as a formal defendant, it is doubtful if any 
such waiver is possible. 

296. Taylor v. Best, where the Lord Chief Justice 

"If an Ambassador or public minister during his residence 
in England violates the character in which he is accredited 
to that Court, by engaging in commercial transactions that 
may raise a question between the government of Great 
Britain and that of the country by which he is sent, he does 
not thereby lose the general privilege which the Law of 
Nations has conferred upon persons filling that high charac- 
ter the proviso in the statute of Anne limiting the privilege 
in cases of trading applying only to the servants of the 

In order that the conclusion thus reached should not 
be given too wide a construction, Lord Campbell, in 
deciding the case of the Magdalena Steam Navigation 
Company v. Martin, 1859, after upholding the doctrine 
laid down in Taylor v. Best, said 

" It certainly has not hitherto been expressly decided that 
a public minister duly accredited to the Queen by a foreign 
state is privileged from all liability to be sued here in civil 
action." 2 

297. The foregoing immunities of the diplomatic 
agent extend to his wife and children, to the members of 
the mission, whether belonging to the diplomatic service 
or not, such as naval, military, commercial, or other 
attaches, to his chaplain and medical attendant (pro- 
vided they are exclusively in his service or in that of his 
government), to archivists, chancellors, and also, to a 

1 14 C.B., 487, 523, and see next . 2 Hannis Taylor, 339. 


certain extent, to the servants in his employ. This last 
remark applies especially to servants whose nationality 
is that of the country to which he is accredited. In 
most countries it is usual for the diplomatic agent to 
furnish to the ministry for Foreign Affairs a full list of 
all the persons composing the mission for whom privilege 
is claimed. By the statute of. 7 Anne c. 12 every ser- 
vant must be registered with the Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs or the Sheriff of London and Middlesex, 
but he does not possess the privilege if he is engaged in 
trade. Article 19 of the German law of judicial procedure 
of 1879 exempts all servants not of German nationality 
from judicial pursuit. 

The following courses are open to the head of the 
mission in the case of an offender of his own nationality : l 
(i) to arrest him, if he is within the precincts, or, if not, 
to request the authorities of the country to hand him 
over ; (2) to ascertain the facts of the case, if necessary, 
with the help of the local authorities; (3) to examine 
such witnesses as belong to the personnel ; (4) to sur- 
render the culprit to the national authorities. 

298. Cases of this sort are happily rare. If the 
offence has been committed outside the legation, the 
easiest way would be for the head of the mission to ask 
the permission of his own government to leave the 
offence to be dealt with by the judicial authorities of 
the country, as was done in the instance of Carlos Wad- 
dington. This person, a son of the Chilian Charge 
d'affaires in Belgium, on February 24, 1906, shot and 
killed, in a private house at Brussels, Ernesto Balmaceda, 
who was engaged to his sister. The murderer took 
refuge with his father at the legation. The legation 
being inviolable, no magistrate nor police officer attempted 
to enter it, and the public prosecutor confined his action 
to surrounding the house with police. Two days later, 
Waddington the father presented himself at the Palais 

1 Holtzendorff, iii. 660. 


de Justice, and informed the public prosecutor that he 
renounced immunity from the jurisdiction for his son, 
who desired to be tried by the Belgian courts. The 
public prosecutor having informed the minister for 
Foreign Affairs, it was decided that the murderer must 
await the consent of the Chilian Government before 
surrendering himself to custody. On March 2, the 
government of Chile having acquainted the Belgian 
government that they consented to the culprit being 
prosecuted in Belgium, Carlos Waddington gave himself 
up at the prison of Saint-Gilles, to the porter, with 
whom had been deposited a warrant of arrest. He 
was subsequently brought before the Cour d'Assises of 
Brabant. 1 

299. Civil Jurisdiction ; case of TchitcheYine, before 
the Court of Appeal at Paris, July 12, 1868. 

A certain L6once Dupont, manager of a newspaper, 
La Nation, having become bankrupt, it was discovered 
in the course of the proceedings that he had lent his 
name to Tchitcherine, the councillor of the Russian 
embassy at Paris, who in the interests of his government 
had furnished funds to start the journal, and had under- 
taken to support it, on various conditions, of which 
proof was furnished. By its judgment of January 15, 
1867, the commercial court at Paris decided that it had 
jurisdiction in the matter. 

The judgment said 

" Seeing that in pleading to the jurisdiction, Tchitcherine 
appealed to his position and maintained that it is an indis- 
putable principle that diplomatic agents cannot be subject to 
the jurisdiction of the courts of the country to which they are 
accredited ; seeing that if the immunities to which he appeals 
belong to the representatives of foreign Governments in 
order that they shall not be molested in the discharge of their 
functions, these immunities cannot be extended to them 
when they enter into commercial transactions in their private 
interest; that Tchitcherine acted outside his functions as 

1 Revue Generate de Droit International Public, xiv. 159. 


councillor of embassy, and that in this instance he had placed 
himself outside of the immunities, in consequence it declares 
that it has jurisdiction." 

Tchitcherine appealed from this decision. The public 
prosecutor became partie civile in the case, and also put 
in appearance as appellant. 

The court rejected the appeal of the public prosecutor 
and admitted that of Tchitcherine. 

Some of the grounds of this decree are interesting to 
record : 

" Seeing that it is an established fact, and not disputed, 
that Tchitcherine is attached as councillor 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 intermediaries; That in France this 
principle has been specially recognized 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 Govern- 
ments must be stated and pursued through diplomatic 
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 main- 
tained cognizance 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 commercial 
court of the Seine was not competent to take cognizance of 
the claim put forward by him and Dupont." 

300. The Cour de Cassation had to give a decision 


on January 10, 1891. The civil court of the Seine, in 
July 1889, had condemned in default Count Errembault 
de Dudzele, councillor of the Belgian legation in France, 
to the payment of a sum of fr. 377'O5. The diplomatic 
agent not having appealed within the legal period 
against the decision, the minister appealed against it in 
the interest of the law. The civil division quashed the 
decision by a decree of January 10. Some of the grounds 
of the decision deserve to be quoted 

" La Cour, vu le decret de la Convention nationale du 
13 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 per- 
sonnes faisant officiellement partie de la legation. Attendu 
que 1'incompetence des tribunaux francais en cette matiere 
etant fondee sur le besoin d'independance reciproque des 
differents Etats et des personnes chargees de les representer, 
ne peut flechir que devant 1'acceptation certaine et reguliere 
que feraient les dites personnes de la jurisdiction de ces 
memes tribunaux. . . . 

" Les immunites ont ete 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 Justine qu'il 
est attache a la legation imperiale du Bresil en France ; que, 
conformement aux regies du droit des gens, le caractere dont 

11 est revetu ne permet pas qu'il soit traduit devant la juri- 
diction fran9aise pour une affaire purement personelle, . . . se 
declare incompetent. . . . 

" En Allemagne la loi nous dit : ' Les tribunaux nationaux 
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 publics ' (Code civil autrichien, 
art. 38)." * 

1 Roederer, 35. See also Pradier-Fode're', ii. 131. 


301. Jurisdiction of the Envoy over Persons belonging 
to his Suite. 

Schmelzing, whose book was published as early as 1819, 
holds that " the envoy is not only exempt as regards his 
own person and his family from the local civil jurisdic- 
tion, but that he exercises the latter, in accordance with 
international usage, over the whole of his suite. Never- 
theless, the assertion that the exemption of the suite 
from the local civil jurisdiction promotes the legitimate 
objects of the mission cannot be upheld on any general 
legal grounds. International tradition has, however, 
conceded to the envoy civil jurisdiction over his suite, 
in order to avoid the manifold unpleasantness and col- 
lisions which the contrary arrangement would beget 
between him and the State to which he is accredited, or 
its judicial authorities. The questions whether an envoy 
can exercise civil jurisdiction (both voluntary and con- 
tentious) only over his suite proper, or also over persons 
who do not belong to the mission, but have merely 
placed themselves under its protection, or happen to 
accompany it, as well as over even those of his country- 
men who happen to be in the territory of the State, or 
how far the private legal affairs of such persons can 
lawfully be dealt with solely by the courts of the home 
country, must be decided by the special circumstances, 
conventions or usages of the sending and receiving States. 1 
Thus much is observable from international practice, 
that most attributions in the way of the exercise of 
voluntary and contentious jurisdiction over their suite 
are conceded to ambassadors and to envoys of the 
second class; that envoys of the third class are seldom 
empowered to exercise this prerogative in the territories 
of Great Powers, and often can exercise them in the 
territory of minor states only with great limitations, 
i.. The above statement only affects the personnel of 

1 This is apparently an allusion to States which have conceded 
consular jurisdiction by treaty or otherwise. 


the mission which is attached to the envoy and is paid 
by his own government. The suite of the envoy in the 
narrower sense, the members of which are in his employ 
or look to him for their sustenance, is to be distinguished 
from the foregoing. 

2. No difference arises here between foreigners or 
natives of the State who form part of the suite (v. Byn- 
kershoek, De judice competente legal., cap. xv.). At 
Munich, in 1790, in a particular case a distinction was 
made between the suite proper and the rest of the follow- 
ing, consisting of domestic officers and servants. In 
England every foreign minister has to send in, on his 
arrival, a list of the persons belonging to his suite, and 
to notify any subsequent changes (7 Anne, cap. 12). 
De Martens (V. R., p. 257, 216, note (a)} asks whether 
it would not be advisable to introduce this practice 

3. In virtue of the voluntary civil jurisdiction the 
Envoy can certify contracts, draw up wills, accept custody 
of them, seal up the property of a deceased person, etc. 
The question whether the Envoy can also, with legal 
effect, receive the last testamentary dispositions of 
foreigners not belonging to the mission must be answered 
in the affirmative, when the Envoy in question is em- 
powered to exercise jurisdiction to its full extent (vide 
De Martens, Du Droit des Gens, L. VII. , c. v, 219, 
note (e)}. Whether such transactions are valid in the 
home country in regard to the Envoy's countrymen who 
do not belong to the suite of the mission must be decided 
by its laws. The country from which they are despatched 
does not recognize the validity of such transactions if 
they require the competency of a court." 1 

It is not desirable that members of the British diplo- 
matic service should perform notarial or other acts of 
the kind enumerated, in places where there is also a 
British consulate. The rules with regard to the celebra- 

1 Schmelzing, ii. 234. 


tion of marriages in a diplomatic house are to be found 
in the British Foreign Office List, and should be strictly 
adhered to. It is always preferable, even in a case where 
both parties are British subjects, and imperative where 
one of them is not British, to advise the parties to be 
married in accordance with the lex loci. 

302. As to marriages, the following observations of 
Hannis Taylor will be found useful 

' It seems to be clear that such an agent may legalize 
contracts of marriage between members of his suite; and 
some writers claim that he may also legalize marriages 
between subjects of his state, other than members of his 
suite, when specially authorized to do so by his sovereign. 
There is, however, no general custom compelling other 
states to recognize such marriages. Even in countries 
where the marriage of two foreigners may be solemnized, it 
seems that the marriage of a subject of the state with a 
foreigner in the house of his ambassador, according to the 
law of the foreign state, will not be upheld. As evidence of 
the tendency in that direction, reference may be made to the 
case of Morgan v. French, in which a marriage between an 
Englishman and a French subject, celebrated at the English 
embassy at Paris, was declared void by the Tribunal Civil de 
la Seine, and to the case of a marriage between an Austrian 
and an English woman, celebrated in English form at the 
English embassy at Vienna, annulled by the Supreme Court 
of Austria in 1880. There is, however, no well-defined rule 
upon the subject, which is involved in great confusion and 

But it seems clear that the diplomatic agent has no 
jurisdiction over persons belonging to the official suite, 
nor over his domestics, in contentious matters. 

303. Attempts have been made in earlier times to 
exercise criminal jurisdiction over the members of the 
suite. A famous case recorded in the books is that of 
the Due de Sully. Being sent on a special embassy to 
James I, immediately after his accession, he arrived in 
England in June 1603. On the same night certain of 
his suite went to a house of ill fame, where they had a 


quarrel with some Englishmen, one of whom was killed. 
Having heard of the incident, as he was playing at cards, 
Sully ranged them round the room, and having closely 
examined their countenances one by one, he hit upon a 
man named Combault, whom he compelled to admit the 
fact. He then sent a message straightway to the Mayor 
of London, informing him that he had condemned the 
offender to be decapitated, and asking for the services 
of an executioner on the following morning. The 
Mayor replied that he knew of the affair, and had intended 
to complain to Sully the next day ; he had not expected 
Sully to proceed in the matter with such celerity nor 
with such severity, which he thought might be moderated. 
Sully replied that no representations of his own people 
having had the effect of changing his resolution, he saw 
no way of satisfying them and the Mayor, but to ask 
the latter to take charge of the prisoner, and inflict on 
him whatever penalty the law of England might pre- 
scribe. 1 Combault was therefore handed over, but was 
pardoned at the solicitation of Beaumont, the ambassador- 
in-ordinary. Phillimore says that the French contended 
that though King James might remit the execution of 
the man in England, yet, being a Frenchman and judged 
by his own tribunal, the King could not grant him a 
pardon. 2 

304. In 1763, a Count von Wartensleben, Netherlands 
envoy to the Upper Rhine and Westphalian Circle, and 
consequently also to Hesse-Cassel, was accused of having 
illegally dealt with a private religious or charitable found- 
ation on behalf of the deceased Freiin (Baroness) von 
Gorz, in his capacity as her testamentary executor. The 
Government of Cassel demanded an account from him, 
and when he refused it, caused him to be arrested in his 
apartment, until he delivered the papers demanded of 
him. A special mission had to be sent by the Landgrave 

1 Michaud and Poujoulat, ii. 444. 2 ii. 178 n. 


Frederick to the Hague, to reconcile the offended States- 
General. 1 

305. Lucien Bonaparte had been sent as French 
envoy to Charles IV of Spain. A Spanish husband, 
informed of a love affair between his wife and Lucien, 
shut her up in a convent and sent him a challenge. 
Lucien, who was not wanting in personal courage, 
accepted the challenge, but his friends gave him to 
understand that it did not become the representative of 
a great nation at a foreign Court to expose his life for 
such a trifle. An historical painter named Le Thiers 
offered to take his place, and on the following morning 
awaited the aggrieved husband on the ground. The 
Spaniard made his appearance, and asked for his antago- 
nist. Le Thiers replied haughtily : " It is I." " You? 
I don't know you; a nobleman like myself cannot fight 
a person of your stamp. I will know where to find the 
envoy." With these words the nobleman entered his 
carriage, and drove back to Madrid to make what had 
happened publicly known. The Court took a more 
philosophic view of the case, and exiled the nobleman 
to his country seat. 2 

In the last decade of Frederick the Great, Prussia 
recalled her envoy from Turin, on receiving a complaint 
from that Court that he had insulted a Sardinian officer 
in a private quarrel. 

306. " Where special conventions have not otherwise 
provided, a distinction is made in practice between an 
offence (against his own country or a fellow subject) 
committed within the walls of the legation and one 
committed outside. 

" In the first case, the envoy claims the right, though 
now and then it is disputed, of sending the accused in 
fetters to the courts of his own country for punishment. 

1 Schmelzing, ii. 239, based on de Martens' Erzahlungen 
merkwiirdiger Falle, i. no. 8. 
* Ibid. 240. 


But it is never permitted to the envoy to inflict a corporal 
penalty on the offender, even in his own legation." l 

" Members of the suite who commit an offence outside 
the legation precincts against a subject of the State or 
against public order are tried and punished by the State. 
In order to avoid all disputes the envoy dismisses such 
offenders from his service, or hands them over on the 
requisition of the local authorities. But this does not 
apply to members of the diplomatic personnel, whom he 
has no power to dismiss. 2 He must either arrange for 
their dismissal by his own Government, with a view to 
the surrender of the culprits to the authorities, or for an 
order to send them home for punishment." 3 

307. The kidnapping and confinement, in 1896, in 
the Chinese legation in London, of Sun Yat Sen, a Chinese 
revolutionary leader (or reformer, whichever the reader 
prefers), with a view to sending him back to China to 
be put to death, was an assumption of authority by the 
Chinese minister which the British Government could 
not tolerate. The prisoner managed to get a letter 
conveyed to an English friend, who made representations 
to the Foreign Office, and in the result Sun Yat Sen was 
restored to liberty after a few days' detention. 4 

308. Mode of obtaining the Evidence of a Diplomatic 
Agent. A diplomatic agent cannot be required to attend 
in court to give evidence of facts within his knowledge, 
either in a civil or criminal suit, nor can a member of 
his family or suite be so compelled. If he were to appear, 
it is submitted that he would thereby admit the applica- 
tion to him of the laws of the state with regard to the 
behaviour of witnesses. The usual method is for the 
evidence to be taken down in writing by a secretary of 
the mission, or by an official whom the diplomatic agent 
consents to receive for the purpose, and the evidence is 

1 Schmelzing, ii. 241. 2 Schmalz, 118. 3 Schmelzing, 243. 
4 Sun Yat Sen, Kidnapped in London. J. Cantlie. Sun Yat 
Sen and the Awakening of China. 


communicated to the court in that form. A difficulty 
arises in countries where evidence, particularly in a 
criminal case, has to be taken orally and in the presence 
of the accused. The diplomatic agent might conceivably 
consent to waive his privilege, but if he does so, he should 
be careful to secure himself beforehand by obtaining a 
written undertaking from the minister of Justice or the 
minister for Foreign Affairs that he shall be held free of 
all the possible consequences of the testimony which 
he is about to give. In countries where witnesses are 
cross-examined directly by counsel, few diplomatic agents 
will be found willing to submit themselves to such an 

309. Calvo l quotes a case which occurred in the 
United States, where the Netherlands Minister 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 laws of the United States the Minister had the right 
of refusing to give evidence, appealed to the general 
sense of justice of the Netherlands Government. The 
Netherlands minister for Foreign Affairs declined to give 
the desired instructions, but authorized the Minister to 
give his evidence in writing. Accordingly, M. Dubois 
wrote to the Secretary of State offering to give evidence 
before him, adding, however, that he could not submit 
to cross-examination. His offer was declined, because 
the district attorney-general reported that such a written 
statement would not be receivable as evidence. The 
United States thereupon asked for the Minister's recall. 

310. The printed instructions of the American 
Department of State are that " a diplomatic representa- 
tive should not consent to appear before a tribunal 
1 Fourth edition, 1520 n. 


except by the consent of his government. Even if 
called upon to give testimony under conditions which 
do not concern the business of his mission, and which 
are of a nature to counsel him to respond to the interests 
of justice, he should not do so without the consent of 
the President, which in such case would probably be 
granted." l 

311. Hall 2 says that in such a case it is proper for 
the minister or the member of his suite whose testimony 
is needed to submit himself for examination in the usual 
manner, and Calvo was of opinion that the principles of 
the Law of Nations do 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. They thus appear to be in contradiction 
with the Secretary of State himself. 3 

Oppenheim ( 392) states that " no envoy can be 
obliged, or even required, to appear as a witness in a 
civil or criminal or administrative Court, nor is an envoy 
obliged to give evidence before a Commissioner sent to 
his house." 

The envoy may, if he is so disposed, authorize the 
appearance of a member of his official suite or of his 
household. 4 

1 J. W. Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, etc., 162. 

2 Sixth edition, 182. 

3 Cf. Ullmann, 187-8 and notes. * Ullmann, 188, n i. 

VOL. I. 



312. Summary 313. Exemption from Customs duties, 
Callires on 314. Bismarck on 315. On the agent's 
arrival at his post, and other taxes 316. Russian practice 
317. In Great Britain 318. Spain 319. France, and 
other countries 320. Exemption from billeting of soldiers 
321. Legation building not exempt from property tax 
322. Parochial rates in Great Britain 323. United 
States, conditions of reciprocity 324. Octroi, reciprocity 
not always possible 325. Rights of the members of the 

312. "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 
of goods intended for his private use." l 

It is held that this exemption extends to income tax. 
If so, a diplomatic agent would have to apply for a return 
of income tax on national debt bonds, stocks, shares and 
debentures on which the tax is deducted at the source. 
As it is better that he should not expose himself to the 
necessity of having to make application for repayment, 
it will be better to avoid any investments of the kind in 
the country where he is stationed as representative of 
his sovereign. 

313. Exemption from Customs Duties. 

' II y a plusieurs ministres qui abusent du 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" 

1 Hall, 6th edit., 183. 


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 joiiir des franchises qu'il trouvent e"tablies 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 etc" oblige" depuis quelques annees 
de regler ces droits de franchise pour tous les Ministres Etran- 
gers 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." J 

314. Bismarck said one day, a firopos of Morny 

' Wie der zum Gesandten in Petersburg ernannt worden 
war, kam er mit einer ganzen Reihe schoner, eleganten 
Wagen an, und alle Koffer, Kisten und Kasten von Spitzen 
und Seidenzeug und Damenputz, wofiir er als Botschafter 
keinen Zoll zu zahlen hatte. Jeder Diener hatte seinen 
eignen Wagen, jeder Attache" oder Secretar mindestens zwei, 
und er selber hatte wohl fiinf oder sechs, und wie er ein 
Paar Tage da war, verauctionirte er das Alles, Wagen und 
Spitzen und Modesachen. Er soil achtmal hundert tausend 
Rubel dabei verdient haben Er war gewissenlos aber liebens- 
wiirdig er konnte wirklich sehr liebenswiirdig sein." 2 

Let us hope that this story is at least an exaggeration. 

315. On his arrival at his post his baggage will usually 
not be examined by the Customs officials. 

;< En vertu d'une coutume qui varie, et qui est, en certain 
pays, consacre"e par la loi, et a moins de suspicion motived 
de fraude, on ne visite pas leurs effets a la douane. 

:< En revanche et sauf dispenses conventionnelles spe"ciales, 
ils payent comme tout le monde les impots fonciers et autres 
charges reelles pour les immeubles qu'ils possedent dans le 
pays; les contributions municipales imposes a 1'habitant 
comme tel ; les imp6ts indirects frappant les objets de con- 
sommation qu'ils achetent dans le pays ; les droits qui ont le 
caractere d'une remuneration due a 1'Etat ou a la commune, 

1 Callidres, 163. a Busch, ii. 279. 


ou des particuliers, pour des objets a 1'usage desquels 
1'agent participe : peages de chaussees et de ponts, taxes 
telegraphiques, 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'enregistrement." * 


316. Russia. All members of the corps diplomatique 
are allowed to introduce their movables duty-free, and to 
receive those which may be addressed to them during 
the first year of their residence in Russia upon the same 
terms. 2 

317. Great Britain. 

i. The privilege accorded to the heads of foreign missions, 
accredited to Great Britain from foreign Powers, to receive 
free of duty articles imported for their private use is not 
held to be in the nature of a right, but to spring from 
the courtesy of the Government to which the foreign 
representative is accredited. The general course of pro- 
ceeding may be stated to be as follows : Heads of Missions 
whose appointment has been notified by the Foreign Office 
to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury are 
treated with the usual respect in the examination of their 
baggage and effects, and such articles as are for their private 
use, and which personages of their rank may be supposed to 
require for domestic purposes, are passed duty free ; but 
with respect to wine, spirits, and cigars or tobacco, under the 
following limitations : in the case of an Ambassador the 
quantity of wine is limited to one tun or 252 gallons, a 
Minister or Charge d'affaires being allowed half that quantity. 
The quantity of spirits is limited to 10 gallons, and the 
quantity of cigars or manufactured tobacco must not exceed 
5 Ib. in weight. Secretaries of Embassy or Legation and 
attache's are not allowed articles duty free. 

2. As regards articles brought for or sent to the Head of a 
foreign Mission at any time subsequent to his arrival in 
this country : 

(a) All bags or packages brought by a messenger and 
claimed by him as containing despatches are passed without 
delay free of search, unless there should be good grounds for 
supposing that any abuse of the privilege was taking place, 

1 Rivier, 503. 8 Phillimore, ii. 208. 


in which case an officer of Customs would be directed to 
accompany the messenger to the residence of the Ambassador, 
Minister, or Charge d'affaires, to impart such opinion to him, 
and, with his consent, to be present at the opening of the 

(b) Packages for foreign Ambassadors, Ministers, or Charges 
d'affaires, arriving by messenger and not claimed as contain- 
ing despatches, and packages arriving on freight, are, as a 
rule, sent to the Custom House, London. The officials there 
inform the Head of the Mission of its arrival, and on a written 
application, signed by him, to the Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs, which is transmitted to the Customs by the 
Secretary of State with a covering letter, the goods are 
delivered free of duty, under standing Treasury authority, 
to the Head of the Mission, or to his Agent, a Customs officer 
being sent in charge if the goods carry a high rate of duty. 
But packages are sent direct to the Head of a Mission from 
the port of arrival, if he specially desires it, on receipt of the 
usual letter from the Secretary of State, a letter of advice 
being forwarded by the Customs at the same time. Packages 
arriving by post are, as soon as the letter from the Secretary 
of State is received, handed to the postal officials for delivery. 

Such packages are not opened at the custom-house. If 
the quantity of dutiable articles contained cannot be esti- 
mated, by external examination, with sufficient accuracy for 
the purposes of the record which is kept by the Customs, the 
information is obtained by that department from the Head 
of the Mission to whom the goods are delivered. 

Goods admitted free of duty under the foregoing con- 
ditions are exempted from Customs entry, and as such entry 
is the basis of the record of imports for statistical purposes, 
it follows that the goods are not included in the published 
Statistical Returns. 

3. In the case of foreign Representatives passing through this 


On the receipt of an order from the Lords of the Treasury 
only a slight examination of the Minister's private effects is 
made, and duty is not charged upon a moderate quantity of 
cigars, etc., for immediate use. 

4. In the case of foreign Representatives arriving after a 
temporary absence 

Under the authority of an Order of the Lords of the Treasury, 
dated May 18, 1887, the Representatives of foreign Powers in 
London have been furnished by the Commissioners of His 
Majesty's Customs with passes, on the production of which 


all baggage accompanied by and personal to a foreign Repre- 
sentative and his family and suite 'will be exempted from 
examination, and such passes are issued by the Board of 
Customs upon the appointment of a new Representative on 
application through the Foreign Office, the pass issued to his 
predecessor being returned to the Customs, and duly can- 
celled. The right of search is, however, maintained by His 
Majesty's Government. 

Foreign Office, 

January 1904. 

318. Spain. The diplomatic envoy and his suite 
are exempt from personal taxes in the country where 
they reside; but they have to satisfy those of the 
Customs and of municipal octroi, from which they are 
not dispensed except in virtue of an ancient custom 
which has established a precedent for permits (laisser- 
passer) and for the concession of exemptions to the 
Heads of Missions. 

In nearly all countries there is a limit to these exemp- 
tions, for the amount of duties remitted is in proportion 
to the category to which each Head of Mission belongs, 
but by a well-understood liberality, which does not 
injure the Customs revenue beyond an insignificant 
degree, the custom has become established that when 
the credit allowed to a diplomatic agent becomes ex- 
hausted it is immediately renewed, the result being that 
there is always enough for his requirements. 

At p. 331 of the work quoted will be found the forms 
in use for requesting a Customs pass. 

Exemption from municipal octroi is granted by way 
of reciprocity, and the same rules, generally speaking, 
are observed as in the case of Customs duties. 1 

319. France. The Head of a Mission applies for and 
receives exemption from Customs and octroi duties on 
goods consigned to him, but enjoys no such privilege in 
respect of octroi duties when entering Paris ; e. g. the 
petrol in his motor-car may be charged for. 

Castro y Casaleiz, ii. 39. 


Austria. At Vienna there is no exemption from octroi 

Portugal. At Lisbon the heads of missions are exempted 
from the payment of all Customs and octroi duties. 

Japan. At Tokio, for which the nearest port of entry 
is Yokohama, the Heads of Missions are allowed to import 
all articles, for their own use duty free. 

Germany. By a resolution of the Bundesrath of April 
29, 1872, the amount of duties to which the importations 
of diplomatists would be liable is charged to the State. 1 

Switzerland. By a decision of the Federal Council of 
February 20, 1891, Heads of Missions accredited to the 
confederation, as well as Charges d'affaires ad interim, are 
to enjoy freedom of entry without payment of Customs 
duties for all objects coming from abroad for their per- 
sonal use and that of their families, on condition of 
reciprocity on the part of the States which they represent. 

As regards the rest of the personnel, only the general 
regulations and commercial treaties have application. 
Further freedom of entry in particular cases is only 
allowed on condition of reciprocity. 

Such articles must pay the duties on importation, which 
will be refunded by the supreme direction of Customs. 

The Heads of Missions will present every quarter a 
list of the duties paid for which repayment is claimed, 
on a prescribed form, with a signed declaration and 
accompanied by receipts for the duties paid in. 2 

In many countries the duty-free importation of articles 
for the use of other members of the mission is tacitly 
allowed, provided the packages are addressed to the 
Head of the Mission. It is said that a bachelor ambas- 
sador once declined to sanction the use of his name for 
the importation of ball-dresses for the wife of a secretary, 
on the reasonable ground that no one could suppose that 
he had any use for such articles. 

1 Holtzendorf, iii. 659. 

2 G. F. de Martens, Nouv. Rec. Gen, 2 e serie, xviii. 241, 



320. The diplomatic agent is further exempt from 
having soldiers billeted on him. 

321. The building of the legation, if it is the property 
of the agent's Government, is not free from property tax 
(impot fonder) except in virtue of a special agreement, 
such as exists between Germany and France, and between 
Germany and Russia. 

322. PAROCHIAL RATES. In Great Britain, the member 
of a diplomatic mission, whose name has been furnished 
to the Foreign Office in accordance with the statute of 
7 Anne, c. 12, cannot be charged parochial rates. Such 
rate is recoverable only from the landlord of the house 
occupied by the member in question (35 Geo. III. c. 73, 
sect. 19). If the latter be a British subject, and, at the 
time his name is submitted, a condition is imposed that 
he shall remain subject to British civil jurisdiction, then 
he cannot claim this privilege. 1 But it is very unusual, 
perhaps quite unheard-of, to impose such a condition. 
In 1892, a circular was addressed by the Foreign Office 
to the Heads of Missions accredited to Great Britain, 
offering to extend to the Heads and bond fide members 
of the Mission (excluding honorary attaches and con- 
sular officers holding honorary diplomatic rank), on 
the condition of reciprocity, an arrangement by which 
the British Government undertook the payment of 
parochial rates of the following classes : Poor, Police, 
Baths and Wash-houses, Public Libraries and Museums, 
Burial Board, miscellaneous expenses such as salaries, 
printing, etc., and School Board, on condition that 
the Head of the Mission would undertake, on his own 
behalf and that of the members of his staff, to repay 
to the Foreign Office, on application, the parish rates 
in respect of main drainage, street improvements, fire 
brigade, etc.; street lighting, for cleansing and main- 

1 Macartney v. Garbutt and others, L.R.Q.B.D., xxiv. 368 
decided in 1890, 


taining the public streets, and general expenses under 
the Metropolitan Local Management Act, and the Vestry 
sewers rate. For it is held that exemption from local 
rates cannot be claimed as of right, and what is allowed 
in this respect is by way of comity. 

323. In the United States the rule, as stated by 
Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, in a despatch to Mr. 
Woolsey, April 15, 1886, is that 

" When a foreign legation occupies rented property in this 
country, the owner of the premises is not exempted from 
all lawful taxes ; the rule observed by this government with 
respect to taxation of property owned by a foreign government 
and occupied as its legation, is to accord reciprocity in regard 
to general taxation, but not to specially exempt it from local 
assessments, such as water rent and the like, unless it were 
definitely understood that these taxes would also be exempted 
by the foreign government upon a piece of property belonging 
to the United States, and used for a like purpose by our own 
minister." 1 

324. The condition that reciprocity shall be accorded 
seems at first sight a reasonable one, but cannot always 
be resorted to in practice. Thus, in regard to octroi, 
which in some countries seems to be the means employed 
for raising local taxes, no exact reciprocity would be 
possible with Great Britain, where such revenue is 
obtained by means of municipal rates, and the levying 
of octroi is unknown. 

325. RIGHTS OF THE STAFF. The whole family (by 
which is to be understood the wife and children of the 
head of the mission) and the whole personnel of the 
mission share the privileges of inviolability, freedom from 
the local jurisdiction, and from direct taxes and imposts, 
but, on the other hand, the personnel enjoys no exemp- 
tion from indirect taxation ; only when a secretary acts 
temporarily as Charge d'affaires can he claim the latter, 
as it is now confined to Heads of Missions. 

* Hannis Taylor, 345. 



326. Cannot be entered by local authority 327. Case of 
Mickilchenkoff 328. Admiral Apodaca's servant 329. 
Gallatin's coachman 330. Right of Asylum, Ullmann on 
331. Hall's opinion 332. In South- American republics 
333- Pradier-Fodere's view 334. Convention between 
certain South- American States 335- Practice of other 
Powers Balmaceda case 336. French ambassador at 
Venice in 1540 337. French ambassador at Copenhagen 
in 1702 338. Case of Ripperda 339. Springer's case 
340. Franchise du Quartier 341. French case at Rome 
in 1660, Due de Crequi 342. French case at Madrid in 
1680 343. Renunciation of the right by various Powers 
344. French case at Rome in 1687 345. At Genoa in 
1759 ^346. Domicile of diplomatic agent. 

326. These immunities attach, no matter whether the 
house is the property of the agent's Government, or his 
own, or is merely rented by him. If he occupies a flat, 
presumably the common staircase is not privileged. 1 

No officer of the state, and in particular no police- 
officer, tax-collector or officer of a court of law, can make 
his way into the house, nor, without the consent of the 
diplomatic agent, discharge any official function therein. 
The inviolability of the house also extends to the carriage 
of the diplomatic agent. 

327. In 1867, a Russian subject, named Mickilchen- 
koff, or Nikitschenkow, having obtained admission into 
the Russian embassv in Paris, assaulted and wounded an 

j * 

attache, and the police, being applied to, entered the house 
and arrested him. The Russian Ambassador, who was 

1 By the Act of 13 and 14 Viet., c. 3 the Prussian minister was 
authorized to purchase a residence for his use (Hertslet, Com- 
mercial Treaties, viii. 866). An Act was necessary because, at 
that time, an alien could not acquire real property in England. 



absent at the time, having returned, demanded that the 
offender should be given up to him to be sent to Russia 
for trial. The French Government refused, urging that 
the principle did not cover the case of a stranger entering 
the embassy and there committing a crime, but, even if 
it did, the privilege had been waived by calling in the 
police. The Russian Government eventually admitted 
the jurisdiction of the French court, and the prisoner 
was tried by the local law. 

There are evidently cases in which the immunity of the 
agent's dwelling may cease to have effect : for instance, 
when it becomes necessary to arrest him and to search 
his papers. 

The immunity of the agent's dwelling extends also to 
those of his official staff. 1 

328. Case of Apodaca's Servant. In December 1808, 
Admiral Apodaca, diplomatic representative of the 
Supreme Junta of Seville, had occasion to complain to 
Canning that one of his Spanish servants had been 
arrested by a constable, of the Mary-le-bone parish force, 
who got into the house by the kitchen door, while another 
waited outside in the street. He had remonstrated with 
them for this violation of diplomatic privilege, but they 
replied (naturally enough) that they could only be guided 
by the warrant. Apodaca sent a secretary to the Foreign 
Office, but he was not able to find either Canning or 
Hammond, the under-secretary, which rendered it 
necessary for him to address a Note to Canning. In the 
meantime, the officers of justice consented to leave the 
servant in the house, a neighbour having gone bail for 
him. Apodaca declared that he had no objection to the 
servant being tried and convicted if he were guilty (it 
was on a charge of bastardy that the arrest had been 
attempted), but he protested against the violation of 
his diplomatic privilege, in arresting one of his ser- 
vants in his house without previous notice. Under these 

1 Nys, ii. 387. 


circumstances, in order to avoid all dispute and to pre- 
serve his rights, he begged Canning in a friendly manner 
to advise him how to proceed. 1 

The case was referred to the Chief Magistrate at Bow 
Street, who reported that the arrest did not take place 
upon any civil process, but on a charge of bastardy, 
and he doubted very much whether the arrest of an 
ambassador's servant under such circumstances con- 
stituted a breach of an ambassador's privilege. He ad- 
mitted that very little was to be found in the books, 
except where the arrest had been upon civil process, and 
he quoted Coke's Institutes, fol. 153, where it is said : 
" If an Ambassador committeth any crime which is 
contra jus gentium, as Treason, Felony, Adultery, or any 
other crime which is against the Law of Nations, he loseth 
the Dignity and Privilege of an Ambassador and may be 
punished here as any other private Alien, and need not 
be remanded back to his Sovereign, but of Curtesy." 
The constable who executed the warrant had been 
questioned, and was found to be ignorant whether the 
magistrate who granted the warrant was acquainted with 
the circumstance of the man complained against being 
an ambassador's servant. 2 

No reply from the Foreign Office to Apodaca's Note of 
December 22 has been found at the Public Record Office, 
but in his report to the Spanish Government he stated 
that the servant had been released, and that he had 
declared himself satisfied. 3 It seems probable that the 
magistrate's explanation was communicated to him 
verbally, and that some sort of apology was made for the 
entry into his house without his permission. 

329. Gallatin's Coachman. In this case, as in so many 
others, two questions were involved : (i) the immunity 
of a public minister's hotel; (2) the immunity of his 
servants from arrest and trial by the local courts. The 
whole of the documents do not appear to have been 

1 P.R.O., F.O., 72/67. 2 Ibid., 72/70. 3 Villa-Urrutia, i. 304. 


published before, and for this reason, instead of attempt- 
ing merely to summarize their contents, we prefer to 
reproduce the more important ones in their entirety. 

A. Substance of [verbal] communication from Mr. 
Laurence, private secretary to Mr. Gallatin, etc. 

F. O., May 12, 1827. 

Robert Vickery, Mr. Gallatin's coachman, was arrested 
in his Stable (on the nth May) on a charge of assault, by 
virtue of a Warrant from one of the Sitting Magistrates in 
Great Marlborough Street. 

On application to them by Mr. Laurence, they gave it as 
their opinion that the Act of Parliament (vii Anne ch. 12) 
applied only to civil writs and processes, and seemed to think 
the arrest might be made in the Stable, because it was, as 
is almost universal in London, detached from the Dwelling 

Mr. Gallatin has dismissed the Coachman and is very 
desirous not to be compelled to make an Official Application 
on a subject of this kind. 

Mr. Laurence is requested to enquire (i) Whether the Act 
above stated is, and has been, generally construed as applying 
only to civil processes 

(2) Whether, supposing this to be the case, it is not acknow- 
ledged as a general practice under the Law of Nations, that in 
cases at least of simple Misdemeanours, application is made 
in the first instance to the Minister, in order that servants 
may be dismissed or arrested. 

(3) Whether an arrest on any part ot the premises occupied 
by the Minister is not acknowledged in general to be an 
infraction of the usual Diplomatic Privileges extreme cases 
always excepted. 1 


F. O., May i8th, 1827. 

Draft. Mr. Laurence. 


Following the course adopted by Mr. Gallatin, in the 
notification respecting the arrest of his Servant, which I had 
the honour to receive from you in his name, I hasten to 
communicate to you in this unofficial form, for Mr. Gallatin's 
information, the result of the reference to the Law Officers 

1 P.R.O., F.O. 5/232. 


of the Crown, which was made by Lord Dudley's Directions, 
upon the Questions of Law arising out of the circumstances 
of that arrest. 

The Statute of the 7th Anne, cap. 16, [sic] has been con- 
sidered in all but the penal parts of it, as nothing more than a 
declaration of the Law of Nations ; and it is held, that neither 
that Law, nor any construction that can properly be put 
upon the Statute, extends to protect the mere Servants of 
Ambassadors from Arrest upon criminal charges ; altho' the 
Ambassador himself, and probably those who may be named 
in his Mission are by the best opinions, tho' not by the 
uniform practice of this Country, exempt from every sort of 
Arrest or Prosecution criminal and civil. 

Although it hence appears that the Officers of police, in 
executing the Magistrate's Warrant for the arrest of Mr. 
Gallatin's Coachman, have not exceeded their legal powers, it 
is nevertheless matter of much regret to Lord Dudley, that 
the mode in which they have discharged this duty should have 
been productive of any personal inconvenience to Mr. Gallatin, 
or have indicated any want of due consideration for his publick 
character and station. 

In order to mark the sense which Lord Dudley entertains 
of the impropriety of the proceedings of the Officers in this 
respect, and to prevent the recurrence of the like proceedings 
in future, His Lordship will take care that the Magistrates 
are apprized, through the proper channel, of the disapprobation 
of His Majesty's Govt. of the mode in which the Warrant 
was executed in the present instance, and are further informed 
of the expectation of H. M7* Govt. that, whenever a Servant 
of a Foreign Minister is charged with a misdemeanour, the 
Magistrate shall take proper measures for apprizing the 
Minister either by personal communication with him, or 
through the Foreign Office, of the fact of a Warrant being 
issued, before any attempt is made to execute it in order 
that the Minister's convenience and pleasure may be con- 
sulted as to the time and manner in which such Warrant shall 
be put in execution. 1 

C. The Undersigned, Minister of the United States, has the 
honour to pray Lord Viscount Dudley, His Majesty's Principal 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the enclosed list, 
which contains the names of his domestics, may be considered 
as supplementary to that of the persons belonging to the 
Mission of the United States, which he had transmitted on 
the i6th day of April last. 

Having always thought that the most proper course was 

1 P.R.O., P.O. 5/232. 


to dismiss any of his servants, who might be charged with any 
offence, or who should attempt to avail himself of his situa- 
tion to avoid the payment of his just debts, the Undersigned 
had not deemed it necessary to make a return of their names. 
But an incident, which has lately occurred and which is 
within Lord Dudley's knowledge, has shown that the omission 
might be attended with some inconvenience. 

The Undersigned has also the honour to enclose the copy of 
a note addressed to him on the 22nd instant by one of the 
Magistrates of Westminster, on receipt of which, he dismissed 
from his service the servant therein mentioned, as being 
charged with a breach of the peace. 

It is not believed that, with the proper feeling which now 
generally prevails on subjects of that kind, they can ever 
produce any serious difficulty. And it is understood, as a 
matter of course, that no greater immunities are claimed for 
His Majesty's Ministers abroad, than are allowed by His 
Majesty's Government to Ministers from foreign Countries. 

Yet having reason to believe that the Act of Congress, 
declaratory of the law of Nations on that subject, though 
nearly a transcript of the British Statute, has been construed 
to apply to criminal as well as to civil process, and in order 
to guard against any inference, which might be drawn from 
his silence, the Undersigned deems it his duty to say, that he 
is not prepared to admit, that the construction put by Great 
Britain on the law of Nations in that respect (and of which he 
presumes that the letter of Mr. Backhouse to Mr. Laurence, 
of the i8th instant, though unofficial, gives a fair exposition), 
accords either with the best opinions, or with the general 
practice of other nations. 

The Undersigned prays Lord Dudley to accept the renewed 
assurances of his high consideration. 


Upper Seymour Street, 
May 25th, 1827. 

The Right Honourable Lord Viscount Dudley, etc. 1 

D. [draft]. 

P. O., June 2/27. 

The Undersigned, etc., has the honour to acknowledge 
the receipt of the note of Mr. Gallatin, etc., of the 25th ult, 
enclosing, (i) a List containing the names of Mr. Gallatin's 
Domesticks, which he begs may be considered as supple- 
mentary to that of the Persons belonging to the Mission of 
the United States, which Mr. Gallatin transmitted to the 

1 P.R.O., P.O. 5/232. 


Foreign Office on the i6th of April last ; and (2) a Copy of a 
Note addressed to Mr. Gallatin by one of the Magistrates of 
Westminster, on the receipt of which Mr. Gallatin dismissed 
from his Service the servant therein mentioned, as being 
charged with a breach of the peace. 

The Undersigned has the honour to inform Mr. Gallatin 
that he has lost no time in transmitting the above-mentioned 
List of Domesticks to the Sheriff's Office. 

The Undersigned is not aware that it is necessary for him 
to make any reply to the observations contained in the latter 
part of Mr. Gallatin's Note, further than to confirm the state- 
ment contained in the private note of Mr. Backhouse referred 
to by Mr. Gallatin, as to the Law and practice of this Country 
upon the questions of privilege arising out of the recent 
Arrest of Mr. Gallatin's Coachman : and to supply an 
omission in that statement, with respect to the inviolability 
of the premises occupied by a Foreign Minister. 

The Undersigned is not aware of any instance, since the 
abolition of Sanctuary in England, where it has been held 
that any particular place was protected from the intervention 
of criminal process ; and he is not of opinion that the premises 
occupied by an Ambassador are entitled to such a privilege 
by the Law of Nations. 

The Undersigned, however, considers it to be most agreeable 
to the spirit of that Law, at the same time that it is most 
consistent with the courtesy which the British Gov*. is 
always anxious to show to the Ministers of Foreign States 
residing in this Country, that their houses should not be entered 
without their permission being first solicited, in cases where 
no urgent necessity presses for the immediate caption of an 
offender ; and he trusts that the Instructions which have been 
given to the Magistrates, will effectually preclude the omission 
of such courtesy in any case which may arise hereafter. 1 

No one who is acquainted with the history of the 
incident which led to the enactment of the Statute of 
Anne will suppose that it was intended to be declaratory 
of the whole of an ambassador's privileges. The Govern- 
ment was anxious to propitiate Peter the Great, who had 
been offended at the arrest for debt of his ambassador 
in London, and besides instructing Lord Whit worth to 
present an apology, caused this Act of Parliament to be 
passed. It is doubtful whether modern Law Officers 

1 P.R.O., F.O. 5/232. 


would take the same view of International Law on the 
subject as is attributed to their predecessors in Mr. 
Backhouse's private letter of May 18 to Mr. Laurence. 
As for Lord Dudley's reference to the abolition of sanctu- 
ary, 1 it must be confessed that it does not seem to bear 
at all on the question of the immunity of a public 
minister's hotel from entry by the local authorities. 
Hall's opinion is this 

" It is agreed that the house of a diplomatic agent is so far 
exempted 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 disregarding 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 irrespectively of his leave, or whether a 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."* 

Against this may be set the view of Dr. Hannis Taylor. 
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," he proceeds 
thus to define the 

;< Immunity of envoy'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 compulsory 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 conse- 

1 21 Jac. i, c. 28, Sects. 6, 7, 6 repeals all acts previously 
passed regarding sanctuary, and 7 enacts that no sanctuary or 
privilege of sanctuary shall hereafter be permitted or allowed. 

2 Internal. Law, 6th edit., 178-9. 

VOL. I. U 


quence 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, 
Sec. of State, to Mr. Shields, March 22, 1848)." 1 

It cannot be expected that diplomatic privileges should 
be defined by International Law or Custom with the 
exactness of Statute Law. Their enjoyment must in 
the last resort be regulated by considerations of inter- 
national courtesy exercised by the Government of the 
receiving state, and tactfulness in maintaining them on 
the part of the diplomatic agent. It must be admitted 
that in this instance the American minister displayed 
that quality in the highest degree. 2 

330. Right of Asylum. 3 By modern conceptions of 
this right, its exercise in favour of a fugitive criminal is 
excluded. He cannot, however, be taken out of the 
agent's house, if the latter refuse to deliver him up. In 
such a case the local authorities must confine themselves 
to surrounding the house so as to prevent the escape of 
the fugitive. The Government of the state to which the 
agent is accredited may complain to his own Government, 
and demand his recall, which no doubt would be accorded, 
or they might send him his passports. Neither can the 
carriage of the agent serve as a refuge. 

331. It is a well-established doctrine in Europe 4 that 
political refugees may not be harboured, but in Spain, 
during the civil war between Christines and Carlists, 
again in 1848, and between the years 1865 and 1875, the 
practice was observed. From the correspondence re- 
specting Mr. Bulwer's dismissal by the Spanish Govern- 
ment in 1848 ( 423) it appears that the Duque de Soto- 
mayor acknowledged to him that it was the custom in 
Spain for foreign heads of missions to afford asylum to 
persons pursued on account of political offences ; that all 

1 313- 

2 Cf. also Rivier, 500, and J. W. Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 

165. 3 Ullmann, p. 184. 4 Hall, 182. 


Spanish governments had allowed it, and all diplomatic 
agents had practised it, but he said that this custom had 
its limits. History shows that in 1841 certain con- 
spirators having stormed the royal palace in Madrid, 
the Danish Charge d'affaires gave them asylum, and in 
1846, when their party was in power, it manifested its 
appreciation of his conduct by conferring on him the title 
of Baron del Asilo. Sotomayor himself was one of those 
who in 1841 had enjoyed protection at the Danish 
legation. But in 1848 the police entered this same 
diplomatist's house to search for Sefior Salamanca, who 
in company with Sotomayor had been received there on 
the former occasion. 

332. In South American republics asylum has often 
been sought at foreign legations by political refugees, as, 
for instance, in May 1865, by General Canseco, who found 
refuge in the house of the American minister at Lima. 
Difficulties having arisen in connexion with this affair, 
the foreign diplomatic body met, and agreed on the 
following points : (i) Apart from the instructions on this 
head which might be given to agents by their govern- 
ments and from treaty stipulations, there were limits 
to the right of asylum which prudence would counsel. 
(2) The instructions given by the Brazilian Government 
to their minister, which prescribed the greatest reserve 
in granting asylum, and that it should be limited to the 
time necessary for the refugee to obtain safety in some 
other manner. 

After the revolution of November 6 of the same year, 
four ex-ministers of the administration which had been 
overthrown found refuge in the French legation, without 
the official knowledge of the new Government. Their 
arrest having been ordered by the Central Court, the 
French consul, M. Vion, in temporary charge of the 
legation, refused to surrender them. In the meantime 
he had referred home for instructions. M. Drouyn de 
Lhuys in reply stated that the right of asylum was too 


much in conformity with feelings of humanity for France 
to consent to abandon it, but that it was solely requisite 
to facilitate the departure from the country of persons 
who could not remain there without personal danger and 
danger to the country itself. He pointed out that the 
agreement of the previous month of May led to the con- 
clusion that the practice of according asylum constituted 
in America an immunity universally recognized by 
diplomatic usage, provided that it was restrained within 
the limits which prudence and good faith (loyaute) 
naturally enjoin on foreign agents, and he drew attention 
to the fact that the agreement alluded to had received 
the concurrence, not only of the European representatives, 
but also of a large majority of the agents of American 
States : namely, those of the United States, Brazil, Chile, 
Bolivia and Guatemala. M. Vion had been consequently 
fully authorized to make use of the privilege, of which the 
existence had been sanctioned by such recent declara- 
tions. With regard to the demand for the surrender of 
the persons in question, he added that M. Vion was all 
the more justified in his refusal, since neither usage nor 
treaty allowed a diplomatic agent to extradite any one 
of his own authority, without first informing his Govern- 
ment of the demand, and receiving from it special 

M. de Lesseps, the French Charge d'affaires, in com- 
municating this answer from M. Drouyn de Lhuys to 
the Peruvian Government, insisted on the desirability of 
laying down definitely the doctrine on this matter, and 
of signing an agreement which would establish the practice 
of this " South- American " law (droit] in order to avoid 
difficulties and mistakes for the future. He consequently 
proposed to the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs, 
in his character of ex-officio president of the diplomatic 
body, to call its members together and propose to it the 
consideration of the question. 

M. de Lesseps' proposal was made on April 24, 1866, 


and the meeting of the diplomatic body took place on 
January 15, 1867. 

At this meeting, presided over by M. Pacheco, Peruvian 
minister for Foreign Affairs, there were present the 
diplomatic agents of Great Britain, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, 
Italy and France. 

M. Pacheco stated that the United States minister, 
being unable to be present, had sent his opinion in 
writing. He argued against the right of asylum, which, 
according to his view, had been introduced into Peru and 
other American republics, contrary to principles every- 
where recognized, and on the pretext of a pretended 
humanity. He concluded, therefore, in favour of a 
return to the general law, i. e. the abolition of the right 
of asylum. 

M. de Lesseps pointed out that this was not the object 
of the meeting, which was the discussion of the rules to 
be laid down in connexion with the right of asylum, and 
not its abolition. He declared that in any case it would 
be necessary to refer to the respective governments. In 
face of this declaration the conference was adjourned. 

The written opinion of the United States minister was 
to the following effect : Peru is admitted to all the rights 
and privileges of a Christian nation ; and as such it ought 
to be placed in the situation of the United States of 
America, of Great Britain, of France and other Christian 
nations. Now, among these nations the doctrine of 
asylum could only be properly maintained if it was a 
question of protection against mob-violence. He de- 
clared, therefore, that as soon as a legal charge was 
brought, whether for a political offence (delii] or other- 
wise, he considered it to be the duty of the diplomatic 
agent in whose legation the refugee had sought asylum, 
to surrender him to the local authority which asked for 
his arrest. He cited, in support of his opinion, Wheaton, 
Woolsey and Poison. He recalled that this was the 
practice followed by the United States, and that as long 


as he represented his country he would claim from Peru 
no right which his own Government would not accord to 
the Peruvian representative at Washington. 

The sitting of January 15, 1867, was followed by 
interviews and demarches, which rendered it clearer than 
ever that the diplomatic body was not minded to accept 
the Peruvian proposal to abolish the right of asylum in 
the legations, while the Peruvian minister for Foreign 
Affairs was equally determined to obtain its suppression. 

On January 29 a fresh conference was held, presided 
over by M. Pacheco, and attended by the Ministers of 
Bolivia, the United States, Chile, Brazil, Italy, France 
and Great Britain. The Chilian and Bolivian repre- 
sentatives held the view that the right of asylum should 
not be abolished, but that rules should be framed to 
provide against its abuse. The Brazilian Minister opined 
that abolition would tend to destroy diplomatic im- 
munities. He pointed out that revolutions had always 
brought with them the right of asylum, in Spain, in 
Portugal, in Italy, and even in other countries, on the 
occasion of the revolution of 1848. The United States 
Minister held that the members of the diplomatic body 
had no right to lay down new rules of international law. 
He insisted that in the United States, France and England 
the right of asylum was no longer in discussion, and that 
it was a principle of elementary justice not to claim for 
one's self what one was not ready to grant to others. 

M. Pacheco maintained that the framing of ruks was 
surrounded by such difficulties that they would multiply 
disputes instead of getting rid of them, and that the only 
solution was to return to general law ; there was no reason 
why Peru and other American republics should be placed 
in a different situation from other civilized nations; 
that up to that time no acts of ferocity had been com- 
mitted to justify the necessity of the right, etc. 

The conference of January 29 had no better result 
than its predecessor. M. Pacheco had prepared a memo- 


randum on the subject, which was not read, but it was 
agreed that this should be sent to the doyen for com- 
munication to his colleagues. This document after 
citing a great number of writers on international law, and 
arguing that the right of asylum was not necessary, that 
it must, if admitted, be reciprocal, that it was a custom 
already abolished in Europe, that it had been made use 
of to withdraw individuals from ordinary prosecutions 
and even to enable them to escape civil obligations, and 
that it amounted to an attack on the sovereignty and 
independence of the nation announced that 

(1) The Government would no longer recognize diplo- 
matic asylum such as had been practised in the past. They 
would only recognize it within the limits assigned by the 
law of nations, which were sufficient for the solution of 
questions which might arise in exceptional cases. 

(2) As diplomatic asylum existed in the South American 
states, and Peru was admitted to enjoy it for her legations 
in those states, she renounces this privilege as far as she 
is concerned, from the moment that she refuses it to the 
legations of those states in her territory. 

The United States minister accepted the conclusions 
of the Peruvian Government in all their extent. Those 
of Bolivia and Chile reserved their answer, and referred 
to their governments. The Brazilian minister observed 
that the opinions of a larger or smaller number of authors 
could not have the force of a positive law capable of 
annulling privileges and immunities universally recognized 
as belonging to public ministers, and added that all 
the authors quoted by M. Pacheco had spoken only of 
criminals or malefactors, and that some even of them had 
hesitated between recognition and denial of the right of 
asylum as regarded persons of those classes. 

333- M. Pradier-Fodere (from whom the preceding 
account of the question is taken) x holds the view that 
diplomatic asylum in such cases should be maintained, 

1 ii. 79-91- 


but restricted, be governed by rules, and be purged of the 
abuses which constitute a trespass on the sovereignty of 
states. And he quotes Calvo's words on the matter- 

" II serait sans doute a desirer que chaque gouvernement 
determinat avec precision 1'etendue qu'il entend reconnaitre 
a 1'exercice de ce qu'on appelle le droit d'asile; mais tant 
qu'aucune regie fixe n'aura ete etablie sur ce point, pn^ ne 
saurait se guider en cette matiere que d'apres des considera- 
tions generates d'humanite et le sentiment des justes egards 
que les nations se doivent les unes aux autres. Nous ad- 
mettons done qu'au milieu des troubles civils qui surviennent 
dans un pays 1'hotel d'une legation puisse et doive meme 
offrir un abri assur6 aux hommes politiques qu'un danger de 
vie force a s'y refugier momentan^ment. 

II nous serait facile de citer plus d'un exemple pour prouver 
qu'en Europe aussi bien qu'en Am6rique le droit d'asile ainsi 
pratiqud a invariablement ete respect6. Par contre, comme 
nous 1'avons deja etabli pour les batiments de guerre, il nous 
parait contraire & tous les principes de droit international 
d'etendre I'exterritorialitd aux personnes coupables de crimes 
ordinaires et regulieremen t condamnees par les tribunaux civils. 
Pour des crimes de cette sorte 1'asile etranger ou diplomatique 
ne saurait exister ; et s'il est vrai que me'me dans ce cas 1'hotel 
d'une legation ne puisse etre viole, il est certain egalement 
que 1'agent diplomatique manquerait a tous ses devoirs en 
ne livrant pas spontanement ou & la premiere requisition le 
coupable qui, abusivement, se r6fugie chez lui." 

334. In 1889, a convention respecting international 
criminal law was concluded between Uruguay, Argentina, 
Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru, 2 by Article 17 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 immedi- 
ately to acquaint the Government of the State to which 
he is accredited with the fact, which can demand that 
the refugee shall be sent out of the national territory with 
as little delay as possible. The Head of the Mission 
can demand in his turn the necessary guarantees for the 
refugee being allowed to leave the territory without 

1 1521. 

z Leyes usuales de la Republica Oriental del Uruguay, 515. 


interference. 1 The same principle is to be observed with 
respect to refugees who have found asylum on board 
vessels of war lying in territorial waters. But this article 
only applies as between the contracting parties. 2 

335- 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, on August 28 as many as eighty were 
received in the United States legation, as many more 
at that of Spain, five at the French, two at the German, 
eight at the Brazilian legation. 3 The defeated President 
of Chile, Jose" Maria Balmaceda, was received at the 
Argentine legation on the downfall of his administration, 
but his surrender having been demanded by his victorious 
opponents, he committed suicide three weeks later, 
rather than place his host in a position of difficulty. 
Chile had not signed the convention above quoted, 
though its delegates to Montevideo are said to have 
approved it. By October 8 most of the refugees had 
left, and there remained only fifteen in the United States 
legation, one in the German and five at the Spanish 
legation. According to a memorandum drawn up by 
the United States minister, Mr. Patrick Egan, of an inter- 
view on October 3 with the Chilian Minister for Foreign 
Affairs, Don Manuel A. Matta, the latter fully admitted 
that the United States legation had legitimately afforded 
asylum to the refugees. Safe-conducts to leave the 
country were, however, refused, and the same attitude 
was officially maintained by Matta's successor, Don Luis 
Pereira, but he undertook to assure the American minister 
that if they went quietly down to Valparaiso they should 
not be molested. In consequence, Mr. Egan escorted 

1 Alvarez, 73. 

2 These treaties were ratified by the contracting states at 
various times between 1889 and 1903 (ibid., 107). 

3 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1891. 


the five remaining refugees to the port, and the Spanish 
minister accompanied the two who were still left at his 
legation on the same occasion. They engaged passages, 
some to Montevideo in the British steamer John Elder, 
others to Iquique on board the Punto, but as no assurance 
could be obtained that they would be free from arrest 
if the vessels by which they travelled put into Chilean 
ports, they eventually sailed, on January 19, 1892, for 
Callao, on board the United States cruiser Yorktown. 

It appears from the correspondence that the American 
President approved the action of Mr. Egan, and he was 
instructed that " the right of asylum having been tacitly, 
if not expressly, allowed to other foreign legations, and 
having been exercised by our minister with the old 
Government in the interest and for the safety of the 
adherents of the party now in power, the President cannot 
but regard the application of a new rule, accompanied 
by acts of disrespect 1 to our legation, as the manifestation 
of a most unfriendly spirit." The minister was directed 
to furnish a copy of this instruction to the Chilian Minister 
for Foreign Relations. 

336. An early case of refusal to recognize the right 
of asylum in favour of political criminals occurred in 
1540, when the house of the French Ambassador at 
Venice was forcibly entered; he had given asylum to 
certain Venetian traitors in return for their disclosing 
to him the instructions of Bodmer, Venetian envoy to 
Constantinople, to treat for peace. 2 

337. In 1702, there was a dispute on a similar case 
between the Comte de Chamailli, French Ambassador at 
Copenhagen, and Schested, Cabinet Minister of the King 
of Denmark. A certain Comte de Schlieben, who had 
been arrested on a charge of embezzling money advanced 
to him for recruiting a regiment for the Danish service, 
escaped from his guards, who pursued him to the vicinity 

1 Arrest of persons leaving or visiting the legation. 
? Flassan, ii. 8; Wicquefort, i. 414. 


of the French embassy. Chamailli's servants turned out, 
and rescued him from the guards, and the Ambassador, 
appearing at a window, told them that Schlieben was 
under his protection. On that they withdrew. Chamailli 
had a proces-verbal drawn up, in which he included the 
depositions of the Danish guards and of the sentinels 
at his door, and wrote to Schested to demand satisfaction 
for violation of the respect due to his residence. Schested 
answered by a letter, to which Chamailli returned an 
insolent reply. He was recalled shortly afterwards, 
and a secretary was left in charge of the French 
embassy. 1 

338. Case of Ripperda. Duke Jean-Guillaume de 
Ripperda was a Dutch officer in the employment of the 
States-General, and afterwards their Minister Plenipoten- 
tiary at Madrid. 2 Here he gained the confidence of 
Philip V, who took him into his service as minister of 
Finance and Foreign Affairs, and created him a duke. 
He owed his promotion and the power he had acquired 
to his successful negotiation of an understanding between 
the Emperor and the Catholic king. But after he became 
a minister he veered round, opposed the policy of the 
Emperor and bestowed his confidence on the British and 
Dutch representatives. The Imperial Ambassador suc- 
ceeded in inducing the king to deprive Ripperda of the 
department of finance, on which he resigned his other 
offices, and, taking alarm at the readiness with which his 
resignation was accepted, fled for refuge to the house of 
the British Ambassador, William Stanhope (afterwards 
the first Lord Harrington), during the temporary absence 
of the latter (May 15, 1726). Stanhope was not very 
pleased at the advantage thus taken of his good nature, 
and in order to put himself right with the King, asked for 
an audience, at which he related what had passed between 
Ripperda and himself, and gave an assurance that he 
would not allow Ripperda to leave the embassy until 
1 Flassan, iv. 232. 2 C. de Martens, i. 


he had given up some important state papers alleged to 
be in his possession. Immediately afterwards soldiers 
were posted in the vicinity of the embassy, with orders 
to examine all persons and carriages issuing from it. 
Stanhope at once communicated with the other Ambas- 
sadors, in order to procure their help in opposing this 
proceeding, contrary to the rights and privileges of the 
diplomatic body. The Spanish Court, however, began to 
regret that it had not from the first accused Ripperda of 
some common crime, in which case Stanhope would not 
have given him asylum. It addressed letters to Stanhope, 
urging him to prevail on Ripperda to quit the embassy 
and rely on the precautions which the king had promised 
to take for his protection against possible outrage on the 
part of the populace. But Stanhope came to the con- 
clusion that the intention was to arrest Ripperda as soon 
as he quitted the roof of the embassy, and ceased to urge 
him to leave. In the end, the Spanish Government de- 
cided to call the Council of Castile together, and to submit 
to it the question " whether, without a violation of the 
Law of Nations, the right existed of carrying off from 
the house occupied by the Ambassador of Great Britain, 
the Duke of Ripperda whom His Majesty had dismissed 
from his service, and who had taken refuge with the 
minister in question." 

The Council decided that the Duke had been guilty 
of l&se-majeste and that the King could take him by 
force from the embassy, without thereby infringing in 
the slightest the privileges accorded to Ambassadors, and 
consequently without violating the Law of Nations. 

Thereupon two officers at the head of a body of sixty 
soldiers were sent at an early hour to the embassy, with 
orders to enter as soon as the doors were open, and to 
deliver to Stanhope a letter informing him of the intention 
to seize Ripperda and all the papers found in his posses- 
sion, but to show all proper respect to the Ambassador 
and not to use violence towards Ripperda, except in case 


the Ambassador refused to deliver him up, or an attempt 
was made to resist his arrest. Stanhope, seeing that his 
house was already entered by armed soldiers, and that he 
must yield to force, confined himself to a formal protest 
against the disregard of what was due to his official 
character and privileges. Ripperda was arrested and 
his papers seized without any violence or disorder on the 
part of the Ambassador's servants. 1 

On the affair being reported to the British Government 
by the Ambassador, and the Spanish Ambassador in 
London, Marquis de Pozzobueno, having also communi- 
cated a circular in which his Government set forth their 
view of the matter, the Duke of Newcastle addressed 
to Pozzobueno a Note on June 20, pointing out that the 
despatch of soldiers to the embassy to seize Ripperda, 
without previously communicating the decision of the 
Council of Castile to Stanhope, and waiting to see what 
effect it produced on his resolution not to dismiss his 
guest, was wrong, as only an extreme necessity could 
justify the violation of the immunities of an Ambassador's 
house, and he expressed the hope that the Catholic King 
would see that it was to his own interest to make the 
necessary reparation. 

Stanhope wrote again to the King of Spain on Sep- 
tember 25, expressing the surprise of King George that 
satisfaction had not yet been given for the insult to his 
embassy, to which the Spanish minister replied that the 
King saw no reason to concern himself further about the 
affair, nor to enter into any arrangement in respect of 
it. The correspondence between the two Courts on other 
matters became more and more embittered, until finally 
hostilities broke out in the following year. Peace was 
not restored until the signature of the Treaty of Seville 

1 C. de Martens, i. 195. It appears from the Spanish Circular 
of May 25, 1726, that the privilege of asylum at foreign embassies 
covered common-law crimes (delits communs] in Spain, at least, 
though not in all countries, but was not held to extend to political 


on November 9, 1729, in Article I of which compact it 
was stipulated that there should be "an oblivion of all 
that is past." * 

Ripperda escaped from his confinement at Segovia in 
1728, and made his way in succession to Portugal, 
Holland and England. He ended in Morocco, and died 
at Tetuan in 1737. 

339. In 1747, a Russian subject named Springer, 
domiciled at Stockholm, was accused of high treason 
against the King of Sweden, but before delivery of his 
sentence succeeded in making his escape and in taking 
refuge in the house of Colonel Guy Dickens, the British 
Minister. 2 Thereupon a watch was placed upon the 
legation, and a request was made for the extradition of 
the fugitive. After considerable discussion between the 
Swedish Government and the British Minister, the latter 
consented to surrender the man, but protested against 
the violation of the Law of Nations and of the privileges 
of diplomatists which he alleged had been committed, 
declaring that he only yielded to the threat of force being 
used if he refused. 

Guy Dickens sent a circular letter to his colleagues, in 
which he admitted that he had seen and recognized 
Springer the very day on which he had entered the 
legation, but defended the view he had taken of the affair, 
and especially on the ground that Springer was an 
innocent person, accused unjustly. This document found 
its way into the foreign press, and led to a circular from 
the Swedish ministry to the diplomatic body at Stock- 
holm, justifying the proceedings to which recourse had 
been had, and protesting against Colonel Dickens' pre- 
tensions to constitute himself a judge of Springer's guilt 
or innocence. Guy Dickens, having reported the whole 
matter to London, received instructions 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 
1 Jenkinson, ii. 307. 2 Ch. de Martens, i. 326. 


Minister cught to enjoy the right of asylum, so long as 
the right was not abolished by mutual consent, and that 
a legation house cannot be violated, even when the 
extradition of a criminal is refused, the only resource 
open to the Government of the country being to complain 
to the Sovereign of whom the Minister is the diplomatic 
representative. He was to ask that the King would 
examine into the conduct of his ministers, and accord 
satisfaction as open and manifest as the outrages and 
violence practised towards him had been public. He 
concluded by reiterating a demand previously made for 
the punishment of an insult offered by the night-watch 
to his house and servants some months previously, for 
which no satisfaction had yet been obtained. 

The Swedish Government then instructed the King's 
Minister in London to present a memoir e in reply to the 
British Secretary of State, denying the assertions of 
Colonel Dickens as to the treatment he had experienced 
in the Springer case, and insisting on satisfaction for the 
insulting manner in which he had, in his memorial under 
reply, attempted to draw a distinction between the acts 
of the Swedish ministers and the orders of the King. The 
memoire also discussed at length the complaints about 
the denial of redress in connexion with the alleged insult 
by the night-watch, and asserted that Colonel Dickens 
was himself to blame for any failure to obtain satisfaction, 
because he had refused to allow his servants to testify 
until the persons accused by him were thrown into prison. 
It wound up by saying that the King of Sweden had 
nothing more at heart than to afford to the King of 
England on all occasions every possible mark of attention, 
and desired nothing else than to see at his Court, in the 
place of Colonel Guy Dickens, a minister who could render 
a faithful account of his sentiments to His Britannic 

The end was that Colonel Dickens was instructed to 
quit Stockholm as soon as possible without taking leave 


of the King, and the Swedish Minister in London received 
similar orders in consequence. 

340. Franchise du Quartier. This expression covers 
two privileges formerly asserted by Ambassadors in several 
countries : namely, the right to prevent the arrest of 
persons dwelling in the vicinity of their embassy houses, 
and the exemption from octroi-tax of supplies brought in, 
nominally for their use. These practices were accom- 
panied by serious abuses. Sismondi says 

" 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 f aisaient un depot de contre- 
bande pour toutes les marchandises sujettes a quelques 
taxes." * 

341. A case of this sort, in which France became 
involved, occurred in 1660, during the pontificate of 
Alexander VII. 2 On June 21, two or three constables 
went to arrest for debt a trader lodged near the palace 
of the Cardinal d'Este, who was cardinal comprotecteur 3 
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 privilege of the 
Cardinal's palace did not extend as far as was asserted, 
ordered the chief of police to proceed to the trader's 

1 xxv. 552. 

2 Fabio Chigi, who had been Mediator at the Congress of 

3 He was a relative of the Dukes of Modena. The protecteur 
attitrt was Cardinal Antonio Barberini. 


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 more, and 
rescued the prisoner. The Cardinal, apprehensive 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 nevertheless the affair was hushed up 
by the intervention of Cardinals Barberini and Pio, the 
Pope consenting to grant absolution for the offence. 

Cardinal d'Este, besides being comprotecteur of French 
affairs, had a commission to support the claim of the 
Dukes of Parma and Modena to certain domains annexed 
to the chambre apostolique, which he had pushed with 
all the haughtiness of a Minister speaking in the name 
of a powerful monarch and with the zeal of a man work- 
ing for the interest of his family. He felt that he was 
disliked by the Pope, and the latter, who did not love 
him at all, was not disposed to listen to his solicitations 
in the affair of the Dukes. On the contrary, he wrote to 
the French Court, urging the necessity of appointing an 
Ambassador. Louis XIV selected for this office the Due 
de Crequi, a noble of high rank, but unfitted by his pro- 
fession as a soldier for the peaceful duties of a diplo- 
matist. Before leaving Paris he had offered to call on 
the nuncio Piccolomini, and had demanded that the 
latter, contrary to usage, should give him the seat of 
honour (lui donner la main] in his own house, on the 
ground of his being due et pair. Piccolomini, in order to 
avoid the question of etiquette, proposed a meeting at 
the house of a third party, which Crequi declined. On 
arriving at Rome, he refused to pay the first visit to 
the Pope's relations. Several Roman nobles attached to 
the interests of the French court, represented to him the 
propriety of complying with this usage, but in vain. 

The King, however, on being informed of this matter, 
VOL. i. x 


ordered Crequi to satisfy the Pope, and he had to call 
on the Papal nephews. But as this civility was per- 
formed with reluctance, far from bringing about a good 
understanding, it only served to increase the mutual 
coldness. At last, on August 20, 1662, a scene took 
place which led to an open rupture between the two 
Courts, and nearly caused a war, in spite of the inequality 
between the forces of the two states. On that day some 
Frenchmen belonging to the Ambassador's suite quarrelled 
with soldiers of the Corsican regiment of papal guards 
and beat them. The alarm having been given to the 
barracks, 400 Corsican soldiers fell upon all the French- 
men they met, and drove them to the palace of the 
Ambassador, who happened to be at home. On hearing 
a great tumult and the firing of musket shots, he came 
out on his balcony to ascertain the cause of the row, 
and, the irritation of the Corsicans being very great, some 
of them fired at the balcony. Later in the day, a troop 
of them falling in with the Ambassadress's carriage as she 
was returning home, fired at it, killed a page who rode at 
the carriage door, and wounded two or three of the escort. 

As soon as Don Mario was informed of these occurrences 
he sent one of his gentlemen to disavow the proceedings 
and to express his regret, but the Due de Crequi, regarding 
the incident as a consequence of the hostility of the 
Pope's relations, would scarcely listen to the message. 
The culprits fled during the night, and their escape was 
attributed to the connivance of Cardinal Imperial!, 
governor of the city. 

On the following day the Pope summoned a consistory, 
from which the French and Spanish cardinals absented 
themselves. He deplored the unhappy events of the 
preceding day, and immediately despatched a courier 
with letters for the King, in which he endeavoured to 
soothe the wrath of the latter. The Due de Crequi, on 
his side, was not idle. He sent off to Paris an account 
of the business which no doubt differed a good deal from 


that furnished by the Roman Court. Moreover, he armed 
all his people, as well as a large number of other persons, 
and never stirred out of doors without a considerable 
guard. The Pope, annoyed at precautions which he 
regarded as offensive, begged the Duke to disarm his men, 
but without success. The Ambassador declared that he 
had been forced to take this measure for his own safety. 

When Crequi's report reached Paris, the King held a 
grand council, at the conclusion of which the Comte de 
Brienne, a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, called 
on the nuncio, whom he required in the King's name to 
leave on the following morning for Meaux, and to remain 
there until further orders, acquainting him that this step 
was necessary in order to guarantee his person from an 
accident similar to what had befallen the French Am- 
bassador at Rome. The nuncio replied that he desired 
first to be heard, and he went to Court the same night 
for that purpose. He was unable to see any one but 
the under-secretary Lionne, to whom he expressed the 
bitter regret of the Pope at what had occurred, informing 
him at the same time of the order given by His Holiness 
for the punishment of the guilty persons. He then, in 
order to avoid the appearance of having been exiled, 
proceeded to Saint Denis, instead of going to Meaux, 
and a guard of forty musketeers was sent thither to keep 
watch over his movements. 

Things looked as if they would calm down, when a 
gentleman arrived with the news that Crequi had been 
obliged to leave Rome on September 2, thus anticipating 
the King's order to come away. Louis, more irritated 
than ever, sent an order to the nuncio to quit his dominions 
immediately, which he did on September 14, escorted to 
the frontier of Savoy by fifty musketeers, who did not 
allow him to speak to any one on the journey. 

The consequence of this quarrel was that France 
occupied the Comtat Venaissin and Avignon, an expedient 
frequently resorted to for coercing the Papal Government, 


and despatched a body of troops into Parma and Modena, 
with orders to invade the States of the Church. There- 
upon the Pope gave way, and on February 12, 1664, a 
treaty was signed at Pisa by Bourlemont (who replaced 
Crequi in charge of the negotiation) and Rasponi on 
the part of the Pope, by which satisfaction was accorded 
to the King of France, and the papal territories which 
had been occupied were restored. The Pope's nephew, 
Cardinal Chigi, was despatched as legate d latere to 
Paris to apologize to the King, and there the matter 
ended. 1 

In the opinion of a modern French writer it is clear 
from the correspondence that Louis XIV behaved in 
this affair with the most unjustifiable insolence towards 
the Pope. 2 

342. A similar affair occurred at Madrid, whither 
Louis XIV had in 1679 sent the Marquis de Villars as 

In 1680, a dispute arose about the exercise of his func- 
tions by an officer of justice in the neighbourhood of the 
embassy without permission of the Ambassador. It was 
even said that he could not pass through with the symbol 
of his authority, a white wand, displayed. The second 
privilege claimed was the exemption from import duties 
on articles for the Ambassador's own consumption. This 
latter had given rise to such abuses, that it had been 
commuted for an annual sum of 16,000 livres given to 
each Ambassador by the King of Spain. The first privi- 
lege had been observed so strictly, that some of the 
foreign Ambassadors had caused officers of justice to 
be hanged on the spot; the more moderate had been 
contented with having them beaten. 

Towards the end of January 1680, the district magistrate 
of Madrid, accompanied by his constables, passed in open 
day through the French Ambassador's quarter. The 

1 Flassan, iii. 301. 

2 G6rin, in Revue des questions historiques, x. 66. 


latter only heard of it afterwards, but at once sent him 
a message to the effect that he must be aware of the 
violation of diplomatic privileges which he had com- 
mitted, and that he must take care not to infringe on 
them a second time. The magistrate excused himself on 
the plea that he did not know it was the Ambassador's 
quarter. Nevertheless, ten days later, when the Am- 
bassador was from home, he passed through again. 
Villars complained to the minister, who replied in writing, 
that the King, in virtue of a declaration of the year 1671, 
had resolved to treat the Ambassadors of every prince at 
Madrid as those of Spain were treated at their courts; 
and, seeing that in France the Spanish Ambassadors en- 
joyed no privilege nor jurisdiction outside their palace, by 
the door of which officers of justice were in the habit of 
passing, he intended that in future the French Ambas- 
sador at Madrid should have no more privileges than the 
Ambassador of Spain had at Paris. 

Villars responded that his sovereign would willingly 
enter into reciprocal arrangements respecting the treat- 
ment of Ambassadors. It would be fairer, however, that as 
the Spanish Ambassador at Paris enjoyed special favours, 
such as the privilege of presenting himself before the 
King and Queen whenever he chose, of accompanying 
the King to the chase and on other occasions without 
having to ask leave, of remaining seated at public 
festivities and ceremonies, and of driving about Paris 
in a coach and six just as he liked, the privilege or 
franchise should continue to be recognized. He offered 
to refer the question to the King, and asked that in 
the meantime things should remain provisionally in 
statu quo. The Secretary of State in a second Note 
answered that the King of Spain persisted in his 
resolve, and that the Ambassador would consequently 
be deprived of the immunities in question and of the 
franchise du quartier. 

The Court of France was much hurt at the manner in 


which the question had been treated by the Spanish Court, 
and instructed the Ambassador to demand public satis- 
faction for the insult. In the end the King of Spain gave 
way, and sent the Marquis de los Balbases to Villars, to 
deliver to him a rescript to the effect that the Spanish 
Ambassador at Paris had been instructed to offer com- 
plete satisfaction ; that the immunities and privileges of 
the quarter were now restored, and that exemption from 
customs duties would always have been granted if the 
Ambassador had applied for the payment of the allowance 
in respect of them. 

It appears that, in spite of the suppression of these 
diplomatic privileges in 1671, most of the Ambassadors 
had continued in their enjoyment. 1 

343. In 1688, there was a further quarrel over this 
matter between the Pope and the King of France. 
Several Popes had tried to abolish these privileges and 
immunities, but the Ambassadors had always refused 
their assent, and had continued to evade the papal 
ordinances. Innocent XI, however, induced the Em- 
peror, the Kings of Spain (in 1683), Poland (in 1680), 
and England (in 1686), and the Republic of Venice to 
agree to their abrogation. 2 But when he proposed to 
Louis XIV to concur with them " in assuring tranquillity 
and good order " in the city, the King replied that he 
had never conformed to the example of others, and that 
it was for him to set precedents. 

The Pope then informed all crowned heads that he 
would in future receive no new Ambassador unless he 
previously renounced the franchise du quartier. 

344. When the Due d'Estrees, French Ambassador, 
died on January 30, 1687, the papal authorities sent 
police, after the funeral, to the Piazza Farnese, in the 
vicinity of the Ambassador's lodging, to perform acts 
of jurisdiction, in spite of the opposition of Cardinal 
d'Estrees, who claimed for himself, as " protector " of 

1 Flassan, iv. 2$. a Phillimore, ii. 211 n, quoting Miruss, 


French interests, all the privileges that his brother had 
enjoyed as Ambassador. He subsequently left Rome, 
and the Pope asked Louis XIV not to send him an 
Ambassador until the question was settled. But Louis 
in disregard of this request appointed the Marquis de 
Lavardin as Ambassador at Rome, who arrived there on 
November 16, 1687, with an escort numbering one 
hundred, all of whom had rank as naval officers, and 
proceeded to take up his residence at the Palazzo Farnese, 
surrounded it with his men, and announced his deter- 
mination to assert his privileges. The Pope consequently 
refused to receive him in audience, and he became ipso 
facto excommunicated, in virtue of a bull of May 12, 
which imposed that penalty on whosoever should attempt 
to exercise the privileges abrogated by previous decrees. 
Harlay, the procureur-general of the Parlement of Paris, 
filed an appel comme d'abus against the bull of excom- 
munication ; the Parlement pronounced a decree in favour 
of employing the royal authority for the conservation of 
the franchises et immunites du quartier, and had it posted 
on the door of the nuncio Ranucci at Paris. It was 
also placarded at Rome on the doors of St. Peter's and 
elsewhere in the city. Louis sent another hundred 
officers to Rome, besides invading Avignon and the 
Comtat Venaissin. Moreover, he had the nuncio arrested 
and sent to Saint Lazare as a hostage, where he was 
kept in confinement during eight months. The Pope 
nevertheless persisted in refusing to receive Lavardin as 
Ambassador until he received the satisfaction due to his 
insulted sovereignty. Lavardin was then recalled from 
Rome, and the officer who was watching the nuncio was 
withdrawn; the nuncio returned to Rome without being 
able to obtain a farewell audience, and died soon after 
his arrival. When the Pope died, on August 12, 1689, 
Louis sent de Chaulnes as Ambassador to the Sacred 
College with orders not to occupy the Palazzo Farnese 
nor to exercise the franchises. The new Pope, Ottoboni, 


who was elected on October 6, took the title of Alex- 
ander VIII, and Louis XIV, in order to manifest his 
goodwill, instructed de Chaulnes, who now succeeded 
Lavardin as Ambassador to the Papal Court, to desist 
from exercising the franchises. The question was not, 
however, finally laid to rest till 1693, in the pontificate 
of Innocent XII, when the French King at last consented 
formally to abandon the contested privileges. 1 

345. A similar case occurred at Genoa in 1759. The 
French Ministers to that republic had from time im- 
memorial been entitled to forbid agents of the police 
passing in front of their legation-house. The Chevalier 
de Chauvelin, Envoy Extraordinary, having heard that 
several sbirri had appeared in front of his house, directed 
his people to be on the watch, and to prevent a recurrence. 
A man whom they took to be a sbirro came along, and, 
though warned to turn back, persisted in going on. 
They fell on him and beat him. It was afterwards dis- 
covered that he was not a sbirro, but the keeper of one 
of the city gates. The Genoese Government caused a 
complaint to be addressed to the French Envoy, who, 
recognizing that he had been misled by his servants, 
placed them at the disposal of the Genoese magistrate. 
He, not to be outdone in courtesy, at once requested 
M. Chauvelin to set them at liberty. 

Flassan remarks on this case that, if the French Minister 
loyally repaired the error of his servants, it must be 
admitted, on the other hand, that the alleged immemorial 
usage which forbade sbirri to pass in front of the French 
legation was ridiculous, and insulting to the Genoese 
Government to whom the Minister was accredited. How 
could a diplomatist endowed with common sense demand, 
by the use of violence, the maintenance of such a childish 
right, and expose himself, either to quarrel with the 
Government, or to create an uproar among the populace, 

1 Flassan, iv. 97. Gerin, in Revue des questions historiques, 
jcvi. 3, 82, 


or to the commission of a mistake by which he brought 
on himself the humiliation of having to make reparation ? l 

346. A Diplomatic Agent preserves his Domicile in his 
own Country. 

The diplomatic agent and the members of his family, 
household and official staff preserve their domicile in 
their own country, and children born to them in the 
country where they are only temporarily residing, have 
the nationality of their parents. 2 Where by the local 
law all persons born in the country become subjects 
of the State, children of foreign diplomatists are not 
thereby affected, and consequently do not possess a 
double nationality. 

1 Flassan, vi. 133. 2 Hall, 183; Ullmann, 192. 




347. Chapel within the Agent's Residence. It is uni- 
versally recognized that a foreign diplomatic agent is 
entitled to have a chapel within his residence, wherein 
the rites of the religion which he professes may be cele- 
brated by a priest or minister. This does not include 
the right of tolling a bell. 1 The spread of religious tolera- 
tion in modern times has rendered possible the erection 
of public places of worship of religions other than that 
professed by the State, but usually the use of bells is 
not permitted, and in Spain formerly it was required 
that the exterior of the building should not indicate the 
purpose to which it was devoted. In Constantinople the 
Roman Catholic churches are partly under Austrian, 
partly under French protection, the Orthodox under 
Russian protection. 2 

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'Etat qu'ils servent, & d'y admettre 
tous les sujets du meme Prince qui se trouvent dans le pais 
ou ils resident. 3 

Phillimore deduces this right as a corollary from 
the right to enjoy the most perfect and uncontrolled 
liberty of action within the precincts of his hotel (which, 
of course, excludes the keeping of a gambling table in 
countries where public gambling is prohibited, or keeping 
any kind of shop) . 

1 Calvo, ii. 326; Ullmann, 189. 

* De Martens-Geffcken, i. 113. 3 Qallieres, i6p. 



" Strictly speaking, however, this privilege is confined to 
himself, his suite, and 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 

According to Wicquefort, 2 the State might require 
that the religious services be performed in the native 
language of the Ambassador. This, however, does 
not appear to be a tenable position. The sanctity of 
the hotel must be violated in order to ascertain the 
language, and certainly there never could have been any 
semblance of reason for preventing the Ambassador or 
his chaplain from the use of the universal or Latin 
language in their devotions. This restraint by the State 
must be placed, if at all, upon her own subjects. 

" 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 permission 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 at 
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 Pro- 
testant 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. 

1 Phillimore, ii. 213. z i. 417. 


" The erection of a chapel or church, the use of bells, and 
of any national symbol, is a matter entirely of permission 
and comity." x 

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. 2 

1 Phillimore, ii, and Holtzendorfi, iii. 659. 

2 Holtzendorff, iii. 659. 




348. When passing through in time of peace 349. Diplo- 
matic agents accredited to the Holy See 350. Case of 
Rincon and Fregoso in 1541 351. Maret and Semonville 
in 1793 352. Soule in 1854 353. Venezuelan envoy to 
France, served with process at New York 354. Action 
against same envoy commenced in London 355. When 
passing through enemy territory 356. Case of Marechal 
Belleisle 357. Holdernesse case 358. When the agent 
is accredited to a state at war with the state he is travers- 
ing. Case of Marquis de Bonnac 359. Agent's situation 
with regard to other states 360. Case of Marquis de 
Monti 361. Van Hoey's case 362. Agent accredited to 
a belligerent, in territory invaded by the other belligerent 
363. Case of Count de Broglie 364. Agent in invaded 
territory, privileges may be restricted 365. Diplomatists 
in Paris during the siege 366. Mr. Washburne's position 
367. Canning's view in 1823. 

348 (i). As to the position of a diplomatic agent 
passing through the territory of a third state in time of 

Schmelzing lays 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 diplomatist 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." 


Rivier, however, is 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 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 judge 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. But if the two states are at war, 
the agent may, in default of a safe-conduct, be made prisoner. 
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." l 

Schmelzing continues 

;< 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." 2 

Wicquefort's advice to Ambassadors passing through 
the territories of a third sovereign is that they should 
carry a credential or a passport to show who they are. 
An ordinance of the States-General of September 9, 1679, 

1 508. 2 ii. 222. 


accorded inviolability to agents passing through the 
United Provinces, just as if they were accredited there. 

In the present day the only precautions to be recom- 
mended to the agent who has to cross a third country 
are that he should provide himself with a passport in 
which his official character is detailed, and apply before- 
hand to the diplomatic representative of the third state 
in his own country for permission to have his luggage 
passed through the Custom house without examination. 
Or, the matter can be arranged through the diplomatic 
representative of his own country at the capital of the 
state he proposes to traverse. If he is returning home 
from his post, he will be able to obtain the same privilege 
through his colleague at the post he is quitting. The 
privilege will be readily accorded to him, and all he will 
need to do on arriving at the frontier is to produce his 
passport and visiting card, and satisfy himself by inquiry 
that the necessary orders have been received by the 
Custom-house officer. 

349. The position of diplomatic agents accredited to 
the Holy See and of the papal diplomatic agents is 
analogous. It is regulated by Article XI of the Law of 
Guarantees of May 13, 1871, as follows 

" 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 law. 

" The penal sanction for offences against such representa- 
tives 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 preroga- 
tives and immunities, in accordance with the same law, both 
in going to their posts and in returning." l 

When Italy declared war against Austria-Hungary, in 
1915, it was anticipated that a question might arise as 
to the position of the diplomatic representatives of the 

1 De Castro y Casaleiz, ii. 456. 


Germanic Powers accredited to the Pope, as they resided 
outside the exempted buildings occupied by His Holiness ; 
but they prudently avoided all difficulty by retiring 
beyond the Italian frontier. 

350. An early case of interference with the peaceful 
passage of diplomatic envoys through the territory of a 
third state is the seizure of Antonio Rincon and Cesar 
Fregoso, French Ambassadors to Turkey and Venice, on 
their voyage down the Po in 1541, by the Marquis del 
Guasto, Governor of Milan for the Emperor Charles V. 
He caused them to be murdered and their papers to be 
seized. 1 

351. In 1793, the French revolutionary Government 
despatched Maret and Semonville on a mission to Switzer- 
land and Naples. In passing through the territory of 
the Grisons they were arrested and carried off by order 
of the Austrian Government. They were stripped of 
their property and confined in the citadel of Mantua. 
This act was a manifest violation of International Law. 2 

352. In 1854, the French Government refused to 
Mr. Soule, United States Minister at Madrid, permission 
to stop in Paris on his way back to his post, on the ground 
that his antecedents had attracted the attention of the 
authorities charged with the maintenance of public order. 
Mr. Soule was born in France and had been naturalized 
in the United States. In replying to a request for 
explanation made by the United States representative 
at Paris, Drouyn de Lhuys, minister for Foreign Affairs, 
stated that if Mr. Soule merely intended to pass straight 
through to Madrid no objection would be raised, but 
that, as he had not been authorized 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. Herr Geffcken considers that, in 
stating that he could only be regarded in the light of a 

1 Flassan, iii. 9; Prescott and|Robertson, v. 81. 

2 Sorel, /' Europe et la R&vol. Franf., iii. 431. 


private person, the French minister went too far. As 
Mr. Soule gave an assurance that he simply intended to 
pass through, the incident terminated. Calvo ( 1535) 
expresses the same opinion on this case. 1 

" Mr. Soule, born in France but a naturalized citizen of 
Louisiana, being of a fiery temperament, soon after his 
arrival in Madrid took affront at the conduct of the French 
ambassador, which resulted in two duels, one between Soule's 
son and the Duke of Alva, the brother-in-law of the Emperor 
Napoleon III, and the other between Soule and the French 
ambassador. After these events, in 1854, the American 
minister, under orders from Washington, spent two weeks in 
Paris, and went thence to London for conference with the 
American minister. While returning to his post he was 
met at Calais by the commissioner of police, and told that he 
' would not be allowed to penetrate into France without the 
knowledge of the government of the Emperor,' and the com- 
missioner of police immediately communicated with Paris for 
further instructions. Mr. Soule refused to remain in Calais, 
but returned at once to England, telling the police officer 
' that he did not expect any regard on the part of the French 
Government, and that, besides, he did not care for it.' " z 

This puts rather a different aspect on the affair, and 
it must be admitted that the French Government had 
every justification for its action towards a gentleman of 
such " fiery temperament." 

353. In a case tried in 1889, before the New York 
courts, the minister accredited by the Government of 
Venezuela to the French Republic, was served, as he 
was passing through New York on the way to his post, 
with process in connexion with a civil claim against him, 
and in default of appearance judgment was entered against 
him. Subsequently an application was made to vacate 
the judgment, on the ground of diplomatic privilege. 
This application was granted. On appeal the order was 
affirmed by the New York Supreme Court. The judge 
of the court below referred to a previous case, in which 
the court 

1 De Martens-Geffcken, i. 119. 

2 J. W. Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 53. 

VOL. I. Y 


" had expressed the opinion that the privileges of ambassador 
extended to immunity against all civil suits sought to be 
instituted against him, whether in the courts of the country 
to which he was accredited, or in those of a friendly country 
through which he was passing on his way to the scene of his 
mission ; such privilege being conceded to the ambassador 
both as the representative of his Sovereign, and as being 
necessary to the free exercise of his diplomatic duties. This 
opinion was in accordance with the views of writers on inter- 
national law, and also with the fiction of exterritoriality, 
under which an ambassador was assumed to be outside the 
country to which he was accredited, and to be still resident 
in his own country. If he had contracted debts and had no 
real property in the country to which he was sent, then he 
should be asked to make payment, and in case of refusal 
application should be made to his Sovereign ; in addition to 
which he might also be proceeded against in the courts of 
his own country, in which he was considered to retain his 
original domicile." l 

354. In a note, the first of the writers cited in the 
last footnote refers to a case in which 

" an action was commenced in the English courts against 
the same defendant, who was then Minister of Venezuela 
and resident in Paris; and an order for the service of the 
writ outside the jurisdiction having been made, an application 
was made to the Queen's Bench Division to set this 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. Manisty, J., indeed, expressed the opinion 
that the immunity of an ambassador, as recognized by the 
Courts of this country, would be violated by compelling an 
ambassador accredited to a foreign country to appear and 
defend himself in Great Britain." 2 

355 (ii) ( a )- When the State by which the agent is 
employed 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 

1 Pitt Cobbett, Cases and Opinions on Internal. Law, 3rd edit., 
i. 307, on the authority of 56 N. Y. Sup. Court, 582 ; J. B. Scott, 
Cases on Internal. Law, 206. 

2 Ibid., 308. 


him as a prisoner of war, commits thereby no breach of 
International Law. 1 

356. France declared war on England, March 15, 
1744,2 *' e - against the King of England, Elector of 
Hanover, and Hanover was consequently enemy territory 
for France. Marshal Belleisle, who was at Frankfort 
as French ambassador to the Emperor Charles VII 
(Elector of Bavaria), was ordered to Berlin as minister. 
In proceeding thither, he arrived on December 20, to- 
gether with his brother and his suite, at Elbingerode, a 
small market town belonging to the Elector of Hanover. 
The local bailiff, on hearing of his arrival, after having 
learnt from him who and what he' was, and that he was 
not provided with a Hanoverian passport, declared that 
he was a prisoner of war, and conducted him to Osterode. 
On the way, Belleisle wrote to the Hanoverian ministry 
a letter, recognizing that he and his brother were prisoners 
of war, and requested them to take the orders of the 
King of England with respect to them. Orders were 
sent from London to remove them to England, where 
they arrived on February 20, and were brought to Windsor. 

The French Government, considering them to be 
prisoners of war, demanded that they should be ransomed 
for 32,000 florins, in accordance with a cartel concluded 
at Frankfort, July 18, 1743, between the belligerents 
(amongst whom England and France were not then 
included, as they were taking part in the war only as 
allies of the Elector of Bavaria and the Queen of Hungary 
respectively), but the English alleged that the cartel only 
applied to prisoners of war, and not to state prisoners 
such as the Marshal and his brother, who were travelling 
not as general officers, but as ministers from one Court to 
another. The Emperor also wrote to the Hanoverian 
Government, demanding the release of the prisoners, 

1 Hall, 6th edit., 303. 

8 The English counter-declaration was published on April 9 
of the same year. 


alleging that the French declaration of war did not 
apply to Hanover, that the Marshal had taken the route 
through Elbingerode by mistake, and that, lastly, he 
ought to be regarded as an imperial ambassador and a 
prince of the empire. The Hanoverian ministers, in their 
reply, had no difficulty in refuting these assertions, and 
they laid it down as an indisputable principle of the 
Law of Nations that the prerogatives and privileges of 
an ambassador, far from being due to him in an enemy 
country, did not extend beyond the limits of the territory 
of the sovereign to whom he was accredited. 

Belleisle and his brother were treated with the most 
generous hospitality, and they were finally released in 
August of the same year, on condition that they gave a 
written undertaking to surrender themselves as prisoners 
again, in case the King of France refused to carry out 
the Treaty of Frankfort (i.e. the cartel above-mentioned). 1 

357. Holdernesse, ambassador of Great Britain to 
Venice, was arrested by hussars under the orders of the 
Emperor Charles VII, September 16, 1744, as he was 
passing through Fahrenbach, near Nuremberg. It appears 
that as late as January 27,1745, Charles VII had a minister 
in London, so that there was no excuse for arresting 
Holdernesse and detaining him as a prisoner of war. 
As soon as Seckendorf, the Bavarian Commander-in- 
Chief, heard of the incident, he ordered General St. 
Germain to set Holdernesse at liberty and to offer him 
an apology in person. 2 The Hanoverian administration 
pointed out that Holdernesse had been arrested in 
neutral territory, i. e. of the Free City of Nuremberg. 

358 (") (&) When the State to which the agent is 
accredited is at war with the third State. 

In 1702, during the war between Sweden and Poland, 
the Marquis de Bonnac, French envoy extraordinary 
to Sweden, was arrested when passing through the 
Duchy of Prussia, which then belonged to Poland, and 

1 Ch. de Martens, i. 285. 2 Ibid., 300. n. 


the Marquis du Heron, French envoy extraordinary 
to Poland, was kidnapped as he was returning from an 
entertainment by four companies of Saxon dragoons 
from Thorn, whither they conducted him. Torci, then 
minister for Foreign Affairs, wrote to the Primate of 
Poland, complaining of these violations of diplomatic 
immunity, and informed him that the King had ordered 
the arrest of all the Poles in France as hostages for the 
safety of his envoys. The Primate disavowed his respon- 
sibility, and transmitted Torci's letter to the King of 
Poland. The latter replied that similar measures had 
been taken in France against the Pope's nuncios and 
Spanish ministers, and that there were precedents in 
other countries for the treatment of the French envoys. 
He added that Bonnac was to blame for not having 
provided himself with a passport, and that Heron had, 
previously to his arrest, conducted himself in a violent 
manner, of which complaint had been duly made to the 
King of France. Nothing seems to have come of these 
two incidents. 1 

359 ( n1 )- Situation of the agent, in regard to the 
relations between the State to which he is accredited, and 
third states. 

The diplomatic agent accredited to a State, as such, 
and in the absence of a mission or permission of his 
Government, is in no way authorized to mix himself up 
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 complain may take such 
measures as it judges to be appropriate, within the limits 
imposed by diplomatic privileges and immunities. 2 

360. The Marquis de Monti was accredited in 1729 
as French envoy extraordinary to Augustus II of Poland, 
and after the death of that monarch, in 1733, remained 

1 Flassan, iv. 239. 

2 van Hoey's case, Rivier, ii. 511, and Phillimore, ii. 211. 


at Warsaw, with instructions to favour the re-election 
of Stanislas Leczinski, in which he was successful. But 
his credentials had expired with the death of Augustus. 
The day after the re-election of Stanislas, another Polish 
party, supported by Russia, raised Augustus III of Saxony 
to the throne. Russian and Saxon troops, having forced 
Stanislas to quit Warsaw, besieged him in Dantzic (then 
a Polish possession), whither Monti, alone of all the 
foreign diplomatists, had followed him. When the city 
was compelled to surrender, on June 28, 1734, Monti 
gave himself up to the Russian commander, Marshal 
Munnich, who confined him at a chateau near Marien- 
bourg, and afterwards at Thorn. Monti protested, on 
the ground of diplomatic privilege, and the French 
Government upheld his protest. Great Britain and 
Holland made common cause with France, and instructed 
their ministers to intercede on his behalf with the Russian 
Government. The Empress of Russia consequently 
caused a long argument to be delivered to the ministers 
of Great Britain and Holland, pointing out, first, 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 recognized as 
public ministers." Moreover, Monti had himself taken 
part in hostilities against the Russian troops. Secondly, 
that Monti's powers expired with the death of Augustus II, 
and consequently it was doubtful whether he was entitled 
to be regarded as an ambassador after that event, and, 
lastly, that he had voluntarily surrendered to the Russian 
commander-in-chief, " ready," as he said, " to undergo 
all the misfortunes that might await him." 1 

The rule is that the diplomatist whose letters of credence 

have expired in consequence either of the death of his 

own sovereign or of the sovereign to whom he is accredited, 

is, nevertheless, accorded all the usual immunities and 

1 Ch. de Martens, i. 210; Flassan, v. 72. 


privileges during the interval which elapses before he 
receives fresh credentials. 

Flassan's opinion was that the Russians were within 
their rights in treating Monti as a prisoner of war. Though 
war had not been declared between Russia and France, 
acts of hostility had taken place, and 1500 French troops 
had been despatched to the relief of Dantzic, where 
Stanislas was being besieged after his flight from Warsaw. 
Consequently he was the diplomatic representative of an 
enemy, residing at the Court of an enemy. He had not 
remained at the capital, which was his proper place of 
residence, and had even fought at the side of Stanislas 
against the Russians. After the signature of the pre- 
liminaries of peace on October 3, 1735, between Russia, 
France and the Emperor, by which Augustus III was 
recognized as King of Poland and Lithuania, Monti 
recovered his liberty. 

361. Van Hoey's case. In June 1746, after the battle 
of Culloden, Van Hoey, the ambassador of the United 
Provinces at Paris, who enjoyed the confidence of the 
French ministry, and is said to have served on several 
occasions as intermediary between the courts of St. James 
and Versailles (Great Britain and France being then at 
war), was imprudent enough to yield to the request of 
d'Argenson that he would write to Newcastle, Secretary 
of State for the Southern department, to ask that the 
Pretender's life should be spared, in case he were taken. 
This interference, very clumsily attempted, and carried 
out without any instructions from the Hague, excited 
the resentment of the English Government. They com- 
plained to the States-General, and demanded public 
satisfaction proportioned to the scandal caused by this 
proceeding to every friend of the honour, liberty and 
religion of the two Powers. The States-General adminis- 
tered a severe rebuke to Van Hoey, whom they ordered 
to write a polite and proper letter to the Duke of New- 
castle, to acknowledge his own imprudence and the fault 


of which he had been guilty, to ask pardon and to promise 
to conduct himself more prudently for the future. 1 

(LL. HH. PP. lui ordonnent d'ecrire a M. le due de New- 
castle une lettre polie et decente, d'y avouer son impru- 
dence et la faute qu'il a commise, et d'en demander pardon, 
promettant de se conduire plus prudemment & 1'avenir. 
Resolution of the States-General.) 

362 (iv). Situation of a diplomatic agent accredited 
to a belligerent State, and found there by the other 
belligerent in territory under the military control of the 

The envoy of a neutral Power found within the territory 
of a conquered state, is not subject to arrest or expulsion 
by the occupying Power, but must be regarded as in- 
violable, (a) as long as his actions are harmless, i. e. as 
long as he conveys to the enemy no information of a 
character to prejudice the military interests of the con- 
queror, (b) If he allows himself to be shut up in a be- 
sieged place, he cannot claim as of right to correspond 
freely with his own Government. 

363 () " Towards the end of August 1756, Frederick the 
Great, having invaded Saxony, the Comte de Broglie, French 
ambassador, remained at Dresden in attendance on the Queen 
of Poland after the King's departure. Frederick, on the 
pretext that Broglie was in the habit of transmitting informa- 
tion respecting the positions and movements of the Prussian 
army to Marshal Brown, the Austrian commander-in-chief, 
sent to him his aide-de-camp, Baron von Cocceji, to request 
him not to abuse the good nature of the Prussian king, and 
to give him notice that he would be regarded simply as a 
private individual. Broglie replied that he was where his 
duty called him, and that he counted on being able to remain 
at Dresden, under the protection of the Law of Nations, until 
he should receive fresh orders from his Court. 

" Cocceji returned half an hour later and communicated 
to him an order to leave Dresden without delay. Broglie 
answered that, though he did not wish to prolong his stay 
uselessly, private affairs might perhaps require him to remain 

1 Rivier, i. 512; Ch. de Martens, i. 312-25, 


a few days longer, and that when he left M. Hennin, the 
secretary of Embassy, would remain, to look after the corre- 
spondence which the Queen kept up with her daughter the 

" Broglie then left the Queen's palace, and on returning to 
his residence found there Cocceji with two other officers, and 
Prussian soldiers filling up the lower part of the house. Cocceji 
repeated the order to depart at once with the whole embassy. 
At first Broglie protested loudly against the posting of troops 
in a house lent by the Queen and occupied by foreign diplo- 
matists (the Danish minister was also lodged there). He 
concluded by saying that he expected every moment to 
receive orders from the King his master, and that he would 
not delay his departure a moment after he received them, 
but that it was absolutely necessary for him to leave his 
secretary at Dresden. 

Cocceji was sent a fourth time to tell him that the King 
of Prussia's intentions having been so clearly explained to 
him, it was needless to add anything, except that his Majesty 
persisted in his requirement. As for the soldiers stationed in 
His Excellency's house, it had been found unavoidable, owing 
to want of quarters for the garrison, not to except the houses 
of the foreign ministers from billeting troops on them. 

' Things remained thus till November 20, when the Count 
de Broglie quitted Dresden, and proceeded by way of Prague 
to Warsaw, leaving M. Hennin as charge d'affaires with the 
Queen of Poland, a function which he discharged during three 
months, at the end of which time the King of Prussia required 
him also to leave Dresden. 

" Apart from the question of the proceedings taken on this 
occasion towards persons clothed with a diplomatic character, 
which ought always to be becoming, the question seems to 
present itself, whether a political agent accredited to a sove- 
reign whose country has been conquered, retains his powers 
as agent to that sovereign, or whether they are annulled by 
the fact of conquest. For such was M. de Broglie's position. 
Strictly speaking, the King of Prussia could decline to regard 
him in any other light than that of a private individual, to 
whom he must accord treatment with consideration, unless 
he ceased to deserve it by conveying information to the 
enemy ; in which case his own safety entitled him to remove 
M. de Broglie." l 

364 (b). When the dominions of the State to which 
a diplomatist is accredited are invaded by another Power, 

1 Flassan, vi. 73. 


if he continues to reside in the territory occupied or in a 
place besieged by the forces of the hostile Power, he 
cannot expect to enjoy all his immunities and privileges 
to their full extent. These will practically be limited 
by the military necessities of the invader, who is alone 
the judge of such necessities. 

365. This question was the subject of controversy 
during the siege of Paris in the war of 1870-71 between 
the diplomatic agents who had remained in the city and 
Count Bismarck. Amongst these were the Nuncio, Mr. 
Washburne, United States minister, the Swiss, Swedish, 
Danish, Belgian and Netherlands ministers. They ad- 
dressed a letter to Count Bismarck on October 6, 1870, 
with respect to a previous request communicated through 
M. Jules Favre, for permission to send out a diplomatic 
courier through the German lines once a week, and to 
the reply that letters would be allowed to pass if unclosed, 
provided that they contained nothing objectionable from 
a military point of view, 

(Quoique nous soyons disposes & autoriser volontiers la 
sortie de lettres ouvertes emanant d'Agents Diplomatiques en 
tant que leur contenu n'offre pas d'inconvenient sous le 
rapport militaire, il m'est impossible neanmoins de recon- 
naitre comme fondee et d'admettre les consequences de la 
maniere de voir de ceux qui voudraient considerer l'intcrieur 
des fortifications de Paris comme un centre approprie & des 
relations diplomatiques) 

And said 

" Nous nous serions fait un devoir, quant au contenu de 
nos depeches, de nous conformer scrupuleusement aux 
obligations imposees pendant un siege aux Agents Diplo- 
matiques par les regies et usages du droit international. 

" Par contre, notre position d'Agents Diplomatiques, et nos 
obligations envers nos Gouvernements, ne nous permettent 
pas d'accepter 1'autre condition, de ne leur adresser que des 
depeches ouvertes. 

" Si cette derniere condition devait etre maintenue, il 
deviendrait impossible, a leur vif regret, aux Repr6sentants 
Diplomatiques des Etats neutres d'entretenir des rapports 
ofnciels avec leurs Gouvernements respectifs," 


Count Bismarck's reply, addressed to the nuncio, 
Monseigneur Chigi, ran thus 

le 10 octobre, 1870. 

J'ai eu 1'honneur de recevoir la lettre en date du 
6 octobre dernier par laquelle les membres du Corps Diplo- 
matique residant encore a Paris ont bien voulu m'informer 
qu'il leur deviendrait impossible d'entretenir des rapports 
officiels avec leurs Gouvernements respectifs si la condition de 
ne pouvoir leur adresser que des depeches ouvertes devait 
etre maintenue. 

Lorsque la continuation du Siege de Paris fut rendue in- 
evitable par le refus d'un armistice par le Gouvernement 
Francais, le Gouvernement du Roi prevint de son propre 
mouvement, par une note circulaire du Secretaire d'Etat, M. 
de Thile, en date du 26 septembre dernier, dont j'ai 1'honneur 
de vous transmettre une copie, les Agents des Puissances 
neutres accredites a Berlin que la liberte des communications 
avec Paris n'existait plus qu'autant que les evenements mili- 
taires le permettaient. Le meme jour je reus a Ferrieres 
une communication de M. le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres 
du Gouvernement de la Defense Nationale qui m'informait du 
desir exprime par les membres du Corps Diplomatique d'etre 
autorises a expedier des depeches a leurs Gouvernements par 
des courriers partant chaque semaine, et je n'hesitai pas, en 
me conformant aux regies etablies par le droit international, 
a y faire une reponse dictee par les necessites de la situation 
militaire, dont je me permets egalement de transmettre une 
copie a votre Excellence. 

Les Representants du pouvoir actuel ont cru convenable 
d'etablir le siege de leur Gouvernement au milieu des fortifica- 
tions de Paris et de choisir cette ville et ses environs comme 
theatre de la guerre. Si les membres du Corps Diplomatique 
accredites aupres d'un Gouvernement anterieur se sont decides 
a partager avec le Gouvernement de la Defense Nationale les 
inconvenients inseparables du sejour dans une forteresse 
assiegee, ce n'est pas le Gouvernement du Roi qui en porte 
la responsabilite. 

Quelle que soit notre confiance que MM. les Signataires de 
la lettre du 6 octobre sauraient personellement se conformer, 
dans les communications adressees a leurs Gouvernements, 
aux obligations que leur presence dans une forteresse assiegee 
selon les regies du droit de guerre peut imposer a des Agents 
Diplomatiques,il faut cependant tenir comptede la possibilite 
que 1'importance de certains faits pourrait leur echapper au 


point de vue militaire. II est evident d'ailleurs qu'ils se 
trouveraient hors d'etat de nous fournir la meme garantie 
pour les messagers qu'ils croiraient devoir employer, et que 
nous serions obliges de laisser passer et repasser a travers nos 

II a ete cree a Paris un etat de choses auquel 1'histoire 
moderne sous le point de vue du droit international, 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 Gouvernement 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 contro verse sous tous les points de vue. 

Je crois pouvoir esperer que votre Excellence ne meconnaitra 
pas la justesse de ces observations, et voudra bien apprecier 
les considerations qui m'empechent, a mon vif regret, de 
donner suite au desir exprime dans la lettre du 6 octobre 

Si cependant les signataires ne croyaient pas pouvoir en 
admettre la justesse, les Gouvernements qu'ils ont representes 
a Paris et auxquels je m'empresserai de communiquer la corre- 
spondance echangee avec eux, aviseront de leur cote, et se 
mettront en communication avec le Gouvernement du Roi 
pour examiner les questions du droit des gens qui se rattachent 
a la position [a-] normale que les evenements et les mesures du 
Gouvernement de la Defense Nationale ont creee a Paris. 

Veuillez, &c., 

(signed) VON BISMARCK. 

(Inclosure in the above; circular addressed by M. de 
Thile to Foreign Representatives at Berlin.) 


le 20 septembre, 1870. 

Les representants du pouvoir en France ayant repousse 
1'armistice, un Gouvernement reconnu n'existant plus a Paris, 
et le Gouvernement fonctionnant de fait ayant, a ce qu'on 
dit, transfere sa residence a Tours, le Soussigne a 1'honneur de 
prevenirM. . . . que les communications avec Paris n'existent 
plus qu'autant que les evenements militaires le permettront. 

Le Soussigne, etc., 

(signed) THILE. 1 

1 British and Foreign State Papers, Ixi. 896-901. 


366. It appears, however, that Mr. Washburne, who 
had charge of the protection of subjects of the North 
German Confederation, Saxony, Hesse-Darmstadt and 
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and their interests in Paris after 
the declaration of war, was on that ground allowed the 
privilege of despatching and receiving closed bags once 
a week through Versailles, up to the end of the siege. 
These bags were transmitted through the United States 
legation in London. Several complaints were made to 
him by Prince Bismarck respecting (i) the receipt in 
these bags of English newspapers, which persons not 
belonging to the legation were allowed to peruse, and 
(2) of the transmission by the same channel of private 
letters to persons of French and neutral nationality. 
These complaints were satisfactorily dealt with by Mr. 
Washburne in his reply of January 19. Count Bismarck 
then wrote to him on January 28 as follows 

Sir, I had the honour of receiving your answer, dated the 
igth instant, to my two letters of the I5th, relating to your 
correspondence with "the United States Legation in London. 
I should very much regret if you should have construed any- 
thing in these two letters so as to convey the indication of 
any complaint against you. Nothing, indeed, could be further 
from my thought, and I take pleasure in renewing the expres- 
sion how deeply sensible I am of all the trouble you have in 
carrying on your correspondence with the authorities in Paris, 
and in taking care of our countrymen there. But the balloon 
letters x having been brought officially under my notice by 
the military authorities, I thought it my duty to inform you 
of the reference made in those letters to your legation, and to 
that in London. The delay occurred now and then in the 
transmission of your dispatch-bags is not occasioned by any 
doubt as to the right of your Government to correspond with 
you, but by obstacles it was out of my power to remove. I 
hope that for the future there will not be any more delay of 
that kind. 

1 Letters found in a captured balloon which showed that " the 
facilities we have accorded to the correspondence of the American 
Legation in London are known to private persons, some of them 
French, and made use of by them in order to carry on a clandestine 
correspondence with other persons, some of them French " 
(For. Rel. of U. S. 1871, p. 285, letter of Jan. 15 to Mr. Washburne). 


Mr. Washburne's letter of January 19 was mainly 
occupied by an explanation of the supposition that the 
despatch-bags had contained private letters to French 
and other persons which ought, perhaps, not to have been 
delivered to their destinations, but in fact they had been 
examined and found to contain " no allusion to military 
events." Mr. Washburne in that letter did not speak of 
his " rights " as a diplomatist. He dwelt on the services 
he had during the past six months rendered to Germans 
in Paris, and protested against any imputations on his 
good faith in connexion with the contents of the bags 
received or despatched by him. He would 

"decline receiving or transmitting any dispatch-bag or any 
communications through your military lines upon terms and 
conditions which might be construed as implying a distrust 
of my good faith and of the loyal manner in which I have 
discharged my duty toward both belligerents and to my 
own Government, to which I am alone responsible for my 
official action." 

More than a month before this, Mr. Fish, the Secretary 
of State, had addressed a Note to Baron Gerolt, the Ger- 
man envoy at Washington. This Note has not been 
printed, but from Count Bismarck's letter to Mr. Ban- 
croft, U.S. minister at Berlin, of January 15, it appears 
to have claimed for the representatives of all neutral 
powers in Paris 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 contested this conclusion 

' 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 con- 
tagious disease, subjects travellers and papers to a quaran- 
tine. So, too, in war. The universal and imperative right 
of self -protection, of which war is itself the expression, 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 correspondence of such persons with a 
besieged town , according to military exigencies. Vattel says 
" ' Elle (la guerre) permet d'oter a 1'ennemi toute ses res- 
sources, d'empecher qu'il ne puisse envoyer ses ministres pour 
solliciter des secours. II est meme des occasions ou Ton 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 as- 
si6gee. Aucun droit ne peut autoriser le ministre d'une puis- 
sance neutre ni qui que ce soil a y entrer malgre I'assiegeant, 
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 pre"tendent 
demeurer neutres.' ' 

He continued 

" What is true of ministers will be all the more so of messen- 
gers and despatches. . . . The military necessity of cutting 
off a besieged town from outside intelligence appears a suffi- 
cient ground for subjecting to control, in a military point of 
view, the correspondence of diplomatic persons remaining 
in the town in its passage through territory occupied by the 
besiegers, and temporarily subject 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 prolonged. 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." i 

The doctrine here so clearly laid down must be re- 
garded as incapable of refutation, and Mr. Fish must have 
felt it to be unanswerable. Consequently, in his instruc- 
tion to Mr. Bancroft of February 24, 1871, he remarks 
that the question is no longer of practical application 
to any probable occurrences. ... He then ingeniously 

1 This and other documents in the correspondence given are 
translations from the German. 


makes use of the word " right " in Count Bismarck's letter 
to Mr. Washburne in the following manner 

" The President desires to make all proper allowance for 
the military exigencies which are represented to have led to 
the withdrawing and detaining of the official correspondence 
of the minister, and is gratified to receive the recognition in 
Count Bismarck's letter of January 28 to Mr. Washburne 
of the right of correspondence contended for in my note to 
Baron Gerolt of 2ist November last, and his assurance that 
the delay to which it was subjected proceeded from causes 
which he could not remove. 

" Recent events, it is confidently hoped, have removed the 
probability of any recurrence of the interruption of free cor- 
respondence. And Count Bismarck's assurance to Mr. Wash- 
burne that ' the delay occurring now and then in the trans- 
mission of your dispatch-bag is not occasioned by any doubt 
as to the right of your Government to correspond with you, 
but by obstacles it was out of my power to remove ' confirms 
this Government in its confidence of an entire agreement 
between it and North Germany on the question of the right 
and the inviolability of correspondence between a government 
and its representative, and of the absence of any intentional 
interference with that right in the case of its minister to Paris. 
I send, herewith, a copy of a dispatch of this date to Mr. 

"As Count Bismarck's recognition of the right for which 
I contended in my note to Baron Gerolt is subsequent to his 
letter 1 to you of I5th January, and admits what I felt it my 
duty to claim, there does not appear to be any necessity for 
continuing the discussion, unless the subject be again referred 
to by the German minister, in which case you are authorized 
to read to him this despatch." 

Doubtless, Mr. Bancroft, had the matter been men- 
tioned again to him, would have used the discretion 
apparently left to him by the word " authorized," and 
would have abstained from acting on it. If Mr. Fish 
desired to attempt a reply to Count Bismarck's argu- 
ments, the proper course would have been to continue 
as he began, and to address a further Note to Baron 
Gerolt. 2 

1 It was much more than a " letter," being a Note in the stiffest 
official style, framed in the third person. 

2 The account of this correspondence given at p. 304 of Hall's 


367. In fact, the question was not an entirely new one 
for diplomatists. In 1823, during the French invasion 
of Spain, the Cortes had retired to Cadiz, carrying the 
king with them, and, the French forces having laid siege 
to that city, Sir Wm. A'Court, the British minister, 
judged it wiser not to follow the King thither. During a 
debate in the House of Commons on February 17, 1824, 
the conduct of Sir Wm. A'Court having been censured 
by an opposition speaker, Canning replied that instruc- 
tions had been sent which forbade him to put himself in 
a blockaded place. 1 These instructions are contained 
in a despatch from Canning of September 15, 1823, in 
which he said 

" You have judged wisely in declining their [i. e. of the 
Spanish Government] Solicitation to repair, under the present 
Circumstances, 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 occur- 
rence ; and for the decision of which history affords no prac- 
tical 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 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 questions of the like difficulty 
must arise in a situation so new and anomalous : and ques- 
tions between Nations which are not referable to preconcerted 
agreements, or to settled principles and acknowledged law, 
what power is to decide but the Sword ? 

Treatise, etc., 6th edit., differs apparently from that contained in 
the volume of Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the 
United States, Dec. 4, 1871. It seems to be based on D'Angeberg, 
Recueil des Traites, etc., concernant la guerre Franco- Allemande, 
Nos. 756 and 783, which we have not been able to consult. On 
the whole, Mr. Hall's view coincides with that of Count Bismarck. 
1 Parliamentary Debates, new series, x. 204. 

VOL. I. Z 


"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." x 

Could the question be more clearly stated, if " Paris " 
were substituted for Cadiz ? 

1 P.R.O., P.O. 72/268, quoted in Stapleton's Political Life of 
the Rt. Hon. George Canning, i. 465. 



368. Its constitution 369. The doyen and his functions 
370. The doyenne 371. Precedence among heads of 
missions 372. Russian reglement regarding precedence 
373- Precedence of Diplomatic Body in different countries 
374. Precedence not altered by reason of new credentials 
on death of sovereign 375. Councillor of Embassy with 
rank of Minister plenipotentiary 376. Charge d'Affaires 
en litre and ad interim distinguished 377. In doubtful 
cases, the Court Regulations are decisive 378. Obsolete 
ancient rules regarding the first visit 379. Case of Cardinal 
Savelli in 1647 380. Negotiators without official char- 
acter 381. Boundary and other commissioners 382. 
Wives of diplomatists, their privileges, etc. 383. " Giving 
the hand" (la main, die oberhand) 384. Intercourse of 
diplomatic agents of belligerents at a neutral court 385. 
Instructions to Hautefort in 1750 386. Precedence at per- 
sonal meetings 387. In signing treaties, etc. 388. In a 
diplomatic house 389. Title of "Excellency" 390. 
English practice 391. Callieres on this subject 392. 
Envoys and ministers not strictly speaking entitled 
393. Spanish practice 394. Peruvian rules 395. Dis- 
pute in 1737 between France and Portugal 396. Decora- 
tions and presents 397. Queen Elizabeth's objections 
398. English rules in Queen Victoria's Reign 399- 
Relaxed in 1911, and rules of 1914 400. French, Belgian 
and Spanish rules 401. Agreement between Denmark 
and Sweden and Norway 402. United States rule 403. 
English rule of 1834 as to presents, and earlier practice 
404. Foreign instances 405. Presents distributed at 
Congress of Vienna 406. At the Congress of Teschen 
407. Place of honour at Court festivities 408. Absence 
from Court festivities 409. Visits to colleagues on fete-days. 

368. The Diplomatic Body comprises all the heads 
of missions, their secretaries and attaches, both paid and 
honorary, and including military, naval 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 Diplomatic Body depends on the 
decision of the Head of the Mission concerned. At 
most capitals a list of the Diplomatic Body, compiled 
from lists furnished by each Mission, is published from 
time to time. This includes the wives and daughters 
(of age to be presented at Court) of the members of the 

369. 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 cere- 
monial description. He is the mouthpiece of his colleagues 
on public occasions, as, for instance, at Court receptions, 
where it is the usage for the Diplomatic Body to offer 
their conjoint congratulations to the Head of the State, 
c. g. on his fete-day or on New Year's Day. He is the 
defender of the privileges and immunities of the Diplo- 
matic Body from injuries or encroachments on the part 
of the Government to which they are accredited. He is 
sometimes used as a channel for communication on cere- 
monial matters to the other heads of missions. 1 What- 
ever records belong to the Body as a whole are in his 
keeping. At Peking, and perhaps at some other Oriental 
capitals, he has more important duties to perform, as 
the channel through which joint representations regard- 
ing the treaty rights of foreigners in general are forwarded 
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 word- 
ing of any written or spoken representations on their 
behalf. No Head of a Mission will take part with his col- 
leagues in a joint representation to the Government oi 
the country, without special authorization from home, or 
1 See Russian R&g., chap. vii. 


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 Washing- 
ton such joint demarches of the Diplomatic Body are 
generally declined by the Department of State; an 
apparent disregard of this rule 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 

370. The wife of the senior diplomatic representative 
of the highest category is called the doyenne. Her func- 
tions 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 unmarried. At Petrograd, for 
instance, the rule is that when ladies whose husbands or 
fathers form part of the Diplomatic Body are presented 
to H. M. the Empress at a collective reception, it is the 
doyenne who performs this ceremony ; but when it takes 
place at a Court Ball, if the wife of the doyen is absent, 
they are presented either by the senior lady of the 
Diplomatic Body who is present, or else by the wife of 
the head of the mission to which they belong. 

(" Si la presentation est fixee pendant un bal a la Cour 1m- 
periale, les dames du Corps Diplomatique sont presentees par 
I'epouse du doyen du Corps Diplomatique, ou en son absence, 
soit par la plus ancienne 2 des dames du Corps Diplomatique 
presentes, soit par I'epouse du Chef de la Mission respective."} 3 

The same rules hold good respectively at Petrograd in 
regard to the presentation to H. M. the Empress of ladies 
whose husbands and fathers do not form part of the 
Diplomatic Body, when it takes place at a collective 
reception of the Diplomatic Body, or at a Court Ball. 

371. Precedence among Heads of Missions. In each 

1 J. W. Foster, Practice cf Diplomacy, 124. 

2 This does not^mean in respect of age, but of length of residence, 

3 Regulations of December 27, 1911. 


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 (see 
above, 271). * Some authors state that it depends on 
the date of the presentation of credentials. 2 

372. The Russian Reglement pour la Preseance du 
Corps Diplomatique a la Cour Imperiale is as follows 

1. Pendant les cercles diplomatiques chez Leurs Majestes 
et Leurs Altesses Imperiales Messeigneurs les Grands-Dues 
et Mesdames les Grandes-Duchesses, les Chefs des Missions 
diplomatiques se rangent dans 1'ordre suivant ; (a) les Ambas- 
sadeurs, (b) les Envoyes Extraordinaires et Ministres Plenipo- 
tentiaires, (c) les Ministres-Residents, (d) les Charges d'affaires 
en titre, (e) les Charges d'affaires interimaires, et (/) les Agents 
diplomatiques en titre. 

2. Les Ambassadeurs, les Envoyes Extraordinaires et 
Ministres Plenipotentiaries, les Ministres-Residents, les Charges 
d'affaires en titre et les Agents diplomatiques prennent rang 
entre eux d'apres la date de la notification officielle de leur 

3. La preseance des Charges d'affaires interimaires entre 
eux est determinee par la preseance des titulaires absents. 

4. Aux cercles diplomatiques les Membres des Missions se 
placent a la suite de leurs Chefs. Les Missions qui se trou- 
veraient k un cercle diplomatique sans titulaires, ainsi que 
les Membres des Missions, qui en 1'absence du titulaire ont 
etc charges de gerer les affaires de la Mission (les Charges 
des Affaires de la Mission) se rangent apres les Agents diplo- 
matiques en titre dans 1'ordre designe par l'anciennet des 
titulaires absents. 

5. Pendant les cercles diplomatiques, ainsi qu'aux receptions 
non-collectives, les Ambassadeurs ont le droit d'etre recus 
separement ; les Envoyes Extraordinaires et Ministres Pleni- 
potentiaires, les Ministres-Residents et les Charges d'affaires 
en titre ont droit a des audiences separees seulement aux 
receptions non-collectives ; quant aux Charges d'affaires in- 
terimaires et aux Agents diplomatiques, ils ne jouissent point 
de ce droit. 

6. Pendant les receptions collectives, les Membres des 
Missions diplomatiques suivent leurs Chefs ; dans le cas con- 
traire, en 1'absence des Chefs des Missions, ils se rangent dans 

1 Pradier-Fodere, i. 288. 

2 J. W. Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, etc., 70; De Martens- 
Gefifcken, i. 53; Garcia de la Vega, 209, 422. 


1'ordre suivant : (a) les conseillers d'Ambassade ; (b) les con- 
seillers de Legation; (c) les i er secretaires d'Ambassade; 
(d) les i er secretaires de Legation ; (e) les i" secretaires des 
autres Missions diplomatiques ; (/) les 2 me secretaires d'Am- 
bassade ; (g) les 2 me secretaires de Legation ; (h) les 2 me 
secretaires des autres Missions diplomatiques; (i) les 3 me 
secretaires d' Ambassades ; (/) les 3 me secretaires de Legation ; 
(k) les 3 me secretaires des autres Missions diplomatiques; 
(/) les attaches d'Ambassade ; (m) les attaches de Legation, 
et (w) les attaches des autres Missions diplomatiques. Dans 
chaque classe ils se rangent suivant 1'ordre de preseance de 
leurs Chefs respectifs. 

7. Le i er secretaire d'une Ambassade prend le rang de 
conseiller d'Ambassade si le poste de conseiller d'Ambassade 
n'est point dans le nombre des postes diplomatiques du pays 
qu'il represente. Le secretaire d'une mission qui ne compte 
au nombre de son personnel qu'un seul secretaire prend le 
rang de i er secretaire. Les secretaires et les attaches en 
mission speciale se rangent, pendant les receptions non-col- 
lectives, selon le reglement de leur pays, a la suite de chaque 
classe respective. 

8. Les agents militaires et les attaches militaires et navals 
pendant les cercles diplomatiques se placent a la suite des 
Missions diplomatiques respectives. Aux receptions collec- 
tives ils se rangent avec le personnel de leur Mission selon 
le reglement de preseance de leur pays ; pendant les receptions 
diplomatiques, on les agents militaires et les attaches mili- 
taires et navals seraient re$us en 1'absence du Chef de la 
Mission de leur pays, il sont places separement des autres 
Membres du Corps diplomatique et se rangent entre eux 
suivant 1'ordre de preseance observe par les Chefs des Missions 
de leur pays. 

373. In monarchical countries the Diplomatic Body 
come after the members of the reigning family. In 
republics their precedence is not uniformly settled. In 
France they come after the Presidents of the Senate 
and Chamber of deputies, at Washington after the, Vice- 
President. In South American republics we believe they 
take rank after the members of the Cabinet and the 
presidents of the legislative chambers. 

374- Owing to the necessity of obtaining new creden- 
tials 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 have some- 
times arisen as to the necessity of a change of precedence 
among diplomatists, consequent on the difference of date 
on which the new credentials may come into their hands, 
which, of course, will affect the order in which they are 
enabled to give official notification to the Minister for 
Foreign Affairs. In March 1818, a controversy occurred 
at Copenhagen under 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 maintained that he had thereby lost his 
seniority, and must take rank after the others. The 
majority, however, took the opposite view. 1 In 1830, 
it was agreed among the Heads of Missions at Paris that, 
notwithstanding the date of delivery of their new creden- 
tials, 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 King Leopold II, in consequence of the death of 
Leopold I on December 10, 1865; and the Belgian 
diplomatic representatives in foreign countries also pre- 
served their former relative seniority. 2 At the accession 
of King Alfonso of Spain, in 1875, the British minis- 
ter 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. 3 

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 

1 Schmelzing, ii. 128. 

2 Pradier-Fodere, i. 290; Garcia de la Vega, 210. 

3 U.S. For. Rel., cited by J. W. Foster, Pract. of Dipl., etc., 71. 


by the sovereign to whom they are accredited. And 
while in some places it is held that the date of presenta- 
tion of credentials regulates the relative rank in each 
category, 1 this cannot well happen at courts which were 
parties to the Reglement de Vienne. 

375. It is usual to confer the rank of Minister Pleni- 
potentiary on the councillor to the British embassy at 
Paris, and up to 1906, whenever the Ambassador went on 
leave, the councillor at once presented his credentials 
to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. But in that year the 
councillor received credentials to the French Republic, 
and the same course was pursued in 1911. At Petrograd 
and Constantinople the councillor has sometimes been 
minister plenipotentiary ad interim. In these cases the 
councillor who has the title of minister ranks after the 
Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary. 
There is no difference in status between a Minister 
Plenipotentiary en litre and one who has also the title of 
Envoy Extraordinary. 2 

376. We have seen that at the Court of Russia a 
distinction of rank is recognized as between Charge 
d'affaires en litre, and Charge d'affaires interimaire, an 
arrangement which can hardly be contested on any 
reasonable grounds. It is sometimes said that Charges 
d'affaires accredited to the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
rank among themselves according to the date of the 
delivery of their letter (which is contrary to the Reglement 
de Vienne} and that consequently a Charge d'affaires 
ad interim ranks after all those belonging to the perma- 
nent category. The existence of the latter cannot be 
said to have been taken into account at Vienna in 1815. 

' The distinction is not, however, always and everywhere 
recognized Many years ago, M. Casimir Perier was French 
Charge d'affaires interimaire at Brussels, while Count Die- 
trichstein was a Charge d'affaires en litre for Austria. The 

1 As, e. g., at Lima, according to the reglement of NOV. 19, 1892. 

2 Garcia de la Vega, 208 n. 


former claimed precedence on the ground of seniority. The 
other maintained that he was entitled in virtue of superior 
rank. Eventually they accommodated their difference by 
good-humouredly agreeing to walk past arm-in-arm on official 
occasions." * 

377. As has been said already, when there is any 
doubt as to the rules of precedence, the regulation of 
the particular court is decisive on the point. " This was 
particularly the case in former times at Constantinople. 
France, Holland and England used to have formally 
accredited envoys. The other representatives were the 
Austrian internuntius, the Ministers of Spain, Russia, 
Prussia and Naples, and the Swedish and Danish Charges 
d'affaires, of whom the latter also cared for the interests 
of the King of Saxony. The French envoy had prece- 
dence over all his diplomatic colleagues, no matter what 
their seniority, and for this reason Great Britain some- 
times maintained only a Charge d'affaires, while the 
interests of France were entrusted to a regular envoy. 
The Austrian internuntius occupied a position inter- 
mediate between those of an envoy and a Charge d'affaires, 2 
but was accorded the title of Excellency. The Charges 
d'affaires of Spain and Russia had precedence over all 
others of the same class." 3 

378. This is, however, now, all of it ancient history. 
Still more antiquated is what is to be found in Callieres. 

" Quand un Ministre 4 est arrive dans une Cour, & qu'il en 
a donne part au Prince, il doit en informer tous les Ministres 
Etrangers qui sont en la merhe Cour, par un Gentilhomme, 5 ou 
par un Secretaire, ils luy rendent ensuite la premiere visite, 
qui est due au dernier venu, s'il manque a faire avertir de 
son arrivee quelqu'un des Ministres Etrangers qui sont dans 

1 Pradier-Fodere", 291. 

2 This statement does not tally exactly with what is given in 
Chap. VIII on the authority of other writers. 

3 Schmelzing, 129. 

4 This term is used to include all categories of diplomatic agents 
from ambassador downwards. 

5 This seems to have been what we now call an honorary 

t, or perhaps a page. 


la Cour oii il arrive, ce Ministre ne luy doit point rendre de 
visite jusqu'a ce qu'il ait satisfait a cette civilite. 

Lorsqu'il y a des Ambassadeurs de plusieurs Roys, celui 
qui arrive doit rendre la premiere visite a 1'Ambassadeur 
de France, qui a par tout le premier rang, & qui ne la doit 
pas recevoir autrement. 1 

379. The claim of French Ambassadors to be visited 
before those of other Powers was sometimes pushed to an 
extreme, as appears from the following case. 

" Le Cardinal Savelli Romain, ayant ete fait Cardinal en 
1647, I G Comte d'Ognate, Ambassadeur d'Espagne luy rendit 
la premiere visite avant celle qu'il re9Ut du Marquis de Fonte- 
nay Mareuil Ambassadeur de France ; ce Cardinal rendit 
a 1' Ambassadeur d'Espagne sa visite, & alia ensuite chez 
1'Ambassadeur de France, qui le laissa entrer dans sa cour; 
& comme il sortoit du carosse, on lui vint dire de la part de 
1'Ambassadeur, qu'il ne vouloit pas le recevoir parce qu'il 
avoit manque a ce qu'il devoit a la Couronne de France, le 
Cardinal se plaignit de 1'affront que I'Ambassadeur luy faisoit 
a quoy on luy repondit qu'il ne devoit s'en prendre qu'a 
luy-meme, qu'il ne pouvoit pas ignorer ce qui etoit du a I'Am- 
bassadeur du premier Roy de la Chretiente, & qu'il n'avoit 
que feuilleter les Registres de la Cour de Rome, s'il en etoit 
mal-instruit ; Ce Cardinal fit faire ensuite de grandes excuses 
a I'Ambassadeur de France, & dit qu'il n'avoit manque que 
par le mauvais conseil de quelques Prelats qui luy avoient dit 
qu'il falloit rendre les visites dans 1'ordre qu'il les avoit 

380. Negotiators without Official Character. 

Such as have from time to time been maintained by 
Great Britain at the Vatican. The Court to which they 
are sent, and to whom their errand and character is 
known, must treat them as inviolable, but they cannot 
claim any diplomatic ceremonial. 3 

381. Commissioners for boundary questions, or for 
the exchange and cession of territories, have no claim to 
the ordinary diplomatic privileges and honours, but the 

1 Callieres, 181. This author's orthography, accents and 
punctuation have been carefully reproduced in this and other 

2 Ibid., 184. s Schmelzing, 136. 


inviolability of their persons and official papers ought 
to be conceded to them. 1 

382. Wives of diplomatists enjoy the same privileges, 
honours, precedence and title as their husbands. The 
wife of an Envoy consequently is entitled to 

1. A higher degree of inviolability than what is assured 
to her in virtue of her birth and sex. 

2. The same personal exemptions as belong to her 

3. 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. 

4. She claims precedence and preference in respect 
of presentation, reception at Court, visits and return 
visits, over other ladies, only if her husband enjoys 
precedence over the husbands of those other ladies. 2 

The rules as to presentations at Court and to members 
of reigning families, as well as to official visits which they 
must 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. 

383. In former times the question whether an ambas- 
sador, or other person of high rank, such as a cardinal, 
should give the seat 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 Ambas- 

i Oppenheim, 2nd edit., i. 511. z Schmelzing, 159. 


sadors to give to the Envoys of other Princes ; We do accord- 
ingly, in pursuance of the said Order in Council, hereby direct 
you, not to insist to have the Hand from Any Ambassador, 
in his own House, who may happen to be in the Court where 
you reside." * 

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 regoivent en tout des traitemens egaux 
& se traitent entr'eux avec la meme egalite. 

' Les Ambassadeurs des Couronnes a Rome sont assis et 
decouverts durant les Audiances que le Pape leur donne. 

' II y a plusieurs Cours ou les Ambassadeurs du Roy don- 
nent la main chez eux aux gens qualifiez des pays ou ils se 
trouvent, comme a Madrid aux Grands d'Espagne & aux prin- 
cipaux Offtciers, a Londres aux Lords Pairs du Royaume, en 
Suede & en Pologne aux Senateurs, & aux grands Officiers , & 
ils ne la donnent point aux Envoyez des autres Couronnes. 

' L'Empereur regoit les Envoyez du Roy debout & cou- 
vert, & demeure en cet etat durant toute 1'Audiance, 1'Envoye 
etant seul 2 avec 1'Empereur debout & decouvert. 

' Les Electeurs Lai'ques les regoivent & leur parlent debout 
& decouverts durant les Audiances publiques qu'ils leur don- 
nent, & ils sont assis & couverts lorsqu'ils ont Audiance des 
Electeurs Ecclesiastiques. 

"Les Souverains d' Italic se couvrent & les font couvrir, 
except e 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 regoivent 
leurs visites en ceremonie. 4 

" Ils donnent la main chez eux aux Ambassadeurs des Cou- 
ronnes & a celuy de la Republique de Venise qui sont dans la 

1 P. R. O., King's Letters, Prussia, 1737-1760, 2. 

2 This is the rule at Vienna down to the present day. 

3 CalliSres, 107. 4 131. 


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 Am- 
bassadeurs, & ils le recoivent d' ordinaire assez volontiers 
quoyque ce soit un titre laique. 1 

" Les Envoyez se rendent entr'eux les memes civilitez que 
les Ambassadeurs a leur arrivee a 1'egard des complimens et 
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. 2 

384. 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, 3 
sous le pretexte 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 dimculte de remplir ce devoir de poli- 
tesse envers cette eminence. Comme le Comte de Kaunitz 4 
voudra vraisemblablement suivre 1'exemple du sieur Moro- 
sini, 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 
assur6 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." 6 

It is to be hoped that such pretensions on the part of 
cardinals and ambassadors have not survived to the 
twentieth century. 

385. Conduct of Diplomatic Representatives of Belli- 
gerents towards each other during War-time. 

" Les Ministres des Princes qui sont en guerre & qui se trou- 
vent dans une meme Cour ne se visitent point tant que la guerre 

1 132. 2 193- 

3 Who was also Foreign Minister. 

4 Appointed ambassador at Paris in 1750. 

8 Recueil des Instructions, etc., Austria, i. 326. 


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 

" Le Sieur de Gremonville e"tant Envoye du Roy a Rome 
durant la guerre entre la France et 1'Espagne, un Moine Portu- 
gais lui decouvrit la resolution qu'il avait prise de faire assas- 
siner le Marquis de la Fuente Ambassadeur d'Espagne parce 
qu'il pretendoit de reiissir par ce moyen a delivrer Dom Duarte, 
frere du Roy de Portugal qui etoit prisonnier entre les mains 
des Espagnols ; le Sieur de Gremonville en avertit le Marquis 
de la Fuente & en fut fort loiie a la Cour de France & ailleurs 
comme le meritoit cette bonne action. 1 

This story recalls the incident of Charles Fox com- 
municating to Talleyrand, in 1806, information regarding 
a scheme for the assassination of Napoleon, which had 
been disclosed to him by a Frenchman. 2 

386. Order of Precedence on the Occasion of Personal 

If the ceremony is one at which the Diplomatic Body 
has to take what may be termed an active part, its mem- 
bers, ranged according to the order of precedence pre- 
scribed 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. 3 

" As regards seats, the place of honour and consequently 
the precedence attributed to the persons forming the com- 
pany, 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 

1 Callidres, 194. 

2 Camb. Mod. Hist., ix. 269 ; J. Holland Rose, Life of Napoleon I, 
ii. 70. 

8 De Martens-Geffcken, i. 127. 



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 cere- 
monies, 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 circum- 
stances. 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 ( J. 1 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 ( ~ ); 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 x. If five, the midmost is the 

De Martens-Geffcken, i. 131, puts the order thus 


first, the second is immediately in front, the third is behind, 

the foremost is the fourth and the hindmost the fifth . If 

there are six or more, the same principle is observed according 
as the number of persons is even or odd. 1 

387. Signing Treaties and other Documents. 

1. The first-named in the text, especially in the pre- 
amble, has the first place, the second-named the second, 
and so on. 

2. When 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 or Envoys are signing 
a protocol, they sign in the order of their local seniority, 
and not according to the alphabetical order of the French 
names of the countries they represent. If the minister 
for Foreign Affairs also signs, his signature takes the 
first place. But cases will be found where plenipoten- 
tiaries have disregarded all these rules, and have appended 
their signatures pele-mele ; vide the protocol of November 
21, 1818, of the " Congress " of Aix-la-Chapelle. 

388. In a diplomatic house precedence is accorded to 
officials of rank belonging to the country, provided no 
Ambassadors are present. The latter yield precedence 
only to the minister for Foreign Affairs. 

On the other hand, in the house of an official or digni- 
tary 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. 

1 Miruss. 

VOL. I. A A 


389. The title of "Excellency " is given to Ambassadors 
orally as well as in written communications in virtue 
of their diplomatic rank, even though they may not be 
entitled to it by birth, social rank or by any other office 
held by them. 

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 potentates. 1 After the 
Congress of Vienna it became general at all European 
courts. It is not given to an Ambassador by the sovereign 
to whom he is accredited. The latter addresses him as 
" Monsieur 1'Ambassadeur." Of course, an Ambassador 
of princely rank is addressed by the corresponding title, 
e. g. in Germany as " Durchlaucht " ; if he is a Cardinal 
by that of " Eminence." 

390. English usage does not accord it to Secretaries 
of State. 2 Only the Viceroy of Ireland, the Governors- 
General of Canada and India, the Governors of Calcutta, 
Bombay and Madras, the Commander-in-Chief in India, 
and the royal Ambassadors in foreign countries are in 
strictness entitled to it. The Colonial Secretary does not 
address governors of colonies as Excellency, but in the 
colonies they receive it from local society. It is also 
the custom to give it to the naval Commander-in-Chief 
on the China station. Perhaps it is good policy to accord 
it even to officials who are not really " Excellencies," if 
they are pleased with a title in excess of what belongs 
to their office. 

The wives of those who bear it by right are also 
addressed as " Your Excellency." 

391. Callieres says 

" On donne le titre d' 'Excellence aux Ambassadeurs extra- 
ordinaires et ordinaires, & on ne le donne point aux Envoyez, 

1 Flassan, iii. 93. 

2 See letter of C. Amyand to Colonel Yorke of July 4, 1751 
(S. P. France, 242, Pub. Rec. Off.). 


a moins qu'ils ne le pretendent par quelqu'autre qualite, 
comme celle de Ministre d'Etat, de Senateur ou de Grand 
Offtcier d'une Couronne. Ce litre ^.'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 Etrangers qui le donnent en France aux Ministres & aux 
Oinciers de la Couronne, & qui le recoivent d'eux, lorsqu'ils 
ont des titres, ou des qualites qui leur donnent droit de la 
pretendre." x 

392. With respect to Envoys Extraordinary and 
Ministers Plenipotentiary, Rivier says : " Ce n'est que 
par courtoisie qu'on leur donne, ainsi qu'a leurs femmes, 
le titre d'Excellence." 2 Garcia de la Vega informs us 
that it is not due to any person in Belgium, but that the 
minister for Foreign Affairs accords 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 give it to the king's 
ministers. 3 

393. In Spain, "Excellency" is 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. Sefioria 
ilustrisima is given to third-class functionaries of the 
Diplomatic Body, and Sefioria to the fourth and fifth 
classes of the same. 4 

394. The Peruvian reglement of November 19, 1892, 
for the reception of foreign ministers and cognate matters, 
gives directions to address an Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary as Vuestra excelencia, a Minister 
Resident as Vuestra Sefioria Honorable, a Charge d'affaires 
en titre or ad interim as Vuestra senoria. 

1 125. This French practice is confirmed by a letter to 
Lord Holies of May 26, 1664, from the Secretary Henry Bennet 
(Orig. Letters of H. E. Sir Rd. Fanshaw, 141). 

- 450. 3 Guide Pratique, 243. 

4 De Castro y Casaleiz, i. 360. 


It is bad taste to prefix the title of " Excellency " to 
the names of plenipotentiaries stated in the preamble of 
a treaty or convention. 

395- Dispute between France and Portugal respecting 
the use of this title. 

In April 1737 the Marquis Voyer d'Argenson was ap- 
pointed Ambassador to Portugal, but his departure was 
delayed by a question whether he should address Quedez, 
the Portuguese Secretary of State, as " Excellency." The 
French alleged that Quedez had not the character of 
Conseiller d'etat, the equivalent of minister, whilst Amelot 1 
was actually minister, and it was, therefore, quite proper 
that the Portuguese Ambassador at Paris should give 
him this designation. The Portuguese, however, con- 
tended that Torci, who for many years had been French 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but not minister, 
had always received it, both in speaking and writing, 
from the Portuguese Ambassador. An attempt was made 
to remove the difficulty by a decree issued by the King 
of Portugal (June 29, 1739) that " Excellency " should 
be used by every one in addressing Secretaries of State. 
Cardinal Fleury and Amelot then decided that d'Argenson, 
on his arrival at Lisbon, should use Vous and Votre 
Excellence to the Secretary of State, but if the latter 
was not definitely appointed minister or Conseiller d'etat 
d'Argenson should only give him Votre Seigneurie. The 
point had taken two years to settle, and in the end 
nothing came of it, in consequence of d'Argenson's 
resigning because Fleury refused to allow him to draw 
full salary for the whole time that he had been kept 
waiting at Paris. 2 

396. Decorations and presents. 

When a diplomatist leaves the Court at which he has 
represented his sovereign, either on a permanent or 
temporary mission, he usually receives a decoration. The 

1 French minister for Foreign Affairs at the time. 

2 Flassan, v. 108. 


gold snuff-box set with brilliants of former times is now 
obsolete. In most cases the class of decoration is settled 
by precedent. 

397- 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 of St. Michael as a reward for 
their services. On their return to England they appeared 
at Court and in the city 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 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 French- 
man 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 distinc- 
tion for very noble personages, is now a collar for every 
kind of animal." " But," continues Camden, " there will 
be another opportunity for speaking of foreign-conferred 
honours." * 

This " other opportunity ' was furnished by what 
happened 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 

1 Annales Rer. Angl., Ludg. Batav., 1639, 630. 


descendants. In the House of Lords it was argued on 
this occasion 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 flock. 1 Queen Elizabeth is reported by Camden to 
have said, in connexion 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 

398. 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. This regulation 
was entirely in accordance with the wishes of the diplo- 
matic service. 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 

399. In 1911, the regulation was relaxed in so far that 
private permission might be given to accept and wear on 
certain specified occasions, in a case where the decoration 

1 Annales Rer. AngL, Ludg., Batav., 1639, 734. 

2 The story is reproduced by Wicquefort in L'Ambassadeur, 
nouv. edit., augm., 1730, v. ii. 33, and Bk. 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 crowd of foreign ambassadors in full 
uniform and covered with orders, Talleyrand exclaimed, " Ma 
foi I C'est distingu& ! " 


was more or less of a complimentary character. The 
rules of 1914 state that permission in such cases will only 
be given on exceptional occasions, when in the public 
interest it is deemed expedient that acceptance should 
not be declined. Private permission will generally be 
given for a decoration conferred (i) on Ambassadors or 
Ministers abroad when the King pays a State visit to the 
country to which they are accredited; (3) on Members 
of Special Missions when the King is represented at a 
Foreign Coronation, Wedding or Funeral ; or on any Diplo- 
matic Representative specially accredited to represent 
His Majesty on such occasions ; and such Members of his 
staff who actually attend the ceremonies in their official 
capacity; (4) on Naval or Military Attaches only after 
completion of five years' service at the post to which they 
are appointed in that capacity. But private or restricted 
permission will not be given to (i) Ambassadors or Minis- 
ters when leaving; (2) Members of British missions 
announcing the death of a Sovereign. 

It is not the practice in England to offer a decoration 
to a foreign ambassador or other diplomatic agent on 
quitting his post. 

400. In France, authorization to accept and wear a 
foreign decoration is not given except on payment of a 
fee of 60, 100 or 150 francs, according to the class of 
decoration. 1 

In Belgium, no Belgian can obtain authorization to 
wear the decoration of a foreign Order except after a 
previous agreement between the Belgian Government and 
the Government of the sovereign who confers it. 2 

In Spain, permission must be obtained to wear a foreign 
decoration, and a fee of seventy-five pesetas has to be 
paid. The offer to confer must be made through the 
usual diplomatic channel. 3 

401. An exchange of Notes of May 23 and June 24, 

1 Garcia de la Vega, 1873, no. z Ibid., p. 107. 

3 De Castro y Casaleiz, i. 320. 


1903, between Denmark and Sweden and Norway, regu- 
lates the procedure with respect to the conferring of 
decorations on the subjects of the respective Powers. 1 

402. 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 what- 
ever 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. 2 

403. In 1834, a rule was made in Great Britain pro- 
hibiting 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 per- 
mission of the Secretary of State. But in the " good old 
times ' presents in 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 Govern- 
ment made a present of 1000 in connection with con- 
ventions 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 

1 Nouv. Rec. Gen., 3 ime s6rie, vi. 303. 

2 J. W. Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, etc., 144, 150. 


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 - 1 

404. 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 commis- 
sioners 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 never- 
theless 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 con- 
ventions, or to Ambassadors or Ministers of foreign 
Courts sent to the King of England on missions of con- 
gratulation or condolence, or to the permanent repre- 
sentatives 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 

405. At the Congress of Vienna it was agreed that 
the plenipotentiaries should receive neither presents nor 

1 J. Q. Adams, Mem., iii, 527, cited by J. W. Foster, 147. 

2 Miruss, 200. 3 Flassan, vi. 560. 

4 Hertslet, 174-6. 5 J. W. Foster, Pract. of Dipl., 143. 


decorations, but each of the Powers concerned gave 
presents to Gentz, the principal secretary, and to others 
who had helped in drawing up the protocols. On the 
proposal of the English it was decided to present Gentz 
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 Ministro de Estado 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 decorations 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 English embassy to the secretaries 6f the Spanish 
embassy, a corresponding amount being assigned to 
the secretaries of the English embassy. Presents to 
the amount of 90,000 reals (1000) were also given 
to the chanceries of each 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 amount 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 

406. 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. 

407. 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 cere- 
monial obligation, in itself of minor importance, has 
sometimes led to strained relations between Courts. In 
1750, for instance, 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 consequently suspended for a long 
period. 4 

408. The absence of an Envoy from a Court ceremony 

1 Villa-Urrutia, iii. 381-2 n. ; 448, 483. 

2 Schmelzing, ii. 208. 3 Temperley, 203. 
4 Schmelzing, ii. 126. 


may be of political significance. Thus, 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 
Governments 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. 1 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. 2 

409. At some capitals it is the usage for diplomatists 
to visit each other and offer congratulations on their 
respective national fete days or name-days of their 
sovereigns, such as July 14 for France, July 4 for 
1 Americans. 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 f6te-day of the country 

1 Schmelzing, ii. 227. 

2 Stapleton, Political Life of George Canning, i. 482. 



410. Termination in general, and its various causes 411. 
Persona non Grata ; cases 412. Genest 413. Gouverneur 
Morris 414- Pinckney 415. Jackson 416. Poinsett 
417. Jewett 418. Segur 419. Catacazy 420. Dupuy 
de Lome 421. Casa Yrujo 422. Wise 423. Bulwer 
424. Poussin 425. Marcoleta 426. Crampton 427. 
Russell 428. Sackville 429. Mendoza 430. Aubes- 
pine 431- Inojosa and Coloma 432. Le Bas 433. 
Bestoujew-Rioumine 434. Palm 435. Rasoumoffsky 
436. Casa F16rez 437. Dismissal of French and Belgian 
agents by Venezuela in 1895 438. General observations. 

410. THE mission of a diplomatist accredited to a 
foreign Government, or to a Congress or Conference, may 
come to an end during his lifetime in any one of the 
following ways 

1. 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. In neither of these cases is a formal recall 
necessary ; 

2. When the object of the mission is attained, as in 
the case of a ceremonial mission, or by the failure or 
completion of the negotiation entrusted to the minister; 

3. 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 unfor- 
tunate 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 ; 

4. By the expiration of the term of years for which 
the appointment was made, or by his resignation and 
its acceptance by his own Government. By English 
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 of seventy, but cases have occurred, 
such as that of the late Lord Pauncefote, Ambassador at 
Washington, of the term being extended beyond that age ; 

5. By the decease of his own Sovereign or of the 
Sovereign to whom he is accredited. The death of a 
Pope or of the President of a republic does not produce this 
effect, neither does the expiration of the term of office of 
a President. In either of the two former cases fresh 
credentials are necessary, unless the letter of the Minister's 
new Sovereign notifying his accession expressly states 
that the minister is to be continued. In that case fresh 
credentials are unnecessary. During the interval which 
may elapse, unless there is reason to expect a change in 
the headship of the mission, 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 confidentially, 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 responsi- 
bility of breaking off relations. At the present day, 
when all civilized capitals where diplomatists reside are 
connected by telegraph, such a case cannot easily 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 con- 
sequence of actions committed by him, the Government 
to which he is accredited no longer regards him as 
persona grata, or 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 been already 
sent to him ; 

8. A mission terminates also 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 resident. This increase 
of rank may be either permanent or temporary, as, for 
instance, when an envoy is raised to the rank of ambas- 
sador for the purpose of investing the sovereign with the 
insignia of a high order, to ask for the hand of a princess 
on behalf of a member of the family of his own sovereign, 
for the wedding of a princess of his own country with 
the sovereign to whom he is accredited or with the heir 
to the throne, for a coronation or other state ceremony. 
When the event is over, he simply reverts to his proper 
rank. In such cases, until the diplomatic agent who 
is promoted notifies the accession of rank conferred on 
him, he continues to be regarded as holding his previous 

Numerous instances of a minister becoming persona 
non grata are recorded in the books, and others are 
known to have occurred without having been made 
public. In European countries such matters are usually 
covered up with official secrecy, though the facts are 


often whispered about and come to be matters of common 
knowledge among diplomatists. 

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. In any case, his person continues to 
be inviolable. 

When a minister is about to quit his post, whether on 
account of his being transferred elsewhere, or because 
he is being retired for age, 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, 
when he is being transferred elsewhere, he may have to 
take his departure before the letter of recall can reach 
him. In that case he asks for an audience, and it will 
be a matter within his own discretion whether he shall 
mention the fact that he will not return. Unless his 
new appointment has been already gazetted at home, 
he will do well to say nothing about it. Under 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 consequence of the dissatisfaction 
of his own Government, as under No. 3. 

The sovereign to whom he has been accredited then 
addresses to the diplomatist's own sovereign what is 
termed a recredential, expressing his satisfaction with 
the agent's conduct and regret at his departure (lettres 
de recreance, Recreditif). 

If he breaks off relations himself, or his own Govern- 
ment resolves on a rupture of diplomatic intercourse, he 
does not ask for a farewell audience. If the latter is the 
cause of his return home, it often happens that he is 
instructed to come away without taking leave. 


In 1833, Charles John XIV of Sweden (Bernadotte) 
allowed himself to express to the French envoy the 
suspicion that his Government was entering on a revolu- 
tionary propaganda in other countries, and the envoy 
received instructions to quit Stockholm without taking 
leave of the King. 1 

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 is usual to offer a public funeral in 
his honour. The religious ceremony must depend on 
local law and usage. If his family desire to remove the 
corpse for interment elsewhere, 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 

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 authorized 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 repre- 
sentative of a friendly or allied Power, as seems to be 
assumed by most writers will be done. The representa- 
tive 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 

1 d'Haussonville, i. 48. 
VOL. I. B B 


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 succession to any real 
property which the deceased may have possessed there, 
and any legal formalities are, of course, regulated by the 
lex loci rei sites. 

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 

411. Persona non grata. This term is employed to 
distinguish from the cases noted in Chapter VI those 
in which a diplomatist, after having been accepted and 
having entered on his functions, has given such offence 
to the Government to which he was accredited, as to 
induce them to ask for his recall. In some of these the 
request was granted, with more or less readiness, in others 
it was declined. In the latter class of cases it has usually 
happened that the offended Government has informed 
the diplomatist that no further official intercourse would 
be held with him, and sent him his passports. 

412. In 1792, the French Government appointed 
Mons. Edmond C. Genest as minister to the United 
States. On arriving at Charleston, in April 1793, before 
proceeding to Philadelphia to present his credentials to 
President Washington, he began to fit out and commis- 
sion privateers to prey on the commerce of Great Britain, 
in violation of the neutrality of the United States. Worse 
still, French consuls, sitting as courts of admiralty, con- 
demned prizes taken by such privateers, some of them 
having been captured in American waters. When he 
was remonstrated with and demands were made on him 
that these irregularities should cease, he refused. He 
expressed contempt for the opinions of the President, 
and questioned his authority. Mr. Gouverneur Morris, 
the American representative in Paris, was instructed to 

1 The substance of these paragraphs is taken from De Martens- 
Geffcken, chap. ix. 


ask for his recall, which was immediately granted. 1 Genest 
subsequently became an American citizen, married a 
daughter of the Governor of New York, and remained 
in the United States till his death, which took place in 


413. The French republican Government took advan- 
tage of the request for Genest's recall to ask for the 
withdrawal of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, whom they had 
never liked. This was at once conceded. The fact is 
that he had sympathized with Louis XVI, and had con- 
trived, though he did not succeed in accomplishing, the 
King's escape from Paris. 3 

414. In return for the dismissal of Casa Yrujo 
( 421 infra), the Spanish Government in 1804 asked for 
the recall of Charles Pinckney, the American minister 
at Madrid. The reason assigned was a threatening note 
which he had addressed to Cevallos, the Spanish Ministro 
de Estado. This so-called threatening 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. Pinckney 
was instructed to come away on leave of absence. 4 

415. Case of the British Minister at Washington, 
Mr. F. J. Jackson. In a correspondence with the De- 
partment of State, in October 1809, respecting the 
repudiation by the British Government of an arrange- 
ment entered into by his predecessor, Mr. Erskine, for 
the settlement of the " Chesapeake " case and the with- 
drawal of the Orders in Council, this diplomatist inti- 
mated that when the agreement was concluded the 
United States Government were fully aware that Erskine 
had exceeded his instructions. The Secretary of State 
had already protested against this insinuation, and, on 

1 Moore, iv. 485. 

- J. W. Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, 157. 

3 Moore, iv. 489. * Ibid., iv. 490. 


its being renewed, wrote to Jackson that no further 
communication would be received from him. Shortly 
afterwards Mr. Pinkney, American minister in London, 
was instructed to ask for Jackson's recall. This was 
consented to by Lord Wellesley, then Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, who at the same time maintained 
that Jackson did not appear to have committed any 
intentional offence against the United States Government. 1 

416. In 1829, the 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 useful- 
ness, and had decided to authorize 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 
promptly granted, and a Charge d'affaires was appointed 
to Mexico in place of a Minister. 2 

417. 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 characterized 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 had also omitted to address the 
minister as Excellency or Honourable in his written 
communications. These lapses from courtesy drew upon 
him a rebuke from the Secretary of State, and finally he 
was recalled in consequence of a reiterated request from 
the Peruvian Government. In the despatch in which 
this decision was made known to Mr. Jewett, the Secre- 
tary of State laid it down that " if diplomatic agents 
lender themselves so unacceptable as to produce a 

1 A very full discussion of this case is to be found in Moore, 
iv. 514-30; Henry Adams, v. chap. vi. 

2 Moore, iv. 491. 


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 rela- 
tions between independent nations. Perhaps no circum- 
stances would justify such a refusal unless the national 
honour were involved." 1 

418. Mr. Henry Segur in 1863 was received as envoy 
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Salvador 
at Washington. It was shortly afterwards alleged that 
he had attempted to violate the neutrality laws of. the 
United States in connexion with a conflict between 
Salvador and two other Central American republics. 
Without however communicating to the Salvadorian 
Government their grounds of objection to him, the 
United States Government, through their minister to 
the Central American States, intimated that it would be 
agreeable if Mr. Segur could be relieved of his official 
functions and an unobjectionable person be appointed 
in his place. The American Minister, encountering a 
certain amount of unwillingness on the part of the 
Salvadorian President, said that matters had come to 
the knowledge of the United States President which 
rendered Mr. Segur's recall " necessary in the highest 
degree." In consequence, the foreign minister of Sal- 
vador sent a Note to the American Minister stating that, 
' the presence of Mr. Segur being required " in Salvador, 
the President had been pleased to authorize his recall in 
order that he might " render important services." 

Subsequently, Mr. Segur and certain other persons 
were arrested 2 and committed to prison, on the ground 
that they were endeavouring to procure a war-steamer, 
purchase arms and enlist men to be employed in the 

1 Moore, iv. 492. 

2 Possibly he had stayed longer than was necessary after his 
recall, and so lost the protection attached to the position of a 
diplomatist whose functions have ceased. 


conflict in question. The papers were submitted to the 
United States Attorney-General, who gave an opinion that 
the acts charged did not constitute an indictable offence. 1 
419. In June 1871, Mr. Fish, the United States 
Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Curtin, American 
minister at Petersburg, that the conduct of Mons. 
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 Govern- 
ment and to render intercourse with him, for either 
business or social purposes, highly disagreeable " ; that 
under 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 
that it was hoped that an intimation to this effect would 
be sufficient. Some delay took place, owing to the ab- 
sence of the Chancellor from Petersburg, and to the fact 
that the Grand Duke Alexis was about to visit the 
United States. The Secretary of State, however, tele- 
graphed that a decision was important before the Grand 
Duke's arrival, as the President could not be expected 
to receive, as one of his suite, " one who has been abusive 
of him and is personally unacceptable"; and this 
urgent message was repeated a couple of weeks later 
without producing the desired effect. At the Emperor's 
request, the President eventually consented to tolerate 
Mons. Catacazy until after the Grand Duke's visit, but 
intimated that if he was not then recalled he would be 
dismissed. In an instruction to Mr. Curtin, the Secre- 
tary of State reaffirmed the American view that an official 
statement that a diplomatic agent has ceased to be 
persona grata is sufficient for the purpose of obtaining 
his recall. " The declaration of the authorized repre- 
sentative 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." 

1 Moore, iv. 500. 


Finally, Mons. Catacazy wrote to the Secretary of 
State that he had received orders to sail for Russia 
immediately after the end of a tour which the Grand 
Duke was about to make in the United States. Mr. Fish 
replied that this was understood to be a practical com- 
pliance with the request for his recall. 

From the fuller account contained in Moore's Digest 
(iv. 501) it is manifest that Mons. Catacazy had given 
serious cause for displeasure to the President. " He 
made use of the newspapers in an attempt to defeat the 
negotiations of the Joint High Commission for the 
settlement of the Alabama claims, and finally became 
personally abusive of the President and members of his 
Cabinet. When confronted with his acts he was guilty 
of prevarication and deliberate falsehood." 1 

420. In February 1898, a translation of a private 
letter from Sefior Enrique 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. 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." Sefior 
Dupuy de Lome at once telegraphed to his Government 
asking to be relieved of his mission, and then, in an 
interview with the under-Secretary of State, Mr. Day, 
acknowledged that the letter was his composition. The 
American minister at Madrid was instructed by telegraph 
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 

1 J. W. Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, 433. 


intercourse between this country and Spain." The 
United States minister at once sought an interview with 
the Ministro de Estado, to whom he read the telegram 
and gave a copy. The minister 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 Ministro de Estado, reminding him that 
though four days had elapsed since their interview, he 
had not yet had the satisfaction of receiving any formal 
indication that the Spanish Government regretted and 
disavowed the language and sentiments employed and 
expressed in Sefior Dupuy de Lome's letter. The 
minister replied that at the interview referred to he had 
stated that the Spanish Government sincerely regretted 
the incident, adding that ' the Spanish ministry, in 
accepting the resignation of a functionary whose ser- 
vices they had been utilizing and valuing up to that 
time, left it perfectly well established that they did not 
share, and rather, on the contrary, disauthorized, 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, and the Department of State informed the 
American minister at Madrid that the Note received by 
him from the Ministro de Estado satisfactorily closed 
the incident. 1 

421. The following are instances in which the recall of 
a diplomatic agent was asked for and refused, where- 
upon his dismissal followed; also cases in which even 
the preliminary step towards obtaining withdrawal was 
not taken, but the minister was sent away without 
the option of recalling him being offered to his 

1 Moore, iv. 507; For. Rel. of U.S., 1898, 1007 and foil. 


In September 1804, the Marques de Casa Yrujo, 
Spanish envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten- 
tiary to the United States, proposed to the editor of an 
American newspaper 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." 1 He defended his conduct in a Note, which 
he also 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 American 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 by 
the United States be accomplished in this mode. The 
minister remained, however, in America, and even 
returned to Washington. He was, therefore, informed 
that his remaining was " dissatisfactory " to the Presi- 
dent, 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 American Government sent printed copies, 
together with a statement of the facts, to their repre- 
sentative at Madrid, instructing him to lay them before 
the Spanish Government. To their surprise, the Ministro 
de Estado Cevallos not only defended Casa Yrujo, but 
also declared that the communication of the papers with- 
out explanation was a disrespectful mode of addressing 

1 The violation of the Logan Act was alleged to have been con- 
mitted by certain American lawyers, who had furnished Yrujo 
with a legal opinion adverse to the view of the United States 
Government (Henry Adams, ii. 259). 


the Spanish Government. Yrujo's official relations with 
the Department of State ceased, but he continued to 
reside in the United States, where he had married a 
Pennsylvanian lady. Another Spanish diplomatist was 
received as Charge d'affaires. 1 

422. In 1847, the 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 imprison- 
ment 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 

423. The Paris revolution of February 24, 1848, led 
in Spain to the adoption of reactionary measures by 
the Government, which was then in the hands of the 
" Moderados." The reports received by Lord Palmerston 
from the British minister, Mr. Bulwer, 3 induced him to 
send out instructions to recommend " earnestly to the 
Spanish Government the adoption of a legal and con- 
stitutional course of government." After holding up as 
a warning to the Spanish Cabinet the recent fall of the 
King of the French, 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 

1 Moore, iv. 508 ; Henry Adams, ii. chaps, xi. and xvi. Accord- 
ing to J. W. Foster's account, it was Yrujo's violent language to 
Madison, the Secretary of State, in connexion with serious com- 
plications as to Florida, that was the cause of his recall (A Century 
of Amer. Dipt., 219). The "complications" referred to con- 
sisted in the passage of what was known as the " Mobile Act," 
purporting to regard Florida as a part of the territory of Louisiana, 
sold by Napoleon to the United States in 1803 (Adams, 42, 

2 Moore, iv. 495. 3 Afterwards Lord Dalling. 


calling to her councils some of those men who possess the 
confidence of the Liberal party." 

A slight outbreak having taken place, which was sup- 
pressed without much difficulty, 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 immediately returned to 
him both documents, accompanied by a long and strongly 
worded Note, expressing the resentment felt by the 
Spanish Government at the interference of Palmerston 
and Bulwer in the domestic affairs of the country. He 
quoted also from a Progresista journal a paragraph which 
seemed to indicate that the contents of Bulwer's Note 
were known outside, even before it reached the Ministerio 
de Estado. 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 recognize 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. The minister repeated the 
request in writing, but withdrew it on the following day, 
in consequence of fresh instructions from Madrid. Bulwer 
in the meantime wrote again, controverting Sotomayor's 
arguments. Part at least of this correspondence was 
subsequently furnished, it would seem by the Spanish 
ministry, to Galignani's journal, published in Paris. A 
dispute also arose as to asylum alleged to have been 
given by Bulwer to members of the Opposition suspected 
of having taken part in the outbreak. Shortly after- 
wards, a fresh insurrection broke out in Madrid, and 
next day Bulwer addressed another Note to Sotomayor, 
again justifying the original Note that had given so much 
offence, and complaining of the hostile language of the 


Government press. Three days later, Sotomayor wrote 
to him a private letter, suggesting that he should antici- 
pate 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 gentle- 
man 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 argumentative 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. 

Mr. Bulwer's own opinion was that " the rancour to 
which it has been attempted to make me a victim, 
though it might in some degree have been prepared by 
the controversy on the Spanish marriages [in 1846], and 
the state of feeling thus got up at a former period, must, 
in confining myself to the close discussion of immediate 


events, be said to have commenced with a Note which I 
presented, and which my Government approved of my 
having presented, dated the 7th April." 

This was the Note to Sotomayor enclosing a copy of 
Palmerston's despatch. Careful study of the papers 
presented to Parliament in connexion with this case, and 
with the Spanish marriage question, confirms Bulwer's 
conclusion. 1 

424. Mons. Poussin was French minister at Wash- 
ington in 1849. 

A French citizen named Port, domiciled in Mexico, 
claimed the value of certain bales of tobacco, of which 
he alleged that he had been deprived by the United 
States general in command at Puebla. It appeared on 
inquiry that Port had purchased the tobacco at a public 
sale held by authority of the American military officer 
previously in command at that place, under the impres- 
sion that it was public property; but when the dis- 
covery was made that it was private property, the sale 
was rescinded and Port's money was returned to him 
with interest. On these facts the United States Secre- 
tary of State informed M. Poussin that Port had no just 
claim. M. Poussin wrote in reply : " The Government 
of the United States must be convinced that it is more 
honourable to acquit, fairly, a debt contracted during 
war, under the pressure of necessity, than to avoid its 
payment by endeavouring to brand the character of an 
honest man." After a conference between them, how- 
ever, the Secretary of State permitted M. Poussin to 
substitute another Note omitting this sentence. Subse- 
quently, 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, M. 
Poussin asked that the United States Government 

1 Correspondence presented to Parliament, 1848. See also 
Bulwer's defence of his action, Life of Lord Palmerston, 1874, 
iii. 239. 


should disavow his conduct and reprove him. The 
Secretary of State, in transmitting Commander Carpen- 
ter's explanations, declined to comply with this demand. 
On this M. Poussin wrote back 

" His [Comr. Carpenter's] opinions have little interest in 
our eyes, when we have to condemn his conduct. I called on 
the 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 subscribes 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 Govern- 
ment. 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 Govern- 
ment 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 
American Secretary of State in reference to this affair, 
shortly afterwards left office, and his successor dropped 
the matter. No interruption took place in the diplomatic 
intercourse of the two countries. 1 

425. The United States Government in September 1852 
asked for the recall of Senor Marcoleta, the Nicaraguan 
minister, which was refused by that Republic. In answer 
to this refusal, the Secretary of State informed Sefior 
Marcoleta that instructions had been sent to Mr. Kerr, the 

1 Moore, iv. 530. 


United States minister to Central America, to renew the 
request for his recall and the appointment of a successor, 
and that in the 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 un- 
officially and in confidence. He not only endeavoured 
to frustrate the negotiation, but also boasted of his 
influence with certain Senators and threatened to use it. 
Mr. Webster, the Secretary of State, wrote on this occa- 
sion to the United States minister at Nicaragua that 
" such a request can never be refused between Govern- 
ments 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 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 afterwards, however, a new President of the 
United States having been elected, Senor Marcoleta 
presented fresh credentials as minister from Nicaragua, 
and continued to hold that position until April 

426. During the Crimean War, the United States 
Government complained to the British Government that 
British officials and agents had organized and were 
carrying out in the 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 sanctioning a violation of the United 

1 Moore, iv. 497. 


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 American Govern- 
ment. 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. 
Crampton, and the British consuls at New York, Cincin- 
nati 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 American 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 on the whole 
controversy that the British Government retained their 
high opinion of the zeal, ability and integrity of Mr. 
Crampton, and believed that in many important par- 
ticulars the President had been misled by erroneous 
information, and by the testimony of witnesses un- 
worthy of belief. Such a conflict of opinion on such a 
matter must necessarily be the subject of serious delibera- 
tion 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 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." 

This was in June 1856. The British Government, 
" while regretting a proceeding on the part of the Presi- 
dent of the United States, which cannot but be con- 
sidered as of an unfriendly character," did not suspend 
diplomatic relations with the American Minister in 
London, and in January 1857 Lord Napier was appointed 
to represent Great Britain at Washington. 1 

Mr. Crampton was made a K.C.B. on his return home, 
and appointed to Hanover in 1857, whence he was 
transferred to Petersburg in 1858. 

427. 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 Representatives, was resented by the 
Venezuelan Government, who thereupon sent Mr. Russell 
a Note breaking off official relations with him, and in- 
forming 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. 

Obviously, Mr. Russell's despatch was not written for 
publication, but that fact did not render the attribution 

1 Moore, iv. 534 ; Brit, and For. State Papers, vv. xlviiand xlviii. 


of corruptibility to " chief officers of the Government ' 
less offensive to Venezuela. 

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 authorized to make one 
which might be regarded as satisfactory, the dignity of 
the American Government would require that his rela- 
tions 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. A little later he communicated 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 authoriza- 
tion of the Department of State, to present his letters 
of recall, the Venezuelan minister for Foreign Affairs 
declined to receive him. 1 

In this instance the United States Government seem 
to have taken a line somewhat inconsistent with their 
action in the Dupuy de Lome and Sackville cases, in 
both of which they rested the demand for recall on the 
contents of documents written, indeed, by those diplo- 
matists, but not intended for publication. 

428. In 1888, Lord Sackville, the British Minister at 
Washington, received a letter purporting to come from 
a naturalized citizen of English birth, named " Mur- 
chison," asking for advice as to the way he, and many 
other individuals in his position, should vote in the 
pending election of the President. The writer said they 
believed the Republican candidate to be a high-tariff 
man and an enemy to British interests, while Mr. Cleve- 

1 Moore, iv. 535. 


land's policy had been favourable and friendly towards 
England. To this letter Lord Sackville at once 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 Presi- 
dential election," and he enclosed an extract from a 
newspaper in which electors were distinctly advised to 
vote for Mr. Cleveland. 

The 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 inter- 
view with him, in which he was represented to have 
said that " both the action of the Senate and the Presi- 
dent's letter of retaliation were for political effect," but 
in a private note to Mr. Bayard he said that his words 
were so turned as to impugn the action of the executive, 
and added : ' I beg to emphasize 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 Govern- 
ment to which I am accredited." 

Apart from the question whether the reply to " Mur- 
chison " was being made use of by the other party to 
influence the pending election, the President, it must be 
admitted, was entitled to regard the assumption by a 
foreign diplomatist of the function of influencing elec- 
tions as improper, and in Mr. Bayard's despatch of 
January 30, 1889, to Mr. Phelps, the American Minister 
in London, it is qualified as an " intolerable offence." 

On October 25 and 26, 1888, Mr. Bayard telegraphed 
to Mr. Phelps, complaining of the letter and of the 


language used at interviews with newspaper reporters. He 
suggested that Her Majesty's Government should take 
appropriate action without delay. Lord Salisbury de- 
clined 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. This reply was 
telegraphed back to Washington, and two days later 
Mr. Bayard addressed a Note to Lord Sackville, inform- 
ing him, by the instructions of the President, that he is 
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 

It is not necessary to go any farther, or to comment 
on the fact that the presidential election was impending. 
Lord Sackville unfortunately fell into a trap laid by 
an astute political wirepuller. Mr. J. W. Foster, in his 
Diplomatic Memoirs, speaks of Mr. Bayard's " unseemly 
haste in the dismissal of Sackville- West, the British 
minister ' (ii. 265). It was afterwards discovered that 
the writer of the letter signed " Murchison ' was a 
native-born citizen of the United States, who received 
great credit from members of the Republican party " for 
his remarkable achievement." 1 Dr. Hannis Taylor 
seems to share Mr. Foster's opinion, for, after a para- 
graph in which he gives a short summary of the Sackville 
case, he proceeds to say, with reference to that of Bulwer 
in 1848 : " Equally precipitate action, but on far graver 
provocation, perhaps, marked the dismissal of Mr. Bulwer, 
British minister to Spain, who, in 1848, was given his 
passports by the reactionary Government of Narvaez." 2 

1 Pap. Rel. to the For. Rel. of the U. S., 1888, pt. ii. ; Brit, and 
For. State Papers, Ixxxi, 479; Moore, iv. 536. 

2 A Treatise on International Public Law, 354. 


And we may further quote appropriately the opinion of 
the same author that 

" 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 in justice 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, 1 and reproduced by 
Calvo, 2 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. 3 
After all special objections to the personality of an envoy 
have been waived by his reception, it is obviously unjust 
that he should be expelled and disgraced without a reason- 
able 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 personal 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 dis- 
missal, unless it is satisfied that the reasons alleged are of 
sufficient gravity in themselves." 4 No more just or reason- 
able 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." 5 

The author adds in a footnote 

' The government of the U. S. has, however, given its sanc- 
tion to the view maintained by Halleck, Calvo and Dana : 
' The official or authorized statement that a minister has made 
himself unacceptable, or even that he has ceased to be persona 

1 Int. Law, i. 307. 2 Droit International, 1365. 

3 Dana's Wheaton, Note 137. 4 Hall, 6th edition, 298. 
6 Hannis Taylor, 350. 


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). 

429. Cases of Dismissal without Notice. 

In 1654, Francis Throkmorton was arrested on suspicion, 
in consequence of a letter he had written to Mary, Queen 
of Scots, which was intercepted. Camden * relates that 

" while this man was still in custody, and under examination 
Don Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spaniards Embassadour in 
England, secretly crossed the seas into France, in a great rage 
and fury, as if hee had beene thrust out of England with 
breach of the priviledge of an Embassadour, whereas he 
himself e being a man of a violent and turbulent spirit, abusing 
the sacred priviledge 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. And being 
for these things gently reprehended, hee was so farre from 
clearing himself from the things objected against him, by a 
modest answere, that he burdened the Queene and Councell 
with recriminations about detayning the Genuans money, 
ay ding the Estates of the Low-Countries, the Duke of Aniou, 
and Don Antonio, and the depredations of Drake. 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 informe the Spaniard plainly, how ill he had per- 
formed the office of his Embassie ; and withall to signifie, 
(lest the Queene by sending him away might seeme to renounce 
the ancient amity betwixt both kingdomes) that all offices of 
kindnesse should be shewed, if he would send any other that 
were desirous to preserve amity, so as the same kindnesse 
might in like sort be shewed to her Embassadour in Spaine. 
But whereas the Spaniard vouchsafed not to give Waad 
audience, but referred him to his Councell. He taking it in 

1 Camden's Annales Rerum Anglicarum, et Hibernicarum, 
regnante Elizabetha; Translated into English by R. N., Gent. 
London, 3rd edit., 1635, 263 and 264. 


disdaine, declared boldly, that it was a thing by custome 
most received, even in the heat of warre, that Embassadours 
be admitted into presence even by enemies : and that the 
Emperour Charles the 5. the Spaniards father admitted an 
herald to his presence, who denounced warre against him from 
the French King : and so he flatly refused to impart the effect 
of his Embassie to his Councell. And when Idiaco 1 the 
Spaniards Secretary could by no cunning get from him what 
his message was, at length he understood the whole matter 
from Mendoza, who lurked in France. Then he, laying aside 
his publicke person, familiarly Signified to Waad, that he was 
sorry there were some, which cunningly went about to break 
off the amity betwixt both Princes, and to foster enmities : 
That injury had been offered to the Catholic King himself, 
and not to his Embassadors, to Despesy 2 heretofore, and now 
to Mendoza : Neither was there cause that he should accuse 
Mendoza any farther to the King, who had already smarted 
sufficiently for his fault, (if any were) by his disgracefull dis- 
mission out of England ; or that he should complain he was 
not admitted audience. For, the Catholic King had but 
requited like for like, considering that Mendoza was dismissed 
by the Queene unheard : and as she had remitted Mendoza 
to her Councell, so did the King in like manner him to Cardinall 
Granuill. When Waad answered, that there was great 
difference betwixt, him, which had never offended the Catholic 
King, and Mendoza which had most grievously faulted 
against the Queen, insolently disdaining a long time to come, 
and had committed things unworthy of an Embassadour : 
yet could he not be admitted, but returned home unheard. 
The greatest part of the crimes which he would have obiected 
against Mendoza, were drawn out of Throckmortons confession, 
" For when Throkmorton was to be apprehended he had 
privily sent away a cabbinet of secret matters to Mendoza." 3 

430. Case of L'Aubespine. Camden's account of this case 
is given with a marginal note, and is as follows : " The 
French Embassador practiseth the Queenes death. Anno 
Domini, 1587." 

" While these things, either out of hatred or affection, were 
curiously and copiously argued according to men's under- 
standings, L'Aubespine the French Embassadour Legier in 

1 The correct name of this secretary is Don Juan Idiaquez 
(Gachard, 215). 

2 " In the year 1568. Don Ghuernon d'Espes was ordered to 
keep his house in London, for sending scandalous Letters to the 
Duke d'Alva unsealed " (Cottoni Posthuma, 4). 

3 R. N.'s translation of the Annales, 3rd edit., 1635, 263. 


England, a man wholly devoted to the Guisian faction, suppos- 
ing it best to provide for the captive Queenes safety, not by 
arguments, but by artificiall and bad practises, tampered 
first covertly for taking away Queene Elizabeths life, with 
William Stafford a young gentleman, 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. This Moody lying then in the publique prison of 
London, Stafford gave him to understand that the French 
Embassadour would very gladly speake with him. He 
answered, he was very desirous so to do, in case he were 
freed out of prison : in the mean time he prayed that Cordalion 
the Embassadours other Secretary, with whom he was well 
acquainted, might be sent unto him. The next day Trappy 
was sent, together with Stafford. He, after Stafford was 
moved aside, conferreth with Moody about the meanes of 
killing the Queene. Moody propoundeth po}^son, or a bagge 
of gunpowder of twenty pound weight to be put under the 
Queenes bed and secretly fiered. These two wayes pleased 
not Trappy, who wished that such another resolute fellow 
might be found, as was that Burgundian which had murdered 
the Prince of Orange. 

" These things were soone after revealed to the Queenes 
Councell by Stafford. Whereupon Trappy, purposing to go 
into France, was intercepted, and being questioned touching 
these matters, confessed what I have said. Hereupon the 
Embassador himself e being sent for the 12. of January to 
Cecyl house, came in the evening, where were present by the 
Queenes commandement, Cecyl Lord Burghley, Lord Treasurer 
of England, the Earle of Leicester, Sir Christopher Hatton, 
Vice-Chamberlain to the Queene, and Davison one of her 
Secretaries. They signifie that they had sent for him, to 
informe him for what cause they had attached Trappy his 
Secretary as he was going into France ; and they laid open 
unto him all things in particular which Stafford, Moody, and 
Trappy himselfe had confessed, and commanded them to be 
called in to witnesse the same to his face. The Embassadour, 
which had heard all this impatiently, and with a frowning 
countenance, now rose up and said, That he being the Kings 


Embassadour would not heare any accusation at all to the 
prejudice of the King his Master, and other Embassadours. 
When it was answered, that they should not be produced as 
accusers, but that he might see these things not to be feined 
and false, and that he might himselfe freely charge Stafford 
with falshood, he was satisfied. As soon as Stafford was 
brought in and began to speake, he interrupted him, rayling 
upon him, and affirming that Stafford was the first that pro- 
pounded the matter, and that he had threatened him, unlesse 
he would desist, to send him bound hand and foot to the 
Queene : but yet had spared him out of his singular love to 
Staffords mother, brother, and sister. Stafford falling upon 
his knees, made deepe protestations upon his salvation, that 
the Embassadour first propounded the matter. When the 
Embassadour was now more vehemently moved, Stafford 
was commanded to withdraw, and Moody was not brought in. 
And when Burghley had lightly reproved the Embassadour, 
as conscious or accessary to the plotting of so foule a fact, 
both by his own words and Trappy s confession ; He answered, 
If he had been accessary, yet seeing he was an Embassadour, 
he ought not to make discovery thereof to any but the King 
his Master onely. When Burghley replyed, That if it be not 
for an Embassadour to make any such discovery when a 
Prince his life is by wicked practise endangered (which not- 
withstanding is controverted) yet was it the duty of a Christian 
to repulse such injuries, for the safety not onely of a Prince, 
but also of any Christian ; This he stoutly denyed, and withall 
he told how a French Embassadour not long since in Spaine, 
having knowledge of a practise against the King of Spaines 
life, discovered it, not to the King of Spaine, but to the King 
his Master, and was therefore commended by the King and 
his Councell. But Burghley gravely admonished him to 
beware how he committed treason any more, or forgat the 
duty of an Embassadour, and the Queenes clemency, who 
would not by punishing a bad Embassadour hurt the good : 
and that he was not exempted from guiltinesse of the offence, 
though he escaped punishment." x 

431. Inojosa and Coloma Case. 

The fullest account of this affair we have met with is 
as follows 2 

" Now there must a step be made backward to the yeare 

1 R. N.'s translation of the Annales, 3rd edit., 1635, P- 26 3- 

2 Sir John Finett, Finetti Philoxenis : Som choice Observations, 
etc. London, 1656. 


1624, at which time there happend a noble [ ? notable] 
traverse reflecting on the two Spanish Ambassadors, viz. 
the Marquesse de Inojosa, and Don Carlos Coloma then 
Resident here, the last of a good disposition, the other sower 
and harsh, so that they were compared to oil and vinegar; 
the businesse was thus ; the Prince of Wales being back from 
Madrid, matters began to gather ill blood twixt England 
and Spain ; for the Treaty both of the match and Palatinate 
were dissolved by Act of Parliament, and the Duke of Bucking- 
ham made use of Parliament, and Puritan (who swayed then 
most in the Houses) to compasse this worke. The Spanish 
Ambassadors understanding that the rupture of the matri- 
moniall treaty proceeded from the Practices of Buckingham, 
they devised a way how to supplant, and ruine him ; they fell 
into consideration that King James was grown old, wherefore 
the least thing might raise umbrages of distrust and feare in 
him, therefore by a notable way of plotting, they informed 
him at a private Audience that there was a dangerous designe 
against his Royall Authority traced by the Duke of Bucking- 
ham and his confederates, the manner of which conspiracy 
will appear in this following Memoriall or Remonstrance of 
Sir Walter Ashton left still Ambassador leger in the Court of 
Spaine, which he presented there to the King himselfe, which 
was thus. 



SIR Walter Ashton, Ambassador to the King of great 
Britain, saith, that the King his Master hath commanded him 
to represent unto your Majesty the reasons why he could receive 
no satisfaction by your Majesties answer of the fifth of January, 
and that therby by the unanimous consent of his Parliament, 
he came to dissolve the Treaties of Match, and Palatinat. 

He received another answer from your Majesty, wherin he 
found lesse grounds to work upon, and having understood that 
neither by the Padre Marsto, or your Majesties Ambassadors 
who have assisted, these dales passed in his Court there was some- 
thing to be further propounded and declared touching the businesse 
of the Palatinat, wherby he might receive contentment: The 
said Ambassadors to this day have not said anything at all to 
any purpose, which being compared with other circumstances of 
their ill carriage, he gathers and doubts that according to their 
ill affections and depraved intentions wherwith they have pro- 
ceeded in all things, but specially in one particular, they have 
laboured to hinder the good correspondence with the so necessary 
and desired intelligence which should be conserv'd with your 


Moreover he saith, the King his Master hath commanded him 
to give an account to your Majesty, that in an Audience which he 
gave to the Marquesse of Inojosa, and to Don Carlos Coloma, they 
under the cloak and pretext of zeal, and particular care of his 
Majesties person, pretended to discover unto him a very great 
Conjuration both against his Roy all Dignity and person. Which 
was, that at the beginning of this Parliament the Duke of Bucking- 
ham had consulted with certain Lords and others of the Argu- 
ments and means which were to be taken for the breaking and 
dissolving of the Treaties both of Match and Palatinat, and their 
Consultations passed so far, that if his Majesty would not 
conform himself to their Councels, they would give him a house 
of pleasure, whither he might retire himself to his sport, in regard 
that the Prince had now years siifficient and parts answerable 
for the Government of the Kingdome : The Information was of 
that quality, that it was sufficient to make impressions in him 
of an everlasting jealousie, in regard that through the sides of 
Buckingham they wounded the Prince his Son with the Nobility, 
it being not probable that they could effect such a design without 
departing totally from that Obligation of faith and loyalty which 
they owed to his person and Crown, because the interested Lords 
made themselves culpable as Concealers : Nor is it likely the 
Duke would hurt [ ? hurl] himself upon such an enterprize, 
without communicating it first to the Prince, and knowledge of 
his pleasure. 

But because the Information might be made more deer, his 
Majesty did make many instances to the said Ambassadors, that 
they would give the Authors of the said Conspiracy, this being 
the sole means wherby their own honour might be preserved, and 
wherby the great care and zeal, they pretended to have of his 
person might appear: But the said Ambassadors instead of 
confirming the great zeal they made profession to bear him, ail 
the answer they gave consisted of Arguments against the discovery 
of the said Conspirators, so that for confirmation of the said 
Report, there remain d no other means then the examination of 
some of his Councell of State, and principall Subjects, which was 
put in execution accordingly, causing them to be put to their 
Oathes in his own presence, and commanding that such Interroga- 
tions and questions should be propounded unto them that were 
most pertinent to the accusation, so that not the least part, par- 
ticle, or circumstance remain d which was not exactly examined, 
and canvas' d : And he found in the Duke and the rest who 
were examined, a most clear and sincere innocency touching 
the impeachments and imputations wherewith your Majesties 
Ambassadors had charged them. 

This being done, he returned to make new instances unto the 
said Ambassadors, that they would not prefer the discovery of the 


names of the Conspirators to the security of his Roy all person, 
to the truth and honour of themselves, and to the hazzard of an 
opinion to be held the A uthors and betrayers of a plot of so much 
malice, sedition, and danger ; but the sayd Ambassadors con- 
tinued still in a knotty kind of obstinacy, resolving to conceale 
the names of the Conspirators, notwithstanding that he gave them 
Audience afterwards, wherein the Marquis of Inojosa took his 

But a few dayes after, they desired new Audience, pretending 
they had something to say that concerned the publick good, 
and conduced to the entire restitution of the Palatinate, and 
thereby to the conservation and confirmation of the friendship with 
your Majesty : But having suspended some few dayes to give 
them Audience, thinking that being thereby better advised, they 
would think on better courses, and discover the Authors of so 
pernicious a Plot, and having since made many instances to 
that effect, and attended the successe of so long patience, he sent 
his Secretary Sir Edward Conway, and Sir Francis Cotington 
Secretary to the Prince, commanding them that they should signifie 
unto the sayd Ambassadors, that he desired nothing more then a 
continuance of the freindship betwixt the two Crowns, therefore if 
they had any thing to say, they should communicate it unto the 
sayd Secretaries, as persons of great trust, which he imployed 
therefore expressly to that end, and if they made any difficulty 
of this also, then they might choose amongst his Councill of State 
those whom they liked best, and he would command that they 
should presently repaire unto them ; and if this also should 
seem inconvenient, they might send him what they had to say in 
a Letter by whom they thought fittest, and he would receive it 
with his own hands. 

But the Ambassadors misbehaving themselves, and not 
conforming to anything that was thus propounded, the sayd 
Secretaries, according to the instructions which they had re- 
ceived, told them that they being the Authors of an Information so 
dangerous and seditious, had made themselves incapable to treat 
further with the King their Master, and were it not for the 
respect he bore to the Catholick King, his dear and beloved 
Brother, their Master, and that they were in quality of Ambas- 
sadors to such a Majesty, he would and could by the Law of 
Nations, and the right of his owne Royall Justice, proceed against 
them with such severity as their offence deserved, but for the 
reasons aforesayd, he would leave the reparation to the Justice 
of their owne King, of whom he would demand and require it. 

In conformity to what hath been sayd, the sayd Ambassador 
of the King of Great Brittaine saith, That the King his Master 
hath commanded him to demand refaction and satisfaction of your 
Majesty against the sayd Marquis de Inojosa, and Don Carlos 


Coloma, making your Majesty judge of the great scandall, and 
enormous offence which they have committed against him, and 
against publick right, expecting justice from your Majesty in 
the demonstrations, and chastisement that your Majesty shall 
inflict upon them ; which, in regard of the manner of proceeding 
with your Majesty, and out of your Majesties owne integrity and 
goodnesse ought to be expected. 

Furthermore, the sayd Ambassador saith That the King his 
Master hath commanded him to assure your Majesty, that 
hitherto he hath not intermingled the correspondence and freind- 
ship hee holds with your Majesty, with the faults and offences of 
your Ministers, but leaves them and restrained them, to their 
owne persons, and that he still perseveres with your Majesty in 
the true and ancient freindship and brotherhood, as formerly, to 
which purpose hee is ready to give a hearing to any thing that shall 
be reasonable, and give answer thereunto, therefore when it shall 
please your Majesty to imploy any Ambassador thither, he will 
afford them all good entertainment, and receive them with that 
love which is fitting. 

For conclusion the sayd Ambassador humbly beseecheth 
your Majesty that you would be pleased to observe and weigh 
well the care and tendernesse wherewith the King his Master 
hath proceeded towards your Majesties Ambassadors, not obliging 
them to any precipitate resolutions, but allowing them time 
enough to prove, and give light of that which they had spoken : 
And besides by opening them many wayes besides, whereby they 
might have complyed with their Orders, if they had any such, 
which course if they had taken, they might well have given satis- 
faction to the King his Master, and moderated the so grounded 
opinion of their ill proceedings against the Peace, together with 
the good intelligence and correspondence 'twixt the two Crownes. 

Such was the complaint, or charge rather, which was 
exhibited by our Ambassador in Spain, against Inojosa and 
Coloma (for their misdemeanours in England) which fill'd 
that Court full of dark whispers for the present, and the 
World expected that the said Ambassadors should receive 
some punishment, or at least some mark of disgrace at their 
return ; but matters growing daily worse and worse betwixt 
the two Crownes, they were rather rewarded then repre- 
hended, Inojosa being promoted to be Governour of Milan, 
and Coloma received additions of employment and honours 
in Flanders. 

But the Civilities of England at that time towards the said 
Ambassadors was much cryed up abroad, that notwithstanding 
so pernicious and machinatious to discompose the whole 
English Court, and demolish Buckingham, yet were they 
permitted to depart peaceably, and though they had no 


Kings Ship to transport them, yet Sir Lewis Leukner was sent 
to conduct them to the Sea side, for prevention of any affront, 
or outrage that might have been offered them." 

Sir Robert Cotton, 1 at the request of Buckingham, 
drew up 

" A relation of the proceedings against Ambassadors who 
have miscaried themselves, &c." 

in which he quotes several cases known to have occurred, 
and the proceedings adopted in them, of which that of 
" Barnardino de Mendoza 2 for traducing falsly the Ministers 
of the State to further his seditious plots, who was re- 
strained first, and after commanded away in the year 
1586," was the most recent. He concluded by offering 
advice as to the best line of action to adopt, which was 
followed in the main part, especially in addressing an 
official complaint to the King of Spain, asking him to do 
justice in the matter. If he should refuse or delay 
redress, then it would be transactio criminis upon himself, 
and a dissolution of all amity and friendly intelligence, 
amounting to a declaration of war. But, as appears from 
Sir John Finett's narrative, the ambassadors quitted 
England after receiving intimation that the King would 
no longer hold intercourse with them, and so the affair 

The account in Wicquefort's L'Ambassadeur et ses 
fonctions, quoted in Phillimore's Commentaries on Inter- 
national Law, ii. 179, is apparently derived in part from 

432. Le Bas Case. 

In December 1652, Mazarin sent over to England as 
envoy to the Parliament the President de Bordeaux, 
charged with a mission to re-establish friendly relations 
between the two countries. Hostilities not amounting 
to open war had arisen, and English privateers had 

1 Cottoni Posthuma, by J. H., Esq. London, 1651. 

2 See 429. 


even attacked some of the ships of the French King. 
Bas (he is called Baron de Baas in the French documents) 
was sent over early in January 1654 to assist Bordeaux, 
and returned to Paris with proposals from Cromwell. 
It was then decided to give Bordeaux the rank of Ambas- 
sador, and Bas was again despatched to England, bearing 
a letter from Louis XIV to Cromwell, accrediting both 
Bordeaux and himself. But it is quite clear that Bas 
was only councillor of embassy and that Bordeaux alone 
had the rank of Ambassador. It may be that Bas had 
secret instructions from Mazarin to stir up trouble, if he 
found a convenient opportunity. However that may be, 
early in April he sent a servant to one Dr. Naudin, a 
French anabaptist doctor, 1 inviting him to an interview, 
at which he proposed to him to foment " divisions and 
dissensions in this land," and promised to procure funds 
for the purpose from France. 2 How Bas came to know of 
Naudin's existence does not appear. Naudin informed 
a Colonel Buller, and they both made voluntary deposi- 
tions. Guizot remarks : " Le fait meme etait incontest- 
able, and probablement plus grave que Cromwell ne le 
laissa paraitre, car il y a lieu de croire que M. de Baas, 
envoye extraordinaire de Mazarin a Londres vers cette 
epoque et adjoint momentanement a la legation de M. 
de Bordeaux, n'etait pas etranger aux conspirateurs et a 
leur dessein. 3 Cromwell, on June 12, sent for Bas, and 
taxed him with his complicity in the plot. The conse- 
quence of this conversation was that Bas was ordered to 
leave the country in three days' time. 4 Bordeaux obtained 
an audience of Cromwell on the following day, and pro- 
tested against Bas's being sent away so abruptly. He 
told the Protector that His Highness should first complain 
to the King, and ask for his recall, which would certainly 
be accorded. Cromwell replied that Bas was more 
guilty than Bordeaux supposed, and that such a person 

1 S. R. Gardiner, iii. 121. 2 Thurloe's State Papers, ii. 309, 351, 
3 Cromwell, ii. 51. 4 S. R. Gar.diner, iii. 151. 


could not be suffered to remain any longer in England. 
A " letter of intelligence " from Paris, of July 18, n.s. 
reports l 

' This de Baas being sent away so civilly by the protector, 
is a great honour to his highness here ; for few would do him 
in such cases such honour for any master's sake." 

Bordeaux, writing to Chaorst, the Governor of Calais, 
says 2 

" They do expect here, that the court should punish Mons. de 
Baas ; and likewise my lord protector hath writ by this post 
both to his majesty and the cardinal. 3 His letters were brought 
to me to-night. Although I believe him innocent, yet the 
public interest will require, that Mons. de Baas must not be 
caressed and made much of at court at his first arrival." 

In a letter to Chanut, 4 French ambassador in Holland, 
Bordeaux wrote as follows 

" I will believe, that my lord protector doth not expect, that 
Mons. de Baas should be brought to a trial, and that he would 
be contented, if he might only be sent into some place, which 
might serve for a prison ; or at least that he might be removed 
from the Court, whence I have no news since these alterations. 
The sieges of Stenay and Arras do give them so much to do, 
that they can have no thoughts of England. I do expect 
an express from thence with news, which I am often asked 
after here : it were to be wished, that they may be conform- 
able to their expectation, and that the letter of the lord pro- 
tector to the king and cardinal might produce some outward 
demonstration of discontent with the proceedings of Mons. 
de Baas, who in effect could not imagine a better way to make 
him famous in history. I hope the court will do me that 
favour, as not to make me the author of disgrace, although it 
is so reported at Paris." 

In a later letter to Chanut, 5 speaking of an audience 
which he had had with Cromwell, he relates that 

1 Bordeaux to Brienne, June 25, in Guizot, ii. 406; Thurloe, 


' Thurloe, 406, June 29. 

* These letters are in Guizot, ii. 414, 416. 

455, Thurloe, July 24/14. Evidently translated from an inter- 
cepted letter in French, as likewise the next extract. 

5 Thurloe, 492, Aug. 7, 1654 (n.s.). 


' The discourse, which was made upon the subject of the 
lord de Baas, was altogether conformable to the orders, 
which I had received from the court, to demand of the lord 
protector reparation of the injury, which was done to the 
king in the person of his minister ; or the proofs and deposi- 
tions, which did cause his suspicions ; that so his majesty, by 
exemplary justice upon M. de Baas, if he be guilty, may make 
known to the people, that he had exceeded his orders. This 
was the subject of an audience, which his highness gave me 
on Monday last ; and he took this last part. You may 
believe that the audience did not pass altogether without 
speaking of other affairs : however, nothing was resolved, and 
I was referred to my commissioners, with whom I have had 
some conferences." 

It may be concluded that Mazarin did not take serious 
umbrage at the expulsion of Bas, for almost by return 
of post further instructions were sent to Bordeaux 
respecting the treaty negotiations, 1 and the observations 
the French ambassador was instructed to present were 
apparently pro forma only, as nothing more was heard of 
the incident. 

There is a very confused account of the affair in 
Gregorio Leti's Vita di Oliviero Cromvele, Amsterdam, 
1692, ii. 240, and on this is based Flassan's narrative in 
his Histoire Generate de la diplomatie frangaise, iii. 197. 
The Histoire d' Olivier Cromwel (Paris, 1691), by Raguenet, 
states that the most Christian King had recalled Bordeaux 
from London, on account of Admiral Black's attack on a 
French ship in the Channel, leaving Baron le Bas there 
as resident. He tells the same story about the summons 
to Cromwell which we find in Leti and Flassan, and adds 
that after le Bas's dismissal Bordeaux returned to 
London. From the correspondence printed by Guizot 
it is clear that the latter was continuously in London 
from December 1652, till after the death of Cromwell in 
September 1658. 

433- Castf of Bcstoujcw-Riouwine. Bestoujew-Riou- 

1 Guizot, ii. 456, dated July 16, followed by a draft treaty 
dated August 5. 

VOL. I. D D 


mine, the newly appointed Russian resident in London, 
in 1720, 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 especially by a memoire presented October 6, 1720. 
On November 15, a special meeting of the Cabinet 
was called at which this memoire, just published, was 
discussed, and it was unanimously 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. He was authorized on this 
occasion to raise no difficulty about the titles claimed by 
the Tsarina Anna Petrovna. Harrington, in his instruc- 
tions to Rondeau, pointed out that the expressions 
" Imperial Majesty," " Majesty the Tsar," and " Majesty " 
had been employed indifferently in English books. 1 

434. Palm's Case. The London Gazette of Tuesday, 
February 28, to Saturday, March 4, 1726, contained 
the following announcement 

" Whitehall, March 4. 

" 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 the said 
Palm still more insolent and more injurious than the Memorial 

1 F. de Martens, ix(x). 52. It will be recalled that the French 
King had argued that " Majest6 imperiale " was not good French. 
See 59. 


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 ( 338) 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, 1726/7. 2 
Palm thereupon received instructions from Count Sinzen- 
dorf , to present a memorial to the King, the text of which 
was enclosed to him, 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 satisfac- 
tion proportioned to the enormity of the affront." 3 The 
memorial 4 presented by M. de Palm declared the state- 
ments 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 proceeding was justly resented by the King, 
who requited the insult by expelling the Emperor's 
Resident and thus breaking off diplomatic relations. 

1 Cobbett, Parl. Hist., viii. 505, 509. 2 Ibid., 524. 

* Ibid., 557, 558, 559 n., and P.R.O., S.P. Foreign, Germany, 
vol. Ix. 

4 Ibid., 555-7 n., and P.R.O., same vol. The copies at the 
P.R.O. are in print. 5 Ibid., 554. 


435. Rasoumoff sky's Case. In 1788, Gustavus III, 
King of Sweden, wishing to take his revenge for the 
intrigues carried on by Catherine II among the mal- 
content Swedish nobles, saw his opportunity when his 
enemy, engaged in war against Turkey, had equipped 
a fleet destined to proceed to the Mediterranean to 
operate in the Greek Archipelago. He proceeded then 
to send his own fleet to sea and to despatch a con- 
siderable land force into Finland, thus threatening 
Petersburg. On this, Count Rasoumoffsky, Russian 
envoy extraordinary at Stockholm, by orders of the 
Empress, addressed on June 18 a Note of protestation to 
the Chancellor Oxenstierna, in which he declared " to 
the minister of His Swedish Majesty, as well as to all 
those of the nation who had any share in the adminis- 
tration, that his mistress had no hostile intentions 
towards her neighbours, and that if such a formal and 
positive assurance was not sufficient to re-establish calm- 
ness and tranquillity, she was resolved to await the event 
with that confidence and security with which she was 
inspired by the purity and innocence of her intentions, as 
well as by the sufficiency of the means placed in her hands 
by God, and which she had never employed but for the 
honour (gloire) of her empire and the welfare of her 

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 revolution 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 
Petersburg, but he refused, and remained at Stockholm 
till August n, or seven weeks after he had been ordered 
to leave. An answer to Rasoumoffsky's Note of June 18 


was despatched to Nolcken, Swedish ambassador at 
Petersburg, for delivery to the Russian Government. 
But Nolcken had already, on July 4, been informed that 
the Empress would no longer recognize him (this resolution 
having been taken on June 27), and he was ordered to 
leave in a week's time. Consequently the Note was 
delivered by Schlaff, the Secretary of Legation. It was 
conceived in such an insulting tone, like all the others 
exchanged between Sweden and Russia on this occasion, 
as Ch. de Martens observes, that Schlaff in his turn was 
ordered to leave, with the rest of the legation. 1 

War was declared on both sides, and hostilities followed, 
as was certainly the intention of the King of Sweden from 
the very first. 

436. Case of Casa Florez. 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 subjects, who were pro- 
bably 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 

437. Expulsion of French and Belgian Representatives 
from Venezuela. In 1895, the Italian Government pub- 
lished a protocol signed at Caracas some time previously by 
the diplomatic representatives of Belgium, France, Ger- 
many and Italy, which in the opinion of the Venezuelan 
Government contained " gratuitous and defamatory state- 
ments reflecting on the honour of the State and the integrity 
of the Executive." Without taking the preliminary step 

1 Ch. de Martens, ii. 275. 2 Villa-Urrutia, iii. 407. 


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 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 
x no affront to France or Belgium, whose flags she had 
conspicuously saluted on the same day that she dismissed 
their personally objectionable agents. 1 

438. It will, perhaps, attract notice that in a large 
proportion of the cases noted, the United States has been 
prominently concerned. But no inference can be drawn 
from this fact. It can be sufficiently accounted for by 
stating that many governments abstain as much as 
possible from publishing information about incidents of 
the kind, affecting their diplomatic service. 

The conclusion to be drawn is that any Government 
has the right of asking for the recall of a foreign diplomatic 
agent on the ground that his continuance 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 Govern- 
ment has not rendered himself persona ingrata there is no 
reason for dismissing him. That would only be done if 

1 Moore, iv. 548. 


the dismissal was intended to wear 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 entrusting the mission for a while 
to a Charge d'affaires. In any case of the kind a Govern- 
ment 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. 






I .- 




University of Toronto 








Acme Library Card Pocket 

Under Pat. "Ref. Index File"