CASE OF DA SA, 1653.

(Ward's Law of Nations, II., 537.)

The brother of an ambassador and a member of his suite, was executed, for sedition and murder.

"In 1653, Don Pantaleon Sa, brother to the Portuguese ambassador in England, quarrelled with an Englishman, Colonel Gerhard, about some matter in the new exchange; a scuffle ensued, in which Gerhard was severely wounded. The quarrel was renewed the next day, at the same place; but this time Sa came with fifty followers, all armed to the teeth, with the deliberate intention of destroying his adversary. The result was, that many English were wounded, and one person (a Mr. Greenway), accidentally present, killed; that the Guards were called in, and fired upon by the Portuguese, several of whom they took to prison; the rest, with Sa, took refuge in the hotel of the Portuguese ambassador. The ambassador was afterwards required to deliver up others, of the delinquents, which request he complied with, and his brother was among them. He interceded for his brother; but Cromwell resolved, if he could, to try him by the law of the land. He, therefore, consulted the most eminent of the professors of the civil law to settle how such a barbarous murder might be punished. But these disagreeing among themselves, he left the decision of the affair to a court of delegates, consisting of the Chief Justice and two other judges, three noblemen, and three doctors of the civil law. Before these Sa was examined.

"At first he was supposed to be a colleague in the embassy, and he vaunted himself that he was the king's ambassador, and subject to the jurisdiction of no one else.' He was made, however, to produce his credentials, by which all that could be proved was that the king intended in a little time to recall his brother, and to give him a commission to manage his affairs in England. This being judged insufficient to prove him an ambassador, he was, without any further regard to the privilege of that character, ordered, as well as all the rest, to plead to the indictment.

"Such is the accurate statement of the affair till it came to a jury, as it appears from the account of Zouch, a civilian of eminence and himself a delegate in the cause.

"It is evident, from this account of the matter, and one of more

authority can hardly be met with, that had Sa been actually ambassador, instead of forming a part of the suite, the proceedings against him would have been the same with those in the cases cited above. All, therefore, that can fairly be drawn from this precedent, as to the decision of the then existing law of England, is that the suite of an ambassador, if they committed murder, were liable to be tried for it by the courts of the country. Zouch asserts expressly, that his own opinion upon the main question agreed with that of Grotius and the best authors, as to the exemption of ambassadors themselves; and it should appear from his Solutio Quæstionis, that if Sa could have proved that he was an actual ambassador, his plea before the delegates would have been allowed."

GYLLENBORG'S CASE, 1717.

(Ward's Law of Nations, II., 548.)

It was held in this case, that if an ambassador conspires to overthrow the government to which he is accredited, he may be arrested; and that his papers may be seized.

On the 29th of January, 1717, the government of England having certain information of a conspiracy to invade the country and dethrone the King, contrived by Gyllenborg, the ambassador of Sweden, at that time at peace with Great Britain; they ordered the arrest of that minister, which was accordingly effected. General Wade and Colonel Blakeney to whom the charge was entrusted, found him making up dispatches, which they told him they had orders to seize; and they even insisted upon searching his cabinet, which, upon the refusal of his lady to deliver the keys, they actually broke open. Gyllenborg complained of these proceedings, as a direct breach of the law of nations, and some of the foreign ministers at the court of London expressed themselves to the same effect; upon which the secretaries of state, Methuen and Stanhope, wrote circular letters to them, to assign reasons for the arrest, which satisfied them all except Montleone, the Spanish ambassador, who in his answer observed, that he was sorry no other way could be fallen upon for preserving the peace of the kingdom, than that of the arrest of a public minister, and the seizure of his papers, which are the repositories of his secrets, two facts which seemed sensibly to wound the law of nations. The observation, however, answers itself; since the confession that there was no other way, proves that this extremity was the simple consequence of those universal laws, which ever will

and must overcome all other; I mean legitimate necessity, and self. defence.

PRINCE CELLAMARE'S CASE, 1718.

(Marten's Causes Célèbres, I., 149.)

For conspiring against the state, an ambassador was arrested and conducted across the frontier into his own country.

Prince Cellamare, the ambassador of Spain at Paris, was the instrument of Alberoni's hostile intrigues against the regent.

He was in close correspondence with many of the malcontent French nobility, but his chief confidants were the Duke and Duchess of Maine, who had never forgiven the Duke's removal from the posts of authority assigned to him by the will of Louis XIV.

A plot was organized (though it seems doubtful how far the design was seriously entertained) for carrying off the regent into Spain, and placing Philip V. at the head of the French Government. Assistance was expected from Brittany, which was just then in agitation in consequence of an attempt against the ancient privileges of the province; and a fleet was actually dispatched from Spain to support the insurrection. The confederates, however, were betrayed to Dubois; an agent of Cellamare was seized at Poitiers on his way to Madrid; and dispatches of which he was the bearer fully compromised all the principal parties to the scheme.

A detachment of troops was sent to guard the hotel of the ambassador, while the Minister of War, Le Blanc, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dubois, made an examination of his papers.

Cellamare appealed to the other ambassadors resident in Paris, but regarding such a conspiracy as depriving him of all privileges, they refused to interfere.

On the other hand, to justify these extreme measures, the regent published a circular letter to the foreign ministers setting forth the facts of the conspiracy, and the imminent danger to the state.

Some days later, letters of Cellamare were made public, which proved conclusively his part in the conspiracy.

Cellamare was then confined in the château De Blois, with orders to detain him there till the French ambassador at Madrid should arrive in France.

On the news of the arrival of the French ambassador at Bayonne, the order was given to conduct Cellamare to the Spanish frontier, and this order was carried out on the 6th of March, 1719.

(b) Civil Jurisdiction.

THE AMBASSADOR OF PETER THE GREAT, 1708.

(Blackstone's Commentaries, Book I., Chap. VII.)

Neither an ambassador nor any of his suite can be prosecuted for any debt or contract in the courts of the country in which they reside.

"In respect to civil suits, all the foreign jurists agree, that neither an ambassador, nor any of his train or comites, can be prosecuted for any debt or contract in the courts of that kingdom wherein he is sent to reside. Yet Sir Edward Coke maintains, that, if an ambassador make a contract which is good jure gentium, he shall answer for it here. But the truth is, so few cases, if any, had arisen, wherein the privilege was either claimed or disputed, even with regard to civil suits that our law-books are, in general, quite silent upon it previous to the reign of Queen Anne; when an ambassador from Peter the Great, Czar of Muscovy, was actually arrested and taken out of his coach in London, for a debt of fifty pounds which he had there contracted. Instead of applying to be discharged upon his privilege, he gave bail to the action, and the next day complained to the Queen. The persons who were concerned in the arrest were examined before the privy council, of which the Lord Chief Justice Holt was at the same time sworn a member, and seventeen were committed to prison: most of them were prosecuted by information in the Court of Queen's Bench at the suit of the attorney-general, and at their trial before the Lord Chief Justice were convicted of the facts by the jury, reserving the question of law, how far those facts were criminal, to be afterwards argued before the judges; which question was never determined. In the meantime the Czar resented this affront very highly, and demanded that the sheriff of Middlesex and all others concerned in the arrest should be punished with instant death. But the Queen, to the amazement of that despotic court, directed her secretary to inform him that she could inflict no punishment upon any, the meanest of her subjects, unless warranted by the law of the land; and therefore was persuaded that he would not insist upon impossibilities.' To satisfy, however, the clamors of the foreign ministers, who made it a common cause, as well as to appease the wrath of Peter, a bill was brought into parliament, and afterwards passed into a law, to prevent and punish such outrageous insolence for the future. And with a copy of this act, elegantly

engrossed and illuminated, accompanied by a letter from the Queen, an ambassador extraordinary was commissioned to appear at Moscow, who declared that though her majesty could not inflict such a punishment as was required, because of the defect in that particular of the former established constitutions of her kingdom, yet, with the unanimous consent of the parliament, she had caused a new act to be passed, to serve as a law for the future.' This humiliating step was accepted as a full satisfaction by the Czar; and the offenders, at his request, were discharged from all farther prosecution.

"This statute recites the arrest which had been made in contempt of the protection granted by her majesty, contrary to the law of nations, and in prejudice of the rights and privileges, which ambassadors and other public ministers have at all times been thereby possessed of, and ought to be kept sacred and inviolable: wherefore it enacts that for the future all process whereby the person of any ambassador, or of his domestic or domestic servant may be arrested, or his goods distrained or seized, shall be utterly null and void; and the persons prosecuting, soliciting, or executing such process shall be deemed violaters of the law of nations, and disturbers of the public repose; and shall suffer such penalties and corporal punishment as the lord chancellor and the two chief justices, or any two of them, shall think fit. But it is expressly provided, that no trader within the description of the bankrupt laws, who shall be in the service of any ambassador, shall be privileged or protected by this act; nor shall any one be punished for arresting an ambassador's servant, unless his name be registered with the secretary of state, and by him transmitted to the sheriffs of London and Middlesex. Exceptions that are strictly conformable to the rights of ambassadors as observed in the most civilized countries. And, in consequence of this statute, thus declaring and enforcing the law of nations, these privileges are now held to be part of the law of the land, and are constantly allowed in the courts of common law."

TAYLOR v. BEST.

COMMON PLEAS, 1854.

(14 Common Bench, 487.)

A public minister who engages in trade, in the country to which he is accredited, does not thereby forfeit the privileges and immunities accorded to diplomatic agents. But when he voluntarily appears, in compliance with a writ, and submits himself to the jurisdiction, the court will not interfere for his relief.