salute. But from Holland, England was led by commercial jealousy and a feeling of superior strength, to require those humiliating marks of respect with great pertinacity. The war between the two nations, which broke out in 1652, was preceded by an engagement between Blake and Van Tromp, growing out of the demand that the flag of Holland should be lowered; and in the treaties of 1654, 1662, and 1667, the Dutch agreed to pay this compliment within certain seas in future. In 1671 the captain of a king's yacht sailed out of the Meuse through a Dutch fleet, having received orders to test their compliance with this rule: the vice-admiral in command declared his willingness to lower his own flag to the royal flag of England, but refused to allow the whole fleet to join in the act. For this the yacht fired upon him, but its captain was put into the Tower on reaching England for not continuing his fire, although the Dutch had not retaliated. The English ambassador at the Hague claimed that reparation was due for this refusal of the vice-admiral, inasmuch as not only single vessels, but also whole fleets, were obliged to strike the flag to an English vessel of war. The refusal of the states-general to redress this grievance was a leading pretext of the already meditated war of 1672.1 At the peace of 1674 it was stipulated that fleets as well as single vessels, belonging to the Dutch republic, should furl the flag and lower the topsail before any English vessel of war, between Cape Staten in Norway and Cape Finisterre in Northern Spain. Even in 17842 these absurd tokens of inferiority were again confirmed in a treaty. The French, in the same century, set up similar pretensions against Holland, although without the pretext of dominion over the narrow seas. But their claims were not so galling or so persevering as those of England. In an ordonnance of 1689, Louis XIV. went so far as to require that when French vessels of war met those of other nations equal in rank, they should demand the first salute, and use force, if it were withheld. This is mentioned as a grievance by William III. in the declaration of war, which he made at the beginning of his reign. In the eighteenth century a number of treaties established 1 Bynkershoek's critique on this transaction (u. s.) is worthy of notice. While he inclines to admit that the treaty of 1654, rightly interpreted, sustained the English claim that a whole fleet of the Dutch should salute a single English ship in the English seas, by lowering flag and topsails, he claims, (1.) that the affair occurred near the shore of Zealand, and therefore outside of the English dominions; (2.) that a yacht, though with guns on board, is a vessel of pleasure, not of war; and (3.) that the Dutch vessels constituted a fleet, and that fleets can be compared to forts, garrisoned places and harbours, which by common usage are to be saluted first. Moreover, a fleet at anchor occupies a part of the sea, which thus passes under the sway and dominion of the occupant, to whom, therefore, being now in his own territory, the first tokens of respect are to be rendered. This last plea is evidently worthless. 2 Ortolan, i. 372. equality and reciprocity in the ceremonial of the sea, and the practice of nations has nearly reached this point in all respects. SECTION II.-The Agents in the Intercourse of Nations, or Ambassadors and Consuls. § 87. ed to manage the intercourse Nations holding intercourse with one another need to have some understanding as to the conditions of the inter- Persons appointcourse, and certain functionaries by whom the intercourse between the sovereignties may be car- between nations. ried on, and that between the citizens or subjects may be reduced to rule. Such persons we may call generically ambassadors; but they may have various other denominations, as legates, envoys, chargés d'affaires, foreign ministers, and nuncios, which term, together with others, is appropriated to the Pope's messengers to foreign courts. The word ambassador may denote also a particular class or rank of agents of national intercourse. We may divide ambassadors, again, into ordinary and extraordinary, or resident and temporary, into open and secret, those with limited powers and plenipotentiaries-although this title is often used in a vague sense below its proper meaning-those who are sent to do business, and those who represent the state at some ceremony of a foreign court, and the like. Again, the sovereign, or head of a department, or even a military officer, may discharge the functions of an ambassador, or be joined with one in negotiations, without holding the office or having the title. An ambassador differs from a commissary or commissioner to whom some business not of a diplomatic nature is entrusted; from a deputy who is sent by subjects, as by a province, to a sovereign; and from a consul who under a treaty, or by the practice of two nations, protects the private affairs of individuals of the one within the territory of the other, and watches over the commercial interests of the nation which he represents. The word ambassador comes through the medieval Latin ambactia or ambaxia, meaning service or charge, either from the Celtic ambactus, client, or retainer, used once in Cæsar's Gallic War (vi. 15), or from the Gothic andbahts, with nearly the same sense. Both words may be, indeed, of the same origin. The signification will then correspond with that of minister. The Greek equivalent denotes an elder of the people. The Latins use the word orator, and more commonly legatus, person acting 1 Compare Dietz, Etymol. voce ambascia, and Grimm, Wörterb. voce amt. H by delegated authority, whence this branch of international law is called jus legatorum, and jus legationum, the rights of legation. § 88. Origin of the pri sadors. Ambassadors always and everywhere have had special immunities, and often something of a sacred character. vileges of ambas- This sacredness, which they have shared with heralds and bearers of flags of truce, cannot be accounted for from their being originally ministers of religion, selected before others for their gravity or dignity; but the protection of religion must have been given to them because their functions and duties were of pre-eminent importance. They were the agents in all the intercourse of two tribes or nations, and above all in making peace and preventing war. If not protected, they would not expose themselves to the danger of going among enemies or strangers. They carried with them the dignity of representing their nation. Thus the importance of their work, the necessity that they should be assured of safety, and the dignity of their office caused those religious sanctions to be thrown around them by which the more important relations and rights were defended in ancient times. sadors. $ 89. 6 Ambassadors in ancient times were sent on special occasions Temporary and by one nation to another. Their residence at foreign resident ambas- courts is a practice of modern growth. Some have thought that it was suggested by the Pope's legates, sent to reside, or appointed from among ecclesiastics residing in different parts of Christendom. By others, according to Mr. Ward (ii. 290), it has been attributed to Ferdinand the Catholic, whose policy led him to entertain [ambassadors] at various courts, as a kind of honourable spies;' but Flassan1 makes Louis XI. of France, Ferdinand's earlier contemporary, the introducer of the new usage. 'Before him ambassadors had only temporary and limited missions, but this prince judged it best to multiply them, and to prolong their stay abroad, especially at the courts of Burgundy and England. As these courts penetrated into his design, they in turn despatched to him permanent ambassadors, who converted diplomacy into intrigues and trickeries. Louis XI., on sending the Sieurs du Bouchage and de Solliers to the Dukes of Guienne and of Brittany, gave them for their instructions, "If they lie to you, lie still more to them. But the residence of ambassadors at foreign courts did not become the common practice until after the reformation. Henry VII. of England 'would not in his time suffer Lieger ambassadours of any foreign king or prince within his realm, or he 999 1 Diplom. Française, i. 247. with them, but upon occasion used ambassadours.' In the middle of the seventeenth century it was said in Poland of a French envoy, that as he did not return home according to the custom of ambassadors, he ought to be considered as a spy. And a century afterwards Bynkershoek ('De For. Leg.' § 1) defines ordinary legates as those who 'non unius sed omnium rerum, atque adeo et explorandi ergo in amicorum aulis habentur.’ Grotius affirms (middle of the seventeenth century) that legationes assidue may, without infringement of rights, be rejected by nations, being unknown to ancient practice (ii. 18, 3). But the usage is now fixed among all nations of European origin; and ambassadors by remaining in foreign countries serve the interests of their own state in various ways, far more than persons could who should be sent abroad on special occasions. In fact, to attempt to break away from the usage might be regarded as indicating a want of comity, if not of friendship. But although the sending of ambassadors, and even of resident ambassadors, seems almost essential to a participation in the international law of Christendom, there are some few of this circle of nations who hold no such communication with each other. England and some other Protestant states entertain no ministers at the Pope's court, nor does he at theirs. On the other hand, the principal Christian states keep up diplomatic relations with some states out of their pale of civilisation and religion, as with Turkey, Persia, China, and Japan, between which country and the United States, by the treaty of 1858, diplomatic intercourse was established. $ 90. ambassadors ? The question whether a nation is bound to receive the ambassador of another depends on the question of the Is there any obliright of intercourse which has been already con- gation to receive sidered. Nor is it impossible that intercourse commercial, if not political, should subsist without such an agent. But if a nation has already entered into diplomatic ties with another, to dissolve them is a breach of friendship, and is often the step immediately preceding war. By treaty or usage, a right had sprung up, which, together with the duty of comity, the dismissal of an ambassador invaded. But these are exceptions to the rule that nations cannot suspend their diplomatic intercourse, already established, without offence. (1.) A nation may refuse to receive any ambassador when the sovereignty of the party sending him is doubtful. 1 Coke's 4th Inst. 155, cited by Ward, u. s., who says that Lieger is derived from the Dutch. But the true explanation is to be found in the word Leger of German origin, used in the trading marts to denote an agent of foreign merchants resident in a town where they had a depôt of their goods, and transferred to the agent of a prince. See Hüllmann, Städtewesen des Mittelalt. i. 202. This may happen when a state is convulsed by civil war, both factions in which claim to exercise sovereignty, and when a new government after a revolution is not yet fully established. (2.) A nation or sovereign may refuse to receive a particular individual as the representative of a foreign power without giving cause of offence. Thus, it is held that a sovereign is not bound to receive his own subject in this capacity, on the ground that the privileges of his office would place him beyond the reach of the native jurisdiction. So a person who has rendered himself obnoxious, or is of a notoriously bad character, may be rejected, Richelieu told the English ambassador at Paris that the Duke of Buckingham would not be accepted as ambassador extraordinary; and, at an earlier date, Francis I. of France refused Cardinal Pole as the Pope's legate, on the ground of his being a personal enemy of the king's ally, Henry VIII. of England. (3.) A state or sovereign may refuse to receive a minister sent on an errand inconsistent with its dignity or interests. The United Provinces, during their struggle for independence, declined treating with envoys from friendly German powers, bearing proposals of peace incompatible with their honour; and Elizabeth of England rejected the nuncio of Pius IV., sent to invite her to appoint deputies for the council of Trent, because his mission might have the ulterior object of stirring up disaffection among the English. § 91. The right of sending ambassadors is an attribute of soveRight of sending reignty, but the power of appointing them may be ambassadors. vested in some representative of the sovereign. Thus, in this country, it is exercised by the president and senate, or during the recess of the senate, by the president alone, subject to their confirmation or rejection; and it has sometimes been entrusted to the commander of an army. Can a deposed sovereign, a monarch without a kingdom, perform this function? In the case mentioned by Mr. Ward (ii. 292-295) of Leslie, Bishop of Ross, calling himself ambassador of Mary Queen of Scots, who was then after dethronement a prisoner in England, the lawyers consulted by the government decided that, 'the solicitor of a prince lawfully deposed, and another being invested in his place, cannot have the privilege of an ambassador, for that none but princes and such other as have sovereignty may have ambassadors.' The word lawfully seems to make the opinion futile, for who is to decide? The word actually would have better agreed with that safe usage, which is a part of international law, of acknowledging the sovereign de facto, and to which the United States have ever adhered. When James II. lived in exile, his ambassadors were received as those of the sovereign de jure by a |