AMBASSADORS form an exception to the general case of foreigners resident in the country, and they are exempted absolutely from all allegiance, and from all responsibility to the laws of the country to which they are deputed. As they are representatives of their sovereigns, and requisite for negotiations and friendly intercourse, their persons, by the consent of all nations, have been deemed inviolable, and the instances are rare in which popular passions, or perfidious policy, have violated this immunity. Some very honourable examples of respect for the rights of ambassadors, even when their privileges would seem in justice to have been forfeited on account of the gross abuse of them, are to be met with in the ancient Roman annals, notwithstanding the extreme arrogance of their pretensions, and the intemperance of their military spirit'. If, however, ambassadors should be so regardless of their duty, and of the object of their privilege, as to insult, or openly attack the laws or government of the nation to whom they are sent, their functions may be suspended by a refusal to treat with them, or application can be made to their own sovereign for their recall, or they may be dismissed, and required to depart within a reasonable time. We have Dismissal of had instances within our own times of all these modes of dealing with ministers who had given offence, and it is not to be denied, that every government has a perfect right to 1 Livy, B. II. c. 4, B. xxx. c. 25. ambassadors. judge for itself whether the language or conduct of a foreign minister be admissible. [Thus in 1793 the United States government demanded the recall of M. Genet, the French minister, for issuing commissions to privateers to commit hostilities on nations at peace with the United States, and for other acts of similar misconduct. In 1809 the recall of Mr Jackson, the British minister at Washington, was insisted upon for alleged imputations upon the honour and veracity of the American government. In 1856 the British minister, Mr Crampton, received his exequatur from the President of the United States for violating their neutrality laws, by enlisting residents in the United States to serve in the British army. And in 1848 Sir Henry Bulwer received his dismissal from the court of Spain, for having insulted that country by reflecting on its internal administration.] The writers on public law go still further, and allow force to be employed to confine or send away an ambassador, when the safety of the state, which is superior to all other considerations, absolutely requires it, arising either from the violence of his conduct, or the influence and danger of his machinations'. Inviolability This is all that can be done, for ambassadors cannot, in dors. any case, be made amenable to the civil or criminal juris of ambassa diction of the country; and this has been the settled 1 Wheaton's Elements, ed. 1863, Vol. 1. p. 437, n. 146. 2 Except, says Blackstone, (on the authority of a case in Rolls Reports,) he conspires the death of the king in whose land he is, when he may be condemned and executed for treason. R. v. Owen, 1 Rolls, p. 185. 2 Stephens' Blackstone, p. 508. 3 [Vattel, B. IV. ch. VII. sec. 97–103. Ward's History, Vol. 11. p. 486— 552; in which place, as well as in Phillimore's International Law, Vol. II. pp. 177-185, will be found the leading cases on this part of the subject. See also Wheaton's Elements, ed. 1863, Vol. I. p. 395, note 131, and the reference there to Mahon's History of England, Vol. 1. pp. 388–392, ed. 1836, for the account of Count Gyllenborg, the Swedish minister at London. 1 servants. considered as if he were out of the territory of the foreign power; and it is an implied agreement among nations, that the ambassador, while he resides within the foreign state, shall be considered as a member of his own country, and the government he represents has exclusive cognizance of his conduct, and control of his person. ["He continues still subject," says Mr Wheaton, " to the laws of his own country, which govern his personal status and rights of property, whether derived from contract, inheritance, or testament, and his children born abroad are considered as natives'."] The attendants of the ambassador officials and attached to his person, and the effects in his use, are under his protection and privilege, and equally exempt from the foreign jurisdiction, though there are strong instances in which their inviolability has been denied and invaded'. [In a recent case the true position and liability Case of Tayof a secretary of legation accredited to the court of England by a foreign sovereign, and acting in the absence of his ambassador as chargé d'affaires, were most elaborately discussed, and it was held, 1st, that such an official was entitled to all the privileges of an ambassador; 2ndly, that he did not forfeit his privilege by engaging in mercantile pursuits here; and 3rdly, that if a foreign minister voluntarily attorns to the jurisdiction of the courts of this country, he is estopped from applying to the courts to stay proceedings on the ground of his privilege; but it seems to have been doubted in the course of the arguments, whether the privileges of an ambassador or foreign minister extend to prevent his being sued in the courts of this In Halleck's International Law, Ch. IX. § 14, all the authorities on this topic are given.] 1 Wheaton's Elements of International Law, ed. 1863, Vol. I. p. 339, where will be found all the authorities in support of the statement, among them Vattel, Droit des Gens, Book IV. ch. VII. §§ 81-125; Martens' Précis du Droit des Gens, Liv. VII. ch. V. §§ 214-218; Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne, P. II. Tit. ii. § 203. See also Phillimore's International Law, Vol. II. ch. VIII. 2 Rutherforth, B. II. ch. IX. B. IV. ch. viii. sect. 113 and 120. 435. Ward's History, Vol. II. 552, 3. Vattel, lor v. Best. country, or only to protect him from process which may affect the sanctity of his person, or his comfort or dignity. In the course of the case, the question as to the liability of a domestic servant of an ambassador, when engaging in mercantile transactions, being raised, it was held that the same privilege does not extend to them as to the ambassador; for as Mr J. Maule said, "the privilege is not that of the servant, but of the ambassador; it is based on the assumption that by the arrest of any of his household retinue, his personal comfort and state may be affected. Where these are not interfered with, the ambassador is not affected by the suit, and consequently the servant has no privileges. As to the extent of jurisdicJurisdiction tion in the matter of crimes over the personnel of the of ambassa dors. embassy, there appears to be a difference of opinion among some of our modern jurists. Mr Wheaton and Dr Twiss, following Vattel and the older writers, hold that a foreign minister can exercise criminal as well as civil jurisdiction over the personnel of the embassy, though both acknowledge that the modern usage is to arrest and send offenders for trial to their own country; whilst, on the other hand, Heffter maintains that the old extended jurisdiction of ambassadors over the members of their suite in cases of crime, is circumscribed within very narrow limits in the present day; limited, that is, to the power of arresting the accused, or demanding his extradition, and to the right of examining into the fact of the charge in strict conformity with the judicial regulations of his own country. Heffter, too, holds that at no court of Christian Europe are foreign ministers invested with the right of deciding upon the disputes among their countrymen, or even among those of their suites; their powers being confined exclusively to executing the commissions addressed to them, and with this view Mr W. B. Lawrence coincides.] The distinction 1 Taylor v. Best, 14 Common Bench Rep. pp. 487 and 524. See also Service v. Castenada, 9 Jurist, 524; and I Chitty's Statutes, p. 27, note (a), ed. 1850. 2 Wheaton's Elements, Vol. I. ed. 1863, p. 398, note 133. Twiss's down by the "Vienna. between ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, and envoys extraordinary, relates to diplomatic precedence and Rules laid etiquette, and not to their essential powers and privileges1; Congress of [but as to that precedence and etiquette, uniform rules were laid down by the congress of Vienna, which have been adopted generally, and are to this effect. In the first place, public ministers are divided into four classes. 1. Ambassadors and papal legates or nuncios. 2. Envoys, ministers, or others accredited to sovereigns. 3. Resident ministers accredited to sovereigns. 4. Chargé d'affaires accredited to the minister of foreign affairs. Ministers of the first class have what is called the representative character, that is, they represent the sovereign or state by whom they are sent, and are entitled to the same honours: they are of two kinds, ordinary and extraordinary, the latter term being applied to those who are sent on particular missions. Chargés d'affaires are also of two kinds, being either chargés d'affaires ad hoc, i. e. originally sent and accredited by their governments, and chargés d'affaires per interim, i.e. substituted in the place of the minister of their respective nations during his absence; and in the next place, envoys extraordinary acquire no superiority of rank by their extraordinary mission. Public ministers in each class take rank among themselves according to the date of the official notification of their arrival at the court Law of Nations, Vol. I. p. 307. Heffter, Droit des Gens, § 216. See also a note by M. Ch. Vergé to his edition of Martens' Précis du Droit des Gens, 1850, T. II. § 219, p. 123. 1 Vattel, B. IV. ch. VI. Martens, par Vergé, 1858, T. II. § 191. Phillimore's International Law, Vol. II. ch. IX. and Wheaton's Elements, ed. 1863, Vol. 1. p. 380, n. 1. Chargé d'affaires is a diplomatic representative or minister of an inferior grade, and a resident minister, though of higher rank, seems not to be equal to a minister plenipotentiary. Nor is a minister plenipotentiary of equal rank and dignity with an ambassador, who represents the person of his sovereign. The United States have always been represented in Europe by ministers plenipotentiary, and they have never sent a person of the rank of ambassador in the diplomatic sense. The Prince of Orange once expressed to Mr Adams his surprise that the United States had not put themselves in that respect on a level with the crowned heads. Diplomatic Correspondence, edited by Mr Sparks, Vol. VII. 108. |