Development of different kinds of diplomatic ministers.

§ 142.

At first diplomatic ministers were of one kind, who were usually called Ambassadors and were supposed to represent the person as well as the affairs of their sovereign. Louis XI. of France introduced the custom of sending persons of an inferior sort, termed Agents, to transact his affairs without representing his person. His diplomacy frequently worked in secret. He sometimes sent his barber on an occult mission, and it is obvious that his purpose would have been defeated by an exhibition of state ceremonial.

Thus matters stood at the beginning of the seventeenth century, when permanent legations became common. Soon after we find the Agent disappearing from the ranks of diplomatic ministers, and becoming merely a person appointed by a Prince to manage his private business at a foreign court. But the distinction between the representative of his sovereign's person and the representative of his sovereign's affairs continued to be made. The first was called an Ambassador, the second an Envoy or an Envoy Extraordinary. Below the Envoy in rank came at the beginning of the eighteenth century a third class called Residents. Vattel says of them that their "representation is in reality of the same nature as that of the Envoy," 1 but custom undoubtedly ranked them below the second order of diplomatic ministers. Sometimes they had no Letters of Credence, and in that case their mission must have been of a semi-private character. To these three orders of diplomatic agents was added in the eighteenth century a fourth, that of Ministers. According to Vattel this was done to avoid the constant disputes about precedence which, judging from their number and bitterness, must have taken up no small portion of the time and energy of the diplomatists of the last two centuries. He says "The Minister represents his master in a vague and

1 Droit des Gens, IV., § 73.

1

indeterminate manner, which cannot be equal to the first degree, and consequently makes no difficulty in yielding to an Ambassador. He is entitled to all the regard due to a person of confidence to whom the sovereign commits the care of his affairs, and he has ail the rights essential to the character of a public minister." The very essence, then, of a Minister was the indeterminate character of his position. He was "not subjected to any settled ceremony," and we cannot therefore rank him with the other kinds of diplomatic agents. The only thing absolutely fixed about him was that he came below an Ambassador in order of precedence. Sometimes he was called Minister Plenipotentiary, a title which seems to have implied higher rank than simple Minister.2

§ 143.

The foregoing remarks point to the confusion which existed a hundred years ago as to the relative rank of diplomatic agents, and demonstrate clearly the need Classification

ministers.

of some authoritative classification. At the Con- of diplomatic gress of Vienna in 1815 an attempt was made

to establish by general consent a regular order of rank and precedence. The result was the establishment of the three following classes:

(a) Ambassadors and Papal Legates or Nuncios. These represented the person and dignity of their sovereign as well as his affairs.

(b) Envoys, Ministers Plenipotentiary, and others accredited to sovereigns.

(c) Chargés d'Affaires, accredited not to sovereigns, but to Ministers of Foreign Affairs.3

This order, however, failed to reconcile every difference. It had been agreed that, while all the diplomatic agents belong

1 Droit des Gens, IV., § 74. 2 C. de Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 11. 3 Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, I., 62, 63.

ing to a class should rank before any of the class below it, within a class precedence should be determined according to the length of the stay of each individual diplomatist at the Court to which he was accredited. But in practice it was

found that the Great Powers were unwilling to allow the Envoys and Ministers of minor states to take precedence of their representatives of the second class. Accordingly the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1818 created a class of Ministers Resident accredited to Sovereigns, which it interpolated between the second and third of the classes agreed upon at Vienna. The minor states could thus have Ministers, and yet avoid making a claim for them to precedence over the Ministers of the Great Powers. This device seems to have been successful. The order and rank of diplomatic agents is now settled by a general agreement to recognize the four classes above described, and to regulate precedence in each class by length of residence. Each state sends what kind of representative it pleases, the only restriction being the now obsolete one that none but states enjoying Royal Honors can send Ambassadors. States agree as to the rank of their respective agents at each other's courts, and send to every neighbor a representative of the same class as the representative they receive from it. Thus when in 1893 the United States resolved for the first time in their history to employ diplomatic agents of the first class, they accredited Ambassadors to Great Britain, France, and a few other great powers who were willing to raise their Ministers at Washington to ambassadorial rank.

Ambassadors used to have a right to a Solemn Entry into the capital of the state to which they were sent. This took place at the beginning of their mission, and was made an occasion of great display. The Ambassadors of other states joined in the procession and sometimes quarrelled for precedence. For instance, in 1661 an armed conflict took place on Tower Hill, London, between the retinues of the French

1 Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, I., 575.

and Spanish Ambassadors, on account of the attempt of each to follow next to the King in the procession formed for the Solemn Entry of the representative of Sweden. In the course of the struggle a Spaniard ham-stringed the horses of the French Ambassador's coach, and thus enabled the Spanish coach to take the coveted place; but reparation was afterwards obtained by Louis XIV., who threatened war should it be refused. The discontinuance of the practice of Solemn Entry renders such scenes impossible now. Ambassadors, as representing the person and dignity of their sovereign, are held to possess a right of having personal interviews, whenever they choose to demand them, with the sovereign of the state to which they are accredited. But modern practice grants such interviews on suitable occasions to all representatives of foreign powers, whatever may be their rank in the diplomatic hierarchy. Moreover the privilege can have no particular value, because the verbal statements of a monarch are not state acts. Formal and binding international negotiations can be conducted only through the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

§ 144.

Sovereign states

possess the right

of legation

fully part-sovsess it to a lim

ereign states pos

ited extent.

Every independent member of the family of nations possesses to the full the right of sending diplomatic ministers to other states; but it belongs to part-sovereign communities only in a limited form, the exact restrictions upon the diplomatic activity of each being determined by the instrument which defines its international position. Egypt, for instance, under the Sultan's Firmans of 1866 and 1867 may negotiate commercial and postal conventions with foreign powers, provided they do not contain political arrangements; and to this condition the Firman of 1879 added the further obligation of communicating them to the Porte before they are published.2 In the case of the looser sort of

1 Ward, History of the Law of Nations, II., 458-462.

2 Holland, European Concert in the Eastern Question, pp. 116-128.

Confederations the treaty-making and negotiating power of the states which comprise them is limited by the Federal Pact. Thus each member of the German Confederation which existed from 1815 to 1866 was bound not to do anything in its alliances with foreign powers against the security of the Confederation or any member of it, and when war was declared by the Confederation no member of it could negotiate separately with the enemy.1 Permanently neutralized states can make no diplomatic agreements which may lead them into hostilities for any other purpose than the defence of their own frontiers. Belgium, for instance, though she took part in the Conference of London of 1867, which decreed and guaranteed the neutralization of Luxemburg, did not sign the Treaty of Guarantee because it bound the signatory powers to defend the Duchy from wanton attack.

§ 145.

It can hardly be said that states are under an obligation to send and receive diplomatic agents, but, as without them official international intercourse would be impossible, any state which declined to make use

The rupture of diplomatic relations is a serious

step, which generally ends in war.

of them would ipso facto put itself out of the family of nations and beyond the pale of International Law. No civilized state is likely to wish to do this; and therefore we may assume with confidence that all such states will exercise their Right of Legation. But a state may for grave cause temporarily break off diplomatic intercourse with another state. Such an act is, however, a marked affront, and is therefore the sign of a rupture which only just falls short of war, and indeed may lead to it. For example, in January, 1793, Great Britain broke off diplomatic intercourse with France owing to the execution of Louis XVI. on the 21st of that month, and ordered Chauvelin, the French Ambassador, to leave the country. A few days

1 Wheaton, International Law, § 47.