AMBASSADORS. TRIFLING, and unimportant, as may be the matters forming the subjects of discussion, between two nations, it would be difficult to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion by means of correspondence only; a conference is thus rendered necessary; but, as personal interviews between the heads of the several States are not always practicable, there remains no alternative, but that they should employ representatives, furnished with full authority and instructions to treat in their name with Foreign Powers. Hence the origin of Embassies, and the foundation of those rights and privileges which Ambassadors enjoy. The proper and primitive object for which Embassies were appointed, clearly indicates that all those who are authorised to treat in their own name with Foreign Powers, are thereby possessed of the right of Embassy; while again the right of sending Ambassadors confers, as a necessary result, the power of receiving them. The right of Embassy being an essential prerogative of the government, belongs, if the throne of a monarchy becomes vacant, to those whom the constitution authorises to hold the reins of government during such Interregnum. The Monarch who voluntarily abdicates his throne can no longer exercise the right of Embassy; neither can a King, who is a prisoner, exercise such privilege so long as his imprisonment continues; while the involuntary loss of his throne no more deprives a Monarch, de jure, of his right of Embassy, than the possession of the throne confers such right upon the usurper. It is on this ground that the act of dispatching or receiving a Minister, is looked upon, in Europe, as a recognition of the rights of the party to whom such Minister is sent, or from whom such is received. The universal Law of Nations recognises no division of these Ministers into different orders, it regards them all as ministering the affairs of the state which they represent; but only in so far as relates to those matters with the management of which they are entrusted; it is from this quality that it deduces the different rights which it attributes to them. But the International Law of Europe has introduced several classes or orders of Ministers, distinguished by the different degrees of authority with which they are invested, and of Ceremonial with which they are received. : This distinction has not however always existed in the more remote times, there was but one order of Ministers recognised in Europe, who were sometimes called Ambassadors, sometimes Commissioners. Princes, for their private affairs, employed simple agents; and on occasions of ceremony or minor importance, they availed themselves of the services of noblemen; who, like the agents, however, were not received in the character of, or with the Ceremonial of public ministers. It is only since the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, that the exalted notions attached to the representative character, the heavy expenses of properly maintaining it, and the ceremonial difficulties which continually arose respecting it, led to the employment of public Ministers of inferior dignity, for whom neither the rights of the grand ceremonial, nor of being recognised as the representative of their Sovereign, were demanded; and who were distinguished with the title of Residents; that of Ambassador being reserved for those who appeared with all the splendour of the representative character. But these Residents, being public Ministers, claimed precedence before the mere Agents for private affairs, even although such Agents were at the same time charged with a public Commission, which would of course occasionally happen. At length the latter, on such occasions, received the title of Chargés d'Affaires, to distinguish them from the mere agents on private affairs, to whom the name of Agents (from that time held of course in lower estimation) was henceforth exclusively applied, at the different Courts. |