§ 4. Where, however, we wish to promote a friendly intercourse with another nation, or to have another State recognise the titles we have conferred on our public officers, we cannot very well refuse to acknowledge those which it has given to its rulers; so, also, with respect to honours and distinctions claimed as due to such rulers, policy, friendship and fear have not unfrequently induced certain States to yield the precedency to others. This has caused the establishment in Europe, at different periods, of different regulations with respect to foreign would assume; that George III. issued a proclamation accordingly, and adopted the style of King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its dependencies; that such a course would give great satisfaction to the Princes and nations of India, and would show in an unmistakeable manner that the House looked upon India as one of the most precious possessions of the Crown, and their pride that it was a part of Her Majesty's Empire and governed by Her Imperial Throne. After considerable debates on the subject, Mr. Disraeli gave the pledge that under no circumstances would Her Majesty assume by the advice of Her Ministers the title of "Empress" in England,' nor would the Princes of the blood Royal be designated 'Imperial,' or bear any title denoting an Imperial connection.

6

On April 27, 1876, the 39 Vict. c. 10 was passed, being 'An Act to enable Her Most Gracious Majesty to make an addition to the Royal Style and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies.' On the following day, a Royal Proclamation, after reciting the terms of the above act, proceeds to say that 'we, with the advice of our Privy Council, appoint and declare that henceforth so far as conveniently may be on all occasions and in all instruments wherein our style and titles are used, save and except all charters, commissions, letters patent, grants, writs, appointments, and other like instruments, not extending in this operation beyond the United Kingdom, the following addition shall be made,' in these words, "India Imperatrix," "Empress of India."' It further proceeds to provide that all money then or to be current in the United Kingdom shall, notwithstanding such addition, be lawful, and the same as to the dependencies.

In the Act of Henry VIII., the Crown of England is described as Imperial.

When the Holy Roman Empire existed and the German Emperor was crowned at Rome and called Cæsar, the princes of Germany who were his feudatories acknowledged his supremacy, whatever might be his title. But the great Kings, such as those of England, France, and Spain, never acknowledged his supremacy.

Peter the Great of Russia changed his title from Czar to Emperor, but the change was only recognised by England. In 1745 Elizabeth of Russia announced her intention to be termed Empress instead of Czarina, and the new title was recognised by all the Governments of Europe, on condition that she should sign a reversal or letter acknowledging that she thereby made no difference in etiquette and precedence. Peter III. also wrote a reversal. Catherine II. refused to do so, but issued an edict to her subjects announcing that notwithstanding her title she only wished to rank with the other sovereigns It was attempted at the Congress of Vienna to classify sovereigns, but the attempt failed and the equality of crowned heads was then and has henceforth been acknowledged. See § 12, p. 105.

ceremonial. This ceremonial is founded, in part, upon custom. and, in part, upon the stipulations of conventions and treaties. There can be no doubt that the natural equality of sovereign States may be modified by the consent which is implied from constant usage, or by positive compacts voluntarily entered into, so as to entitle one State to a superiority over another in respect to external matters, such as rank, titles, and other ceremonial distinctions.1

5. Thus the Catholic Powers concede the precedency to the Pope, as the visible head of the Church; but Russia, and the Protestant States of Europe, consider him only as a sovereign prince in Italy, and, as such, entitled to royal honours but not to any precedency from his rank as sovereign pontiff. The Emperor of Germany, under the former constitution of the empire, was entitled to precedence over all other temporal princes, as the supposed successor of Charlemagne, and of the Cæsars, but the claim is considered to have been lost by the dissolution of the Germanic Constitution, and the new organisation of the Austrian Empire.2

1

Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. ii. ch. iii. § 37; Ortolan, Diplomatie de la Mer, liv. i. ch. iii.; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. i. cap. xviii. § 1. Although the Pope is now dispossessed of territory, it was expressly declared by the Italian Government, in the terms of the Royal Decree of October 9, 1870, that he should preserve the honours of a sovereign and all other prerogatives of a reigning prince, and his precedence will undoubtedly continue to be recognised by Catholic sovereigns. Papal nuncios or ambassadors are still sent to, and received by, Catholic States.

On September 20, 1870, Rome was taken possession of by the Italian troops under General Cadorna. The transfer of the capital from Florence to Rome was afterwards voted by 192 against 18. The following arrangements were made as regards the Pope :- He was guaranteed his sovereign_rights, allowed to retain his guards, and provided with an income of 3,255,000 francs. He was to keep the Vatican, the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, Castel Gandolfo, and their dependencies; these were exempted from taxes and from common law jurisdiction; the same immunity was extended to any temporary Presidency of the Pope, or Conclave or Council; the Pope's correspondence to be free; in pursuit of criminals neither visits nor searches to be allowed; the Pope to establish, if he wished, at the Vatican a post and telegraph office, choosing his own officials; Papal despatches, couriers, and telegrams to be conveyed as those of foreign Governments; Councils to require no preliminary permission for meeting; the Pope to prefer to benefices without the Royal permission; the oath of the bishops to the King, the Royal Placet, and Exequatur were abolished; seminaries and other Catholic institutions to derive their authority from the Pope alone, without interference of Italian authorities. A credit of 17,000,000 lire was demanded by the Government.-Ann. Reg., 1870, p. 279..

2 Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. ii. ch. iii. § 3; Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens, §§ 125, 132; Kluber, Droit des Gens, pt. ii. tit. i. ch. iii. $95; Polson, Law of Nations, sec. v.; Gunther, Europ. Völkerrecht. B.

1. p. 222.

§ 6. The sovereign or ruler of a State is considered, in international law, as representing, in his person, its sovereign dignity. It matters not whether he is a monarch or a president, whether he is the de facto or the de jure head of a nation (if he has been duly recognised as such), custom has invested his person with certain international rights, as the representative of his State. He is therefore entitled to the precedence and honour due to the nation of which he is the ruler. But as sovereigns and rulers seldom meet in council, questions of this kind do not often arise between the n individually. There, however, were no less than five such congresses between 1814 and 1821, viz. the congress of Vienna, 1815; of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1818; of Troppau, 1820; of Verona, 1820; and of Laybach, 1821. As all matters of etiquette and precedency in such congresses are usually arranged before the meeting of the sovereigns, questions of precedence are not likely to arise in the congress itself. Difficulties of this kind, in former times, not unfrequently arose between public ministers who were considered as representing the sovereignty of their respective States, and who consequently claimed honours which others were unwilling to concede. This led to serious disputes, which were sometimes attended with fatal consequences.1

§ 7. We find numerous examples of these disputes in European diplomacy of past ages, some of a serious character, and others exceedingly ludicrous. Thus, at the public entry of the Swedish Ambassador into London, a contest for precedence took place between the French and Spanish ambassadors, which was attended with loss of life on both sides, and probably would have led to war, if the king of Spain, who was interested in maintaining peace with France, had not made such concessions as to satisfy the pride of Louis XIV. Again, the ambassadors of two Italian princes met on the bridge at Prague, and as neither would give way, they stood for the greater part of the day, face to face, exposed to the jeers of the crowd collected by the strangeness of the spectacle. Such disputes, sometimes serious and sometimes ludicrous, have led to the adoption, at different times, of certain conventional rules of etiquette and precedence. These rules are binding only upon those who have agreed to them. They, 1 Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. ii. §§ 39, 101, 102; Heffter, Droit International, § 55; De Cussy, Précis des Evénements, passim.

however, serve as a basis for the adjustment of any disputes which arise between others who are not parties to these conventional agreements.1

§ 8. The customary law of European nations has attributed to certain States what are called royal honours, which entitle the States, by whom they are possessed, to precedence over all others who do not enjoy the same rank, with the exclusive privilege of sending to other States public ministers of the first rank, together with other distinctive titles and ceremonies. Among the princes who enjoy these honours, differences have arisen with respect to relative rank and precedence; but these questions are now mostly settled by usage and treaty stipulations, and where not thus settled, they are regarded as of very little importance, or at least, of not sufficient consequence to lead to very serious national differences or discussions.

§ 9. The title of emperor, from the historical associations connected with it, was formerly considered as the most eminent and honourable among all sovereign titles; but it is not now regarded by other crowned heads as conferring any prerogative or precedence over monarchical sovereigns of another name, ruling States of equal rank and dignity. The title of king is now considered as equal in every respect to that of emperor. In fine, the influence and importance of the sovereign result rather from the rank and importance of the State, than from the name and nature of the title conferred upon its ruler.2

§ 10. Among monarchical sovereigns, those who enjoy royal honours, but are not crowned heads, concede the preference, on all occasions, to emperors and kings; and the princes who do not enjoy royal honours yield the precedence to those who are entitled to them. This rule is based on the consent of the parties themselves, and does not extend to their intercourse with other States. That is, a State whose ruler does not wear a crown, may give precedence to one which does, but this concession does not preclude the same State from claiming equal rank with a third power which contests the

1 Wicquefort, l'Ambassadeur, etc. liv. i. § 24; Villefort, Priviléges Diplomatiques, passim.

2 Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens, § 127; Kluber, Droit des Gens Mod. § 95; Polson, Law of Nations, sec. v.; Martens, Guide Diplomatique, tom. i. §§ 65, 66; Garden, De Diplomatie, tom. i. p. 355.

right of precedence with the State to which it had yielded that honour.'

§ II. In all matters of ceremony and etiquette, the representatives of semi-sovereign or dependent monarchical States rank below the representatives of sovereign and independent monarchical States, and, of course, and as a matter of necessity, below those of the State on which they are dependent, or whose protection or suzeraineté they claim or acknowledge. But where third parties are concerned, their relative rank must be determined by other considerations; and they may even take precedence of States completely sovereign, as was the case with the electors under the former constitution of the Germanic empire, in respect to other princes not entitled to royal honours.2

§ 12. It will be observed that these regulations for determining the relative rank of States, or of their representatives, established in part by usage and custom, and in part by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, relate exclusively to monarchical sovereigns. An abortive attempt was made at the same congress to classify the different States of Europe, with a view to determine their relative rank. A committee was appointed for this purpose in December, 1814; their report was discussed in February, 1815, and its adoption indefinitely postponed, doubts having arisen with respect to the proposed classification, and especially as to the rank assigned to republics. It therefore appears that republics have no definite rank assigned to them by the rules of ceremonial etiquette in Europe, in the intercourse of their representatives with those of monarchical sovereigns.3

§ 13. It may be stated, as a general rule resulting from the natural equality of States as members of a universal community, and subject alike to the same general code of international jurisprudence, that all sovereign States, no matter what may be their form of government, are equal before the law, and no one can claim any superiority or precedence over another. Republics are, therefore, entitled to the same rank as monarchies, unless they themselves have yielded their natural

1 Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. ii. ch. iii. § 3; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. ii. § 41; Heffter, Droit International, § 53.

2 Horne, On Diplomacy, sec. i.

Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. i. cap. xviii. § 3; Kluber, Acten des Wiener Congresses, tome viii. pp. 98-116.