consuls; they have no effect beyond the limits of the State which passes them, unless specially adopted or permitted by others.

§ 21. As already remarked, the powers, privileges and immunities of European and American consuls, in Mohammedan and unchristian dominions, are very different from those of consuls in Christian countries. This has resulted, in part, from their having there retained the general diplomatic character and prerogatives of jurisdiction, which, in earlier times, they possessed everywhere, and, in part, from the stipulation of treaties. Thus, the Sultans of Turkey have conceded to the consuls of Christian powers authority to exercise jurisdiction over their fellow-countrymen in Turkey, which, by the general rule of international law of Christian States, belongs to the territorial sovereign. Such jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, being conceded to the consuls over their countrymen, to the exclusion of the local magistrates and tribunals, it depends upon the laws of their own States how it shall be exercised, and what penalties or punishments may be imposed or inflicted. In civil cases this jurisdiction is ordinarily subject to an appeal to the superior tribunals of their own country, and in criminal cases the prisoners are sometimes sent home for trial and punishment, especially if the punishment exceeds the infliction of pecuniary penalties. This, however, depends upon the laws of their own country regu lating such proceedings.'

§ 22. Mr. Cushing, the United States Attorney-General, thus describes the origin of this difference of consular powers in Christian and unchristian countries: 'I might demonstrate historically what, in this place, it will suffice to affirm, that the institution of consuls, in their present capacity of international agents, originated in the mere fact of difference in law and religion at that period of modern Europe in which it was customary for distinct nationalities, coexisting under the same general political head, and even in the same city, to maintain each a distinct municipal government. Such municipal colonies, organised by Latin Christians, and especially by those of the Italian Republics in the Levant, were administered each by its consuls, that is, its proper municipal

1 Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. ii. ch. ii. § 11; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. ii. §§ 272 et seq.; Dalloz, Répertoire, verb. 'Consuls,' § I.

magistrates of the well-known municipal denomination. Their commercial relation to the business of their countrymen was a mere incident of their general municipal authority. Such, also, at the outset, was the nature of their political relation to other coexisting nationalities around them in the same country, and to that country's own supreme political or military powers. The consuls of Christian States, in the countries not Christian, still retain unimpaired, and habitually exercise, their primitive function of municipal magistrates for their countrymen, their commercial or international capacity, in those countries, being but a part of their general capacity as the delegated administrative and judicial agents of their nation. This condition of things came to be permanent in the Levant, that is, in Greek Europe and its dependencies, by reason of the tide of Arabic and Tartar conquest having overwhelmed so large a part of the Eastern empire, and established the Mohammedan religion there. But the result was different in Latin Europe.' This difference, in the powers of consuls in Christian and in Mohammedan countries, he says, is founded on the difference of law which necessarily results from the character of the different religions. The legislature of Mohammed, for instance, like that of Moses, is inseparable from his religion. We cannot submit to one without undergoing the other. The same legal incompatibility exists, for one reason or another, between us and the unchristian States not Mohammedan.''

§ 23. The general powers of the consuls of Christian nations in Turkey, the Barbary States, and other Mohammedan countries, have been extended, by treaty stipulations, to European and American consuls in the Chinese empire. It was the object of these treaties to exempt foreigners, in China, from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the local magistrates and tribunals, and make them subject only to the laws and authorities of their own country, thus creating a kind of ex-territoriality for all citizens of the contracting States resident in or visiting any part of the Chinese empire.2

§ 24. The thirteenth article of the commercial treaty between Great Britain and China, in 1843, is as follows: 'Article

1 Cushing, Opinions U. S. Att'ys Genl., vol. vii. pp. 346–348.

2 Treaty between Great Britain and China, 1842, 1843; Treaty between U. S. and China, July 3, 1844; Treaty between France and China, Oct. 24, 1844.

thirteen. Whenever a British subject has reason to complain of a Chinese, he must first proceed to the consulate and state his grievance. The consul will thereupon enquire into the merits of the case, and do his utmost to arrange it amicably. In like manner, if a Chinese have reason to complain of a British subject, he shall no less listen to his complaint, and endeavour to settle it in a friendly manner. If an English merchant have occasion to address the Chinese authorities, he shall send the address through the consul, who will see that the language is becoming; and, if otherwise, will direct it to be changed, or will refuse to convey the address. If, unfortunately, any disputes take place of such a nature that the consul cannot arrange them amicably, then he shall request the assistance of a Chinese officer, that they may, together, examine into the merits of the case, and decide it equitably. Regarding the punishment of English criminals, the English government will enact the laws necessary to attain that end, and the consul will be empowered to put them in force; and, regarding the punishment of Chinese criminals, these will be tried and punished by their own laws, in the way provided for by the correspondence which took place at Nankin after the conclusion of peace.'

§ 25. With respect to the jurisdiction and judicial powers exercised by British consuls, and other officers, in the East, and in China, the English statute, for carrying this article into effect, is very general in its terms, the details being supplied by Orders in Council, and instructions from the Foreign Office. The statute of August, 1843 (6 and 7 Vict., c. 94) enacts: That it is, and shall be lawful, for Her Majesty to hold, exercise, and enjoy any power or jurisdiction which Her Majesty now hath, or may at any time hereafter have, within any country or place out of Her Majesty's dominions, in the same and as ample a manner as if Her Majesty had acquired such power or jurisdiction by the cession or conquest of territory. That every act, matter, and thing which may at any time be done in pursuance of any such power or jurisdiction of Her Majesty, in any country or place out of Her Majesty's dominions, shall, in all courts, ecclesiastical and temporal, and elsewhere within Her Majesty's dominions, be, and be deemed and adjudged to be, in all cases, and to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as valid and effectual as though the same

had been done according to the local law then in force within such country or place."1

§ 26. In consequence of the provisions of this statute, two important Orders in Council were issued, respecting the civil and criminal jurisdiction of Her Majesty's consuls in the Levant, and the Foreign Office put forth a memorandum, for the guidance of the consuls in the exercise of such jurisdiction, and clearly stating the grounds upon which it rests. It says that, as this right of jurisdiction is an exception to the system universally observed among Christian nations, and is derived solely from concessions made by the territorial sovereignty, it is strictly limited to the terms in which the concession is made;' that, in the next place, it depends on the extent to which the Queen, in the exercise of the power vested in Her Majesty by act of parliament, may be pleased to grant to any of her consular servants authority to exercise jurisdiction over British subjects, and, therefore, the orders in council, which may, from time to time, be issued, are the only warrants for the proceedings of the consuls, and exhibit the rules to which they must scrupulously adhere.'

§ 27. The articles of the treaty entered into, in 1844, between France and China, relating to this subject, are as follows: 'XXV. Lorsqu'un citoyen Français aura quelque sujet de plainte ou quelque réclamation à formuler contre un Chinois, il devra d'abord exposer ses griefs au consul, qui, après avoir examiné l'affaire, s'efforcera de l'arranger amiablement. De même, quand un Chinois aura à se plaindre d'un Français, le consul écoutera sa réclamation avec intérêt, et cherchera à ménager un arrangement amiable. Mais si, dans l'un ou l'autre cas, la chose était impossible, le consul requerra l'assistance du fonctionnaire Chinois compétent, et tous deux, après avoir examiné conjointement l'affaire, statueront suivant l'équité. XXVI. Si dorénavant des citoyens Français, dans un des cinq ports, éprouvaient quelque dommage, ou s'ils étaient l'objet de quelque insulte ou vexation de la part de sujets Chinois, ceux-ci seront poursuivis par l'autorité locale, qui prendra les mesures nécessaires pour la défense et la protection des Français. A bien plus forte raison, si des malfaiteurs, ou quelque partie égarée de la popu

1 See, Hervey v. Fitzpatrick, Kay R., 421, on the construction of this statute.

lation, tentaient de piller, de détruire ou d'incendier les maisons, les magasins des Français, ou tout autre établissement formé par eux, la même autorité, soit à la réquisition du Consul, soit de son propre mouvement, enverrait en toute hâte la force armée pour dissiper l'émeute, s'emparer des coupables et les livrer à toute la sévérité des lois; le tout sans préjudice des poursuites à exercer par qui de droit pour indemnisation des pertes éprouvées. XXVII. Si malheureusement il s'élevait quelque rixe ou quelque querelle entre des Français et des Chinois, comme aussi dans le cas où, durant le cours d'une semblable querelle, un ou plusieurs individus seraient tués ou blessés, soit par des coups de fer, soit autrement, les Chinois seront arrêtés par l'autorité Chinoise qui se chargera de les faire examiner et punir, s'il y a lieu, conformément aux lois du pays. Quant aux Français, ils seront arrêtés à la diligence du consul, et celui-ci prendra toutes les mesures nécessaires pour que les prévenus soient livrés à l'action régulière des lois Françaises, dans la forme et suivant les dispositions qui seront ultérieurement déterminées par le gouvernement Français. Il en sera de même en toute circonstance analogue et non prévue dans la présente convention, le principe étant que, pour la répression des crimes et délits commis par eux dans les cinq ports, les Français seront constamment régis par la loi Française. XXVIII. Les Français qui se trouveront dans les cinq ports dépendent également pour toutes les difficultés ou les contestations qui pourraient s'élever entre eux, de la jurisdiction Française. En cas de différends survenus entre Français et étrangers, il est bien stipulé que l'autorité Chinoise n'aura à s'en mêler d'aucune manière. Elle n'aura pareillement à exercer aucune action sur les navires marchands Français; ceux-ci ne relèveront que de l'autorité Française et du capitaine.'

§ 28. De Clercq, writing in 1851, says that no special laws or regulations had yet been made for carrying into effect the treaty of 1844, and that the jurisdiction of the French agents in China, having no other legal basis than the ordonnance of 1681, was, consequently, bound to conform to the dispositions of that ordonnance. But, on July 8, 1852, a law was passed for the purpose of regulating the jurisdiction of French consuls in China, conformably to the dispositions of the treaty of 1844. With respect to civil jurisdiction, that law re-enacts,