offended. In civil and criminal cases, they are subject to the local law in the same manner with other foreign residents owing a temporary allegiance to the State (ƒ).

of consuls.

Sir Robert Phillimore says that "The privileges of consuls, so far as $ 249 a. they are derived from the country to which they are sent, are, generally Privileges speaking, an exemption from any personal tax, and generally from the liability to have soldiers quartered in their houses. They are usually allowed to grant passports to the subjects of their own country, living within the range of their consulate, but not to foreigners. As a general rule, the muniments and papers of the consulate are inviolable, and under no pretext to be seized or examined by the local authorities" (g). There have been numerous judicial decisions on this subject. The general result of the English, American, and French cases establishes that consuls have certain privileges, but that they are not diplomatic officers, and that they cannot claim any of the immunities accorded specially to members of the diplomatic service (h).

A remarkable case of the withdrawal of a consul's exequatur took place in America in 1861. In order to protect British commerce, Her Majesty's Government were desirous that the Confederates should observe the last three articles of the Declaration of Paris, and accordingly Mr. Bunch, the British Consul at Charleston, was instructed to communicate this desire of Her Majesty's Government to the Confederate authorities. The United States thereupon demanded that Mr. Bunch should be removed from his office, on the ground that the law of the United States forbad any person, not specially appointed, from counselling, advising, &c., in any political correspondence with the government of any foreign State, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, and that Mr. Bunch ought to have known of this law, and to have communicated it to his government before obeying their instructions. It was also urged that the proper agents to make known the wishes of a foreign government were its diplomatic and not its consular officers. On these grounds Mr. Bunch's exequatur was withdrawn (i).

The mission of a foreign minister resident at a foreign court, or at a congress of ambassadors, may terminate during his life in one of the following modes:

(f) Wicquefort, de l'Ambassadeur, liv. i. § 5. Bynkershoek, cap. 10. Martens, Précis, &c., liv. iv. ch. 3, § 148. Kent's Comment., vol. i. pp. 43— 45, 5th ed. Fœlix, Droit Int. Privé, § 191.

(g) [Phillimore, vol. ii. § 248. Fynn, The British Consul Abroad, p. 17]. (h) [Viveash v. Becker, 3 M. & S. 284; Clark v. Cretico, 1 Taunt. 186; Aspinwall v. Queen's Proctor, 2 Curteis, 241; Sorensen v. Reg. 11 Moo. P. C. 141; The Octavie, 33 L. J. Adm. 115; Davis v. Packhard, 7 Peters, 276; St. Luke's Hospital v. Barkley, 3 Blatchford, 259. Calvo, Droit Int. vol. ii. § 485].

(i) [Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, 21st Nov. 1861. U. S. Dipl. Cor., 1862, p. 1].

§ 249 b. Case of Mr.

Bunch.

$ 250. Termina

tion of

public mission.

§ 251. Letter of recall.

1. By the expiration of the period fixed for the duration of the mission; or, where the minister is constituted ad interim only, by the return of the ordinary minister to his post. either of these cases, a formal recall is unnecessary.

In

2. When the object of the mission is fulfilled, as in the case of embassies of mere ceremony; or where the mission is special, and the object of the negotiation is attained or has failed.

3. By the recall of the minister.

4. By the decease or abdication of his own sovereign, or the sovereign to whom he is accredited. In either of these cases it is necessary that his letters of credence should be renewed; which, in the former instance, is sometimes done in the letter of notification written by the successor of the deceased sovereign to the foreign prince at whose court the minister resides. In the latter case he is provided with new letters of credence; but where there is reason to believe that the mission will be suspended for a short time only, a negotiation already commenced may be continued with the same minister confidentially sub spe rati.

5. When the minister, on account of any violation of the law of nations, or any important incident in the course of his negotiation, assumes on himself the responsibility of declaring his mission terminated.

6. When, on account of the minister's misconduct or the measures of his government, the court at which he resides thinks fit to send him away without waiting for his recall.

7. By a change in the diplomatic rank of the minister. When, by any of the circumstances above mentioned, the minister is suspended from his functions, and in whatever manner his mission is terminated, he still remains entitled to all the privileges of his public character until his return to his own country (k).

A formal letter of recall must be sent to the minister by his government: 1. Where the object of his mission has been accomplished, or has failed. 2. Where he is recalled from motives which do not affect the friendly relations of the two governments.

(k) Martens, Manuel Diplomatique, ch. 7, § 59; ch. 2, § 15. liv. vii. ch. 9, § 232. Vattel, liv. iv. ch. 9, § 126.

Précis, &c.,

In these two cases, nearly the same formalities are observed as on the arrival of the minister. He delivers a copy of his letter of recall to the minister of foreign affairs, and asks an audience of the sovereign, for the purpose of taking leave. At this audience the minister delivers the original of his letter of recall to the sovereign, with a complimentary address adapted to the occasion.

If the minister is recalled on account of a misunderstanding between the two governments, the peculiar circumstances of the case must determine whether a formal letter of recall is to be sent to him, or whether he may quit the residence without waiting for it; whether the minister is to demand, and whether the sovereign is to grant him, an audience of leave.

Where the diplomatic rank of the minister is raised or lowered, as where an envoy becomes an ambassador, or an ambassador has fulfilled his functions as such, and is to remain as a minister of the second or third class, he presents his letter of recall, and a letter of credence in his new character.

Where the mission is terminated by the death of the minister, his body is to be decently interred, or it may be sent home for interment; but the external religious ceremonies to be observed on this occasion depend upon the laws and usages of the place. The secretary of legation, or, if there be no secretary, the minister of some allied power, is to place the seals upon his effects, and the local authorities have no right to interfere, unless in case of necessity. All questions respecting the succession ab intestato to the minister's movable property, or the validity of his testament, are to be determined by the laws of his own country. His effects may be removed from the country where he resided, without the payment of any droit d'aubaine or detraction.

Although in strictness the personal privileges of the minister expire with the termination of his mission by death, the custom of nations entitles the widow and family of the deceased minister, together with their domestics, to a continuance, for a limited period, of the same immunities which they enjoyed during his lifetime.

It is the usage of certain courts to give presents to foreign ministers on their recall, and on other special occasions. Some governments prohibit their ministers from receiving such presents. Such was formerly the rule observed by the Venetian Republic, and such is now the law of the United States (1).

(7) Martens, Précis, &c., liv. vii. ch. 10, §§ 240-245. Manuel Diplomatique, ch. 7, §§ 60-65.

CHAPTER II.

RIGHTS OF NEGOTIATION AND TREATIES.

THE power of negotiating and contracting public treaties between nation and nation exists in full vigour in every sovereign State which has not parted with this portion of its sovereignty, or agreed to modify its exercise by compact with other States.

Semi-sovereign or dependent States have, in general, only a limited faculty of contracting in this manner; and even sovereign and independent States may restrain or modify this faculty by treaties of alliance or confederation with others. Thus the several States of the North American Union are expressly prohibited from entering into any treaty with foreign powers, or with each other, without the consent of the Congress; whilst the sovereign members of the Germanic Confederation formerly retained the power of concluding treaties of alliance and commerce, not inconsistent with the fundamental laws of the Confederation (a).

The constitution or fundamental law of every particular State must determine in whom is vested the power of negotiating and contracting treaties with foreign powers. In absolute, and even in constitutional monarchies, it is usually vested in the reigning sovereign. In republics, the chief magistrate, senate, or executive council is intrusted with the exercise of this sovereign power.

§ 252. contracting Faculty of by treaty,

how limited

or modi

fied.

treaty.

No particular form of words is essential to the conclusion § 253. and validity of a binding compact between nations. The Form of mutual consent of the contracting parties may be given expressly or tacitly; and in the first case, either verbally or in writing. It may be expressed by an instrument signed by the plenipotentiaries of both parties, or by a declaration, and

(a) See Pt. I. ch. 2, § 47, et seq.