Liability bassador to the country to which he is accredited; but it is not the usage for him to exercise jurisdiction in criminal matters, over any person officially attached to the Embassy further than by arresting the offender and sending him for trial back to his own country. In the case of his own Personal Suite, a Foreign Minister may, if he pleases, upon complaint made to him, dismiss any individual from his service, and so withdraw from him the protection to which he would be entitled under the Law of Nations, if he continued in his service. 203. There are some exceptions to the privilege of an Art of Extra-territoriality as applied to the Hotel of an the pay Ambassador. A Foreign Minister is privileged from Local dues. being called upon to contribute personally to the ment of General Taxes of a Country; that is, to such Taxes as are levied by the Government, and which are available for the General purposes of the State, in which the Ambassador is not interested. But a Foreign Minister is not exempt from the payment of Local dues, which are raised for purposes of Local administration, and which are expended on Local objects, from which he himself, in common with his neighbours, derives immediate benefit. Thus he is liable to pay the Local Rates 66 assessed upon his Hotel, or its site, for sewerage, lighting, watching, and similar objects. He is also liable to pay tolls for the use of roads and bridges, and also for the carriage 66 This liability has been some- the Country. A practical difficulty will always be found in levying them, as the Person and Property of the Ambassador is exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Civil Tribunals, which must be appealed to in order to enforce payment in the last resort. of his letters, if they are conveyed to him by the Local Post; and as he is at liberty at all times, if he pleases, to send his letters by a privileged Courier, it is therefore optional for him to employ the services of the Local Post, and if he employs it, he derives immediate advantage therefrom 67. Religious § 204. Another and more important exception to Liberty of the privilege of Extra-territoriality, is found in the Worship. exercise of Religious Worship (Culte Réligieux) in the Hotel of an Ambassador. A Foreign Minister has not the right of maintaining a Chapel and a Chaplain within his Hotel, under the Law of Nations; and accordingly, we find the liberty of Religious Worship for the Ambassador and his Suite, made a matter of Treaty-engagement between the Roman Catholic and Protestant Powers of Europe, subsequently to the Reformation; and between the Christian and Mahommedan Powers at all times since Diplomatic intercourse was established between them. There are some countries in which, under the Territorial Law, all forms of Religious Worship are permitted, in which case no Treaties are required: there are others, in which one form of Religious Worship is established, and none other is tolerated. In such cases it has been usual to stipulate by Treaty for the free exercise of Religious Worship, on behalf of the members of the Embassy and the Suite of the Ambassador within the Hotel of the Embassy. It has been an invariable rule to concede this privilege, whenever there has been no public place of Religious Worship at the seat of the Embassy, which its members could attend, as being in accordance with their Religious Creed; or wherever there has not been 67 Ch. de Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 109. within the Hotel of another Ambassador accredited to the same Court a Chapel, in which such Religious Worship has been already permitted. Thus, as soon as the Emperor Joseph II had granted liberty of Religious Worship to the Protestants of the Confession of Augsburg resident in Vienna, he insisted upon the discontinuance of Religious Worship in the Chapels of the Legations of the Protestant Princes of the Germanic Empire. Grotius is altogether silent on this subject, but his silence has not any significance, seeing that in his day a Resident Embassy (Assidua Legatio) was altogether a novelty, and it had not any warrant of ancient Custom 70. At the time, however, when Vattel wrote his work on the Law of Nations, the free exercise of Religion was a privilege allowed to a Foreign Minister in almost every country. Vattel speaks of it as resting on established Custom", "It is indeed highly proper," he says, "that a Minister, and especially a Resident Minister, should enjoy the free exercise of his Religion within his own house, for himself and his Suite. But it cannot be said that this Right, like those of Independence and Inviolability, is absolutely necessary for the success of his Mission, particularly in the case of a temporary Minister, the only one whom Nations are bound to admit. The Minister may in this respect do what he pleases in his own house, into which nobody has a right to pry or to enter. But if the Sovereign of the Country, where he resides, should for substantial reasons refuse him permission to practise his Religion in any manner which might render 69 Klüber, Droit des Gens, $215. Ch. de Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 35. 70 Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, L. II. c. 18. § 3, 2. 71 Vattel, Droit des Gens, L. IV. § 104. it an object of Public notice, we must not presume to condemn the conduct of that Sovereign, much less to accuse him of violating the Law of Nations. Ambassadors are not debarred at present from the free exercise of their Religion in any civilised country; for a privilege which is founded on Reason, cannot be refused when it is not attended with any evil consequences." The practice of Nations since the time of Vattel has become still more courteous 72, and has gradually extended the privilege of Religious Worship to the establishment of public Chapels, attached to the several foreign Embassies; so that although the privilege of a Chapel within the Hotel of the Ambassador is a matter of Comity, and not of strict Right, still the custom of permitting it has become so universal, that to refuse such permission in the present day would be little less discourteous, than to refuse to permit the continuous Residence of the Ambassador himself. The privilege of a Chapel, however, does not extend to the use of bells, or to any public processions or ceremonies outside the walls of the Chapel. lity of an through tory of a § 205. Jurists are divided in opinion upon the question Inviolabiwhether an Ambassador is by the Law of Nations en- Ambassa titled of Right to Safe Conduct whilst passing through dor passing the territory of a third Power, on his way to or from the territhe territory of the Nation to which he is accredited. third Grotius does not expressly determine this question, when he says, that "the law respecting the Inviolability of Ambassadors is to be understood as binding upon the Nation to whom the Embassy is sent, more particularly if it has received the Embassy, as from 73 72 Ch. de Martens, Guide Diplomatique, § 35- Wheaton's Elements, Part III. c. 1. § 21. 73 Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, L. II. c. 18. § 5. Power. that time a tacit Compact may be considered to have been introduced." Bynkershoek, on the other hand, holds in terms, that the privilege of the Ambassadorial Character is only operative within the State to which he is accredited, and he cites in support of his view the opinions of Gentilis, Zouch, Huber, and Wicquefort. Bynkershoek" admits however that the opinions of the more ancient writers upon the Rights of Ambassadors were in a contrary sense. Vattel, on the other hand, draws a distinction between the enjoyment of all the Rights annexed to the Diplomatic Character, and the enjoyment of Personal Inviolability. It must be borne in mind, that many of the Rights now recognised as incident to the Right of Embassy, have only been so recognised, since the practice of accrediting Resident Ambassadors has given occasion for their recognition. It is true," says Vattel75, "that the Prince alone to whom the Minister is sent is obliged and specially engaged to secure to him the enjoyment of all the Rights attached to his Character; but the others, over whose territory he passes, cannot refuse to him that to which the Minister of a Sovereign is entitled, and which Nations owe reciprocally to one another. They owe to him above all things perfect Personal Security. To insult him would be to injure his Master and the whole Nation to which he belongs to arrest him and offer violence to him would be to impair the Right of Embassy, which appertains to all Sovereigns." Merlin", Klüber", Ch. de Martens and Wheaton 79, support Vattel's opinion, 74 Bynkershoek, de Foro Le- Publique, Sect. V. § 3. gatorum, c. 9. $7. 75 Droit des Gens, L. IV. c. 8. $84. 76 Répertoire, tit. Ministre 77 Droit des Gens, 204. |