ART. IV. The Queen's Messenger, or Travels on the Highways and Byeways of Europe. By Major Herbert Byng Hall. London, 1865.

HE existence of the Corps of Queen's Foreign Service Messengers is coincident with and dependent upon the maintenance and development of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service. Save for the rare and brief occasions when the Sovereign is absent from British soil, and when the necessity for constant transaction of the affairs of State demands a regular and trustworthy channel of communication with the Home Government, the duties of the Queen's Messenger are now practically confined to the conveyance of despatches to and from H.M.'s Embassies and Legations in certain capitals and the Foreign Office. Not only is the connexion between the two services thus established, but they may be said to have in reality sprung from the same stock by divergent processes of evolution.

The prototype or amaba of the diplomatist is the savage bearing a wand of truce or other symbol of peace and amity; in later times the herald performing a similar function in more civilized communities. The transition from the mere bearer of a token, message, letter, ultimatum, or defiance, to the fullblown negociator or plenipotentiary, is a process of a comparatively simple character. In all intertribal or international affairs the recurrence of questions involving bargain or negociation would certainly develop with the development of civilization, and the consequent increase of complexity in human affairs. Nevertheless, diplomacy, as a regular profession or service, did not certainly exist until comparatively recent times. Although ancient records show that special Embassies or Missions have been resorted to, on occasions of necessity, even in the very remote past, the idea of a resident diplomatic Body is the result of a more modern civilization, and a requirement of latter-day invention. At the present moment every civilized State considers it a bounden duty to be represented at all the principal capitals by a diplomatic officer, corresponding either to its own importance in the scale of nations, or to that of the State to which the Envoy is accredited.

The traditions of the diplomatic service are no doubt brilliant, but it may be questioned whether the comet which has thus been called upon to run its sparkling course is destined still for many centuries to illuminate the modern world, of which the practical sobriety and dulness is ever increasing. The growth of the very conditions, which have tended to

produce

produce a diplomatic service, may further tend to bring about its eventual decay. Proximity of geographical position; common interests of an offensive, defensive, or commercial character; the recurrence of questions requiring tact and conciliation in their settlement; all these conditions naturally tended in the days of defective and dilatory means of communication to produce a permanent or residential diplomatic Body. As, however, the means of inter-state communication advance towards perfection, so the necessity for a resident diplomatic Body tends to decrease. True it is that the personal influence and tact of the many able men of the world, who have adorned and still adorn the diplomatic profession, often may be invaluable in removing causes of international quarrel, and in promoting general kindliness and good feeling between two different States; but in the present day the increase of democratic principles and of Parliamentary Government, throughout the world, tends to render the force of personal characteristics in relation to international affairs of less and less importance. History shows but too well how international quarrels may be fomented or allayed as may best suit the political exigencies of the moment; and in such events the most brilliant diplomatic personality must ever count as a mere cypher in the game. the days when personal government by the Sovereign of a State was more the rule than the exception, the individual influence of a well-skilled diplomatic envoy was a matter of the utmost importance, and a persona grata might do much to cement international friendship; but in very few States can such influence now operate to so great an extent in the present fin de siècle. Beyond this lies the consideration that diplomats may sometimes be made the object of incidents of a nature to occasion international difficulties. It is not every one who has the ready wit and sang-froid displayed some years ago in Paris by the German Ambassador, Count Münster, formerly the very popular representative of his Sovereign at the Court of St. James's, and a well-known figure in London society. The incident referred to is thus recorded in a well-known Journal:

In

'An amusing incident happened a day or two ago in Paris which, however, might have been fraught with grave consequences. The German Ambassador, Count Münster, was driving with his daughter in the Avenue du Bois de Boulogne, where bread was being served out to a number of soldiers of the reserve. A cry was raised, "That is the German Ambassador!" whereupon one of the soldiers flung a loaf at the passing carriage. It fortunately missed His Excellency, but struck the footman's hat, and dropped into the carriage. Count Münster stopped to enable the footman to pick up his hat, and was

on

on the point of driving off, when the man who had thrown the loaf added insult to injury by demanding back his "rightful property." The Count, however, was equal to the occasion, and retorted calmly, "No, I must have satisfaction, and you shall give it-to my horses, which are particularly fond of black bread." This turned the laugh against the offender, who stood dumb while the Ambassador drove off amidst the cheers of the soldiers.'

Here, no doubt, the tact of an able and experienced diplomatist prevented all chance of unpleasantness; but in many similar cases which either are or are not recorded in history, according as they have or have not led to more or less serious quarrels between States, it is impossible to avoid the reflection that incidents of such a character affecting diplomatists cannot always be disposed of with the same ease and quietness.

From this point of view it is interesting to note the terms of an existing English Act of Parliament, 7 Anne, cap. xii., entitled, An Act for preserving the Privileges of Ambassadors and other Public Ministers of Foreign Princes and States.' The Preamble runs as follows:

'Whereas several turbulent and disorderly Persons having in a most outrageous manner insulted the Person of His Excellency Andrew Artemonowitz Mattueoff, Ambassador Extraordinary of His Czarish Majesty, Emperor of Great Russia, Her Majesty's good Friend and Ally, by arresting him, and taking him by Violence out of his Coach in the publick street, and detaining him in Custody for several hours, in contempt of the Protection granted by Her Majesty, contrary to the Law of Nations, and in prejudice of the Rights and Privileges which Ambassadors and other Publick Ministers, authorized and received as such, have at all times been thereby possessed of, and ought to be kept sacred and inviolable; be it therefore declared by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That all Actions and Suits, Writs and Processes commenced, sued, or prosecuted against the said Ambassador by any Person or Persons whatsoever, and all Bail Bonds given by the said Ambassador, or any Person or Persons in his behalf, and all recognizances of Bail, given or acknowledged in any such Action or Suit, and all Proceedings upon, or by pretext or colour of any such Action or Suit, Writ or Process, and all Judgments thereupon, are utterly null and void, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatever."

The statute goes on to enact, with the view to prevent the like Insolences for the future,' that a similar immunity is to extend not only to any Ambassador or Public Minister of any Foreign Power, but also to the Domestics or Domestic Servants of any such Foreign Representative; and penalties are prescribed

scribed in regard to any persons who shall venture to take proceedings of any kind against them. So far as we know, this is the only English Act of Parliament which expressly guarantees the immunities and privileges attaching to the Foreign Diplomatic Body; whose status is however further safeguarded by the somewhat misty principles of International Law and Comity of Nations, which form part of the Common Law of this country.

Amongst the privileges and immunities attaching to the Ambassadorial character, may certainly be reckoned the right to the inviolability and safe conduct of any despatches which he may send to, or receive from, his own Government or Sovereign. The State or Royal messenger who is charged with the duty of conveying such despatches becomes thus, as the servant for the time being of the Ambassador, undoubtedly clothed with diplomatic immunity for the time being, and whilst engaged in such service. The fact is noted by most of the leading publicists on International Law.

The practice of nations,' says Wheaton, has also extended the inviolability of public Ministers to the messengers and couriers sent with despatches to or from the legations established in different countries. They are exempt from every species of visitation and search, in passing through the territories of those Powers with whom their own government is in amity. For the purpose of giving effect to this exemption, they must be provided with passports from their own Government, attesting their official character; and in case of despatches sent by sea, the vessel or aviso must also be provided with a commission or pass. . . . In time of war, a special agreement by means of a cartel or flag of truce, with passports, not only from their own Government, but from its enemy, is necessary for the purpose of securing these despatch vessels from interruption, as between the belligerent Powers. But an Ambassador, or other public Minister resident in a neutral country, for the purpose of preserving the relations of peace and amity between the neutral State and his own Government, has a right freely to send his despatches in a neutral vessel, which cannot lawfully be intercepted by the cruisers of a Power at war with his own country.'

On this subject Vattel very justly remarks:

'Couriers sent or received by an Ambassador, his papers, letters, and despatches, all essentially belong to the Embassy, and are consequently to be held sacred; since, if they were not respected, the legitimate objects of the Embassy could not be attained, nor would the Ambassador be able to discharge his functions with the necessary degree of security.'*

Halleck's 'International Law.' New edition. By Sir Sherston Baker, Bart. London, 1878.

It is well known that the historical difficulty between Great Britain and the United States called the 'Trent affair' turned greatly on the question whether despatches sent by an enemy on a neutral vessel to a neutral Power were contraband of war, and so liable to seizure. Messrs. Slidell and Mason were delegated by the Confederate States to proceed as their Representatives to the Courts of Paris and St. James, and were entrusted with despatches in this capacity. They were forcibly removed by a Federal cruiser from the Trent, which was a British mail steamer, and were placed in confinement at Baltimore. After a sharp discussion between the British and United States Governments, during the course of which the question of the inviolability of the bearers of despatches was minutely argued, the incident, which at one time threatened to lead to a rupture, was terminated by the surrender of the Envoys to the protection of the British flag. During the course of the dispute the Government of Great Britain received the most gratifying testimony from various European States to the justice of the position they had taken up.

This incident serves to show the interdependent sanctity of Diplomatic Representatives and of their despatches, and confirms the view expressed above of the close connexion between the two services of Diplomacy and Royal messengers.

In modern times the vast bulk of the international questions which require personal communication, are those of administrative or technical character; commercial, postal, telegraph, extradition, consular, and other conventions of the like character; and the matters growing out of them are usually discussed to the greatest advantage by experts in the particular subjects. The services of the professional diplomatist are frequently not required in the treatment of such questions, which, however, continue in an ever-increasing ratio to represent the greater portion of international relations in the present day.

Scarcely half a century ago Lord Stratford de Redcliffe might find himself called upon to settle offhand questions which involved the most vital interests of his country. No possibility of receiving instructions for a prolonged period; no indication of the views and policy of his Government, but immediate and pressing necessity for personal decision on matters of the gravest international import. This was real diplomacy, requiring nerve, ability, judgment, and implicit trust on the part of the Sovereign and the nation represented. Every one knows that there are men now in H.M.'s diplomatic service, who are fully equal to such an emergency; but with telegraphic and steam communication, it is clearly less likely of occurrence. Given a

difficult