the Nation to which the foreigner belongs, if the judges have been left free, and have given sentence according to their conscience. Upon doubtful questions, different men think and judge differently; and all that a foreigner can desire is, that justice should be as impartially administered to him as it is to the subjects of the Prince, in whose courts the matter is tried." Grotius observes, that "in a doubtful case the presumption is always in favour of the established judges, and that Reprisals are permitted by custom only, where judgment is given plainly against Right 5." 58 persons. § 20. Reprisals by the custom of Nations extend to persons as well as to property. Reprisals against Reprisals persons known by the Greek name avdpoλnyía, or the seizure of persons, are recognised by Grotius, Vattel, Bynkershoek, and all modern writers; but under the practice of the Christian Nations of Europe this form of Reprisals is seldom resorted to, except with a view to obtain satisfaction for the unjust seizure or detention of other persons. Thus in 174059 the Empress Catherine of Russia having arrested the Baron de Stackelberg, who was a natural born subject of Russia but had acquired a. Prussian domicile and was in the military service of Prussia, the King of Prussia made reprisal by seizing two Russian subjects, and detained them until the Baron de Stackelberg was liberated. Whenever persons are thus seized by way of reprisal, they are entitled to be treated as hostages, whose lives are sacred, and who are entitled to good treatment. A Sovereign has no right to put to death the subjects of a State 58 De Jure Belli, L. III. c. 2. § 5. 59 Moser, Versuch, VIII. 504. 60 Vattel, L. II. C. 18. § 351. Political which has done him an injury, except when they are engaged in actual war against him. By the Law of Nations all the subjects of an offending Power, whether they are natural born subjects or persons who have acquired a domicile in his territory by long residence therein, are liable in their persons and their property to the operation of Reprisals made against that Power; but individuals who may be only temporarily resident in the country, or travelling through it, do not thereby incur any liability to Reprisals; for the liability to undergo Reprisals is as it were a liability to share the burden of a public debt, to which those are not liable who are only subject to the laws of a country for a time. Political Envoys, although they may be permaempt from nently resident in a country, are equally exempt Reprisals. from the operation of Reprisals. They cannot be the subjects of Reprisals, either in their persons or in their property, on the part of the Nation which has received them in the character of envoys (legati), for they have entrusted themselves and their property in good faith to its protection; on the other hand, they cannot be the subjects of Reprisals on the part of another Nation, which may be entitled to make Reprisals on the Sovereign to whom they are accredited, as they are not domiciled within his terGrotius. ritory. Grotius appears to consider that Political Envoys who are on their way to our enemies, and come within our territory without having first obtained letters of safe conduct, may be seized by way of reprisal 2. The meaning of Grotius is not altogether clear, and several writers have objected to such 61 Grotius, de Jure Belli, L. III. c. 2. § 7. 62 A numero tamen subditorum jure gentium excipiuntur legati non ad hostes nostros missi, et res eorum. De Jure Belli, L. III. c. 2. § 7. Belleisle. an interpretation of the passage, but as Grotius elsewhere 63 says that if political Envoys (legati) presume to pass without a safe conduct through the territory of a Power to which they are not accredited, and are going to its enemies, or coming from its enemies, or in any other way take part with its enemies, they may be lawfully killed, there is no difficulty in supposing that he means to lay it down, that a mission to or from an enemy will expose a Political Envoy, whilst he is in transitu through the territory of a belligerent Power, to the operation of reprisals on the part of that Power. Thus the Duc de Duc de Belleisle, having incautiously entered the Hanoverian territory on his way to St. Petersburg, as ambassador from the King of France, who was at that time at war with Hanover and Great Britain, was arrested with his suite by the Hanoverian Government, and sent to England as a prisoner of State. It is quite another thing, observes Grotius, if any Prince shall out of his own territory contrive to surprise the Ambassadors of another State, for this would be a direct breach of the Law of Nations 65. The case of the seizure of the Envoys of the Confederate States of America on their way to Europe on board the British The British Post Office Packet, the Trent, by an United States Trent. cruiser, would seem to come within the prohibition laid down by Grotius. Their seizure was justly 63 Non pertinet ergo hæc lex ad eos per quorum fines, non accepta venia, transeunt legati; nam siquidem ad hostes eorum eunt, aut ab hostibus veniunt, aut alioqui hostilia moliuntur, interfici etiam poterunt. De Jure Belli, L. II. c. 18. § 5. 64 Martens, Causes célébres du Droit des Gens, Tom. I. p. 285. 65 Aliud sit si quis extra fines suos insidias ponit legatis alienis, eo enim jus gentium violaretur. Et hoc continetur in Thessalorum oratione contra Philippum apud Livium (L. XXXIX. c. 25). Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis in notis suis ad L. II. 118. § v. 2. Packet Institution of Letters sented by Great Britain as a direct breach of the Law of Nations, and the Envoys, at the demand of the British Government, were set at liberty by the Government of the United States, and allowed to proceed to Europe in a British vessel. 66 § 21. It has been observed that the institution of of Marque. Letters of Marque and Reprisal was the first systematic step in controlling private warfare, and in restraining individuals from disturbing the public peace at their own discretion. The Right of Marque, as a prerogative of Sovereign Power, is mentioned in Letters Patent and Diplomas of the twelfth century 67, in which the Sovereign grants to certain of his subjects the Right of Marque against other of his subjects, in other words, grants to them permission to seize the persons and goods of others of his subjects, against whom they have made complaint. In the thirteenth century we find Sovereign Princes granting Marque to their subjects against the subjects of other Sovereign Princes. In the fourteenth century's Municipal Laws were passed in various countries, prohibiting individual citizens from making Reprisals without having previously obtained Letters of Marque from a Sovereign Prince. In the fifteenth century Treaties of Peace occur frequently, in which there are stipulations that all ships, which should go out of port, should give security not to make Reprisals; other treaties also occur in this century, in which the Contracting Parties undertake not to grant Reprisals 69 66 Ducange, Glossarium, Vox Marcha. 67 Rymer. Fœdera, Tom. II. p. 691. Letter of king Edward I. of England. 68 27 Edw. III. St. 2. c. 17. anno 1359. 69 Treaties between France and England, anno 1440, Dumont, T. III. pars i. p. 548 ; between Spain and England, anno 1489, Dumont, T. II. pars ii. p. 219. of Practices to their subjects at all, unless they should have first Regulations addressed a complaint to the Sovereign, from whose of Marque subjects they have received injury, and have been by Treaties. refused redress 70. In the sixteenth century we find it stipulated in various treaties of commerce that neither party shall grant Letters of Marque or Reprisal against any others than the principal delinquents and their goods, and only for manifest delay or denial of justice". In the seventeenth century treaties for the first time appear, in which it is agreed that no Reprisals shall be granted on either side, but that prompt justice shall be administered". These treaties however are exceptional, as it was stipulated in most treaties of this period, that if justice were not done within a definite period, as for instance, three, four, or six months, Reprisals should be allowed. In the eighteenth century we find a great number of treaties, providing that the goods of the subjects of either party, which may lie within the territory of the other party, shall be exempt from seizure for Reprisals, except on account of the debt or crime of the owners. It has been the crowning work of the Congress of Paris, in the nineteenth cen- Renunciatury, to abolish the practice of Sovereign Princes Marque by issuing Letters of Marque, as far as the Nations Congress of which are parties to the Declaration of Paris are 1856. 70 Treaty between France and Spain, anno 1489, Dumont, T. IV. pars ii. p. 11. 71 Treaty between France and England, anno 1510, Dumont, T. IV. pars i. p. 126. 72 Treaty between England and Denmark, anno 1621, Dumont, T. V. pars ii. p. 393. 73 Treaties between France and the United Provinces, anno tion of Paris in |