ministers is a right of sovereignty, and a minister cannot be received without recognizing the sovereignty of the government that employs him (u). Thus, Pope Paul 4 refused to receive the ambassadors of the Emperor Ferdinand, because the validity of his election was disputed by the Roman see (v). So Pope Clement 8 refused to receive the ambassador of Henry 4, before his reconciliation with the church of Rome (w). So the Protestant princes of Germany and the King of Denmark refused to receive the nuncio of Pius 4, because they did not acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, who in his credentials had designated them as his sons (2). So the King of Spain refused the title of ambassadors to the deputies of the Low Countries at the Congress of Munster (y). So Charles 2 declared that he would not receive the ambassadors of Don Pedro, until he should be satisfied that Don Pedro was in lawful possession of royal authority, either as King or Regent of Portugal (z). Upon the same principle, the lawyers consulted by Queen Elizabeth in the Bishop of Rosse's case, replied to the second question put to them, that a sovereign, who hath been lawfully deposed, cannot invest his minister with a public character (a). Hence, to recognize the minister of a deposed sovereign, is to dispute the title of the government by which he has been superseded. Thus Cardinal Mazarin, having received Lockhart as Cromwell's ambassador, refused to receive the ambassador of Charles 2 at the Congress of the Pyrenees (b). So the Porte dismissed the ambassador of Charles 1, on the reception of the ambassador of the Parliament (c). But the ambassadors of the titular Kings of Denmark, Hungary, and Navarre were received at many courts (d). In such cases, foreign states are always at liberty to recognize the govern

(u) Wicq. i. 130, 140. (v) Wicq. i. 314.

(w) Wicq. i. 308.

(x) Wicq. i. 329, 333.

(y) Wicq. i. 59-ii. 122.

(z) Life of Sir L. Jenkins, ii. 689.

(a) Camd. El. an. 1575.

(b) Wicq. i. 56; Vatt. iv. 68.

(c) Wicq. i. 840.

(d) Wicq. i. 63.

ment which is in the actual possession of sovereignty; for lawful title, as it has been before stated, may be inferred from possession.

The reception of an ambassador, or the ratification of a treaty, is a recognition of sovereignty; for the recognition of any act is a recognition of all that is necessary to its validity; and such acts are acts of sovereignty. Thus, France and England recognised the independence of the United Provinces by receiving their ambassadors (e). So Charles 1 recognised the independence of Portugal by receiving the ambassador of John 4 (ƒ). France, by a treaty of alliance and commerce, recognised the independence of the United States. The difficulty that arises in the case of civil dissensions, hath been formerly treated at large (g). In like manner, objections to the reception of an ambassador may arise from the conduct of his sovereign. Ferdinand the Catholic, having refused to ratify the treaty of Blois, on the false pretence that Philip of Austria had exceeded his powers in exccuting it, Louis 12 received Ferdinand's ambassadors only to reproach them with his treachery, to refuse all intercourse with their master until he should have ratified the treaty, and to order them to quit the kingdom the same day (h). So Queen Elizabeth refused to receive the ambassador of King James, because her ambassador had not been well treated in Scotland (i). So Charles Gustavus, King of Sweden, having learned that the Elector of Brandeburgh had formed an alliance with the King of Poland, in the hope of obtaining the sovereignty of Prussia, refused to receive his ambassador, alleging that a sovereign is not bound to receive the ambassadors of his enemies (j). For the like reason the Elector Palatine refused to receive the ambassador of Archduke Albert (k). So the King of

Castile refused to receive the ambassador of the King of Arragon, whom he believed to be preparing to make war upon him (1).

The power of appointing ambassadors is usually delegated by sovereigns to the governors of distant provinces. The ambassadors whom they appoint, are ambassadors of the sovereign for the affairs of such governments (m). This power was exercised by the Spanish governors of the Low Countries and the viceroys of Naples. In 1561, Queen Elizabeth having got possession of money remitted by the King of Spain to the Duke of Alva, refused to receive his ambassador, on the ground, that sovereigns only are entitled to employ ambassadors. Bynkershoek observes, that the fact itself shews, that she resorted to this pretence to avoid restitution (n); and it is to be observed, that England was deeply interested in preventing the subjugation of the Low Countries. In 1588, the English ministers in Flanders made no difficulty in negotiating with the Spanish ambassadors, whose powers were only signed by the governor of the Low Countries. During minorities and interregnums, the appointment of public ministers is vested in those by whom the powers of sovereignty are exercised. During the vacancy of the see of Rome, the power is vested in the conclave (o). During the captivity of King John and King Francis 1, ambassadors were appointed by the Dauphin and Queen-mother as Regents (p). Grotius was appointed ambassador to France by Chancellor Oxenstiern in the character of Regent, after the death of Gustavus Adolphus, by whom he had been designated to that office (q).

Secondly, Reception may be refused on the ground of per

sonal character. If a person sentenced to punishment, were accredited to the state within whose jurisdiction the sentence had been passed, but not executed, that would be a just ground of objection. For no sovereign can be required to abandon his jurisdiction over his own subjects. On the same ground, a sovereign may justly refuse to receive his own subject as minister of a foreign state; accordingly, by the laws of France and Holland, subjects were forbidden to accept such appointments (r). A person who had been in the service of the Dutch East India Company, and condemned in India to have his tongue bored, was sent to Holland to negotiate a settlement of differences between the King of England and the company. On his arrival he was imprisoned, but soon afterwards released and sent out of the country. His imprisonment was illegal; but there can be no doubt of the legality of the refusal to admit him in a public character(s). So, if an ambassador have given just cause of offence or be personally obnoxious to the sovereign to whom he is accredited. Upon this ground, Cardinal Richelieu warned the English ambassador at Paris, that the Duke of Buckingham would not be received as ambassador extraordinary (t). So Charles 8, refused to receive Cardinal Piccolomini as legate (u). So Ferdinand sent Andrea del Borgo out of Spain the instant he landed, when the Emperor Maximilian had sent him in spite of a previous request that he never might be accredited again (v). Francis 1 refused Cardinal Pole as legate, on the ground that he was the personal enemy of Henry 8, who was at that time an ally of the King of France (w).

Thirdly, the reception of an ambassador may be refused, when the purpose of his mission is liable to suspicion as contrary to the honour or interest of the state (a). Thus, the

(r) Bynk. F. L. xi.; Wicq. contra, i. 268.

(8) Bynk. Q. J. P. ii. v.

(t) Wicq. i. 324.

(u) Wicq. i. 326.

(v) Wicq. i. 337.

(w) Wicq. ibid.

(x) Grot. ii. 18, iii. 2.

Sicilians refused to admit the ambassadors, whom the Pope had sent to exhort them to make their peace with Charles of Anjou (y). So the United Provinces, both before and after the union of Utrecht, refused to admit the ambassadors of the emperor and of several German princes, as bearers of proposals, which could not be accepted with honour (z). So Queen Elizabeth refused to receive the nuncio sent by Pope Pius 4, to invite her to appoint deputies to the Council of Trent; because the nuncio, under that pretence, was sent to stir up her subjects to revolt. She added, that such refusal was not unprecedented, as Queen Mary, though a Catholic, had refused to admit the messenger, who was bringing a cardinal's hat to her confessor (a). Philip and Mary refused to receive Cardinal Pole as legate, until he had satisfied them that the purpose of his mission was not inconsistent with their interests (b).

Grotius lays it down that ordinary ambassadors may be disallowed, because the practice of the ancients, to whom they were unknown, shews how little they are required (c). Wicquefort says, that they are not within the protection of the law of nations, because they were unknown less than two hundred years before his time, and that the refusal to receive an ordinary ambassador would be unusual but not unlawful (d). Ordinary embassies are certainly of modern origin; so late as the year 1651, they were brought in question at an extraordinary meeting of the States General, but nothing was determined, and the matter was adjourned to their ordinary session (e). But it must be remembered, that as the usage of nations changes, the law of nations changes with it; and that much is law now, that was not so formerly (f). That ordinary embassies are in accordance with modern usage can not

(y) Wicq. i. 319.

(z) Wicq. i. 333.

(a) Wicq. i. 332.

(b) Wicq. i. 229.

(c) Grot. ii. 18, iii. 2.

(d) Wicq. i. 16.

(e) Bynk. F. L. 1.

(ƒ) Bynk. Q. J. P. pref. and ii. vii.