364 DIPLOMACY 



classes are exactly on the same line from the point of view of their 

 character as of their duties and powers." Martens, the leading 

 authority on diplomatic ceremonies and practice, writes: " Con- 

 sidered from the point of view of international law, all diplomatic 

 agents, without regard to their class, are equal. This equality is 

 shown by their all possessing, in a like degree, all diplomatic rights. 

 . . . Many writers have tried to infer from the rules of Vienna 

 that ambassadors, as representing the person of their sovereign, have, 

 in distinction from other diplomatic agents, the formal right of 

 treating with the sovereign to whom they are sent, and of being 

 received in audience by him at any time. We cannot admit 

 this inference. As Prince Bismarck opportunely remarked, ' No 

 ambassador has a right to demand a personal interview with the 

 sovereign.' The constitutional government of West European mon- 

 archies compels ambassadors to treat with the minister of foreign 

 affairs." Lawrence (T. J.), one of the latest authors on international 

 law, says: " Ambassadors, as representing the person and dignity of 

 their sovereign, are held to possess a right of having personal inter- 

 views, whenever they choose to demand them, with the sovereign 

 of the state to which they are accredited. But modern practice 

 grants such interviews on suitable occasions to all representatives 

 of foreign powers, whatever may be their rank in the diplomatic 

 hierarchy. Moreover, the privilege can have no particular value, 

 because the verbal statements of a monarch are not state acts. 

 Formal and binding international negotiations can be conducted 

 only through the minister of foreign affairs." 



It has been seen that the increased expense of maintaining an 

 embassy was one of the reasons given by American secretaries of 

 state against the creation of the grade of ambassador. The style 

 of living or the establishment which a diplomatic representative 

 maintains has been given great importance, especially in the Euro- 

 pean capitals. It is a curious fact that in the early period after the 

 establishment of embassies or legations it was the practice for the 

 government to which the ambassador was accredited to defray his 

 expenses. For instance, we have the record that the Court of 

 Vienna in 1679 appropriated a sum equal to $2000 per week to meet 

 the expenses of the Russian embassy, and of the Turkish embassy 

 something over $1000. A century later the Turkish embassy at 

 the same court cost the latter 2000 rubles daily. The papal legate 

 at Paris in 1625 cost the King of France 2500 livres daily. The cele- 

 brated Lord Macartney, British embassy to China, is said to have 

 cost the Chinese Government a sum equal to $850,000. 



But in the course of time these splendid and extravagant expendi- 

 tures became both burdensome to the court which furnished them 

 and humiliating to the representatives of the country receiving 



