CHAPTER II

RANK OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES

THE grade or rank of diplomatic representatives has been the subject of discussion and fierce controversy from the date of the first establishment of permanent missions, four centuries ago, and although it was finally and definitely settled at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and that settlement was accepted and has been followed by the United States, it has recently been a new source of discussion and embarrassment even in Washington. Hence it may be germane to our topic to make some reference to this controversy in the past.

A diplomatic envoy is the representative of his government or sovereign, and his claim of rank is for his country and not for himself; so that the controversy in the past has been one of nations rather than of persons. During the medieval period the struggle of the European nations for preeminence in rank was the special feature of the era, and it gave rise often to the most absurd pretensions. It was sought to be maintained for various reasons, such as: the title of the sovereign, the size of the dominions, the antiquity of the royal family or date of independence of the country, the nature of the government (whether monarchy or republic), the population, its achievements in arms, the date of the conversion of the people to Christianity, and

even the services rendered to the Pope or the church. Up to the time of the reformation the Pope was universally recognized in christendom as having precedence over all other sovereigns; next in order was the emperor of Germany as the successor of the Roman emperor, and below them a constant strife existed among the nations. For a time the republics were refused what were termed "royal honors," but finally Venice, the United Netherlands, and Switzerland were accorded recognition in the order of precedence here named. The title of emperor was sought to be made exclusive to the old German Empire, and Russia was forced to wait several generations after its ruler assumed that title before he was accorded recognition as such.

Four centuries ago the Pope of Rome, by virtue of his conceded preeminence and ecclesiastical authority, sought to settle the vexed question by issuing an order fixing the relative rank of the then existing nations of Christendom. It illustrates the intensity of feeling which the question had aroused to state that, notwithstanding the high papal authority of that day, this arbitrary settlement was not accepted generally, and was observed in Rome only, and even there merely for a brief period. It also illustrates the evanescent character of the honor and the changes of the governments of the world to note that, of the score and a half of nations enumerated in the papal order, only three (England, Spain, and one Portugal) exist to-day with the royal titles then accorded them. It is also curious to note that in this table of precedence England stood eighth in order, and Russia does not appear in the list.

A large part of the deliberations of the great congresses of European nations up to and even including the early part of the last century was taken up in settling the question of precedence among the envoys or delegates. This was notably so at the Conference of Westphalia. At the Congress of Ryswick a warm debate occurred over the demand of the ambassadors of the emperor of Germany that a particular space should be set apart for their carriages, and that this should be the post of honor. A fierce quarrel occurred over the allotment of rooms. In the conference room a single table had been provided, but no agreement could be reached as to the order of seating, and so in that room they all stood; and another room was provided in which there was no table, and the envoys sat in a circle. At the Diet of Regensberg the precedence of the ambassadors was decided by an arithmetical rule by which each had precedence over the rest twice in ten days. At Utrecht a round table was used, but this lost its accommodating qualities when it was discovered that the place of honor was opposite the door of entrance, and that every place of honor has a right and a left. At this congress a quarrel for precedence took place between the footmen of the several ambassadors, in the account of which, occupying thirty pages in the "History of the Congress," it is recorded that it "threatened to retard the peace of Christendom." Addison gives an amusing account in the "Spectator," of a discussion over it which he heard in one of the coffee houses in London, the result of which he sums up in these words: "All I could learn at last from these honest gentlemen was that the matter

1

in debate was of too high a nature for such heads as theirs, or mine, to comprehend." Macaulay, in his "History of England," describes in his best vein the proceedings of the Congress of Ryswick, which well illustrates these idle controversies.2

The contest of envoys to these international congresses of the past has been not more animated and absurd than that of the envoys to the several courts of Europe. Many amusing and some tragic incidents have been narrated respecting the latter, from which I give the following instances. It is related that the Spanish ambassador to England in 1661, in order to secure a place in the royal procession next to the king and before his French colleague, attacked the latter's coach in the streets of London, hamstrung his horses and killed his men, thus vindicating his country's greatness.

When the plenipotentiaries of France and Austria met to settle the conditions of marriage between Louis XIV and Maria Theresa, in order to preserve the full dignity of their nations, they stepped together, with the right foot, side by side, into a council chamber hung in corresponding halves with their respective colors, and sat down at the same instant precisely opposite each other at a square table, on two mathematically equivalent armchairs. Such events as these in statecraft led Voltaire to remark that armchairs, backed chairs, and stools were "important subjects of politics, and illustrious subjects of quarrels" in those days.

A story is told of two newly arrived envoys from

1 The Spectator, No. 481, September 11, 1712.

24 History of England, Macaulay (ed. 1855), 788.

Italy and Germany, who, being unable to agree as to which should first present his credentials to the king of France, stipulated that whoever reached Versailles soonest on the day of their reception should take precedence of the other. The Prussian went the night before the audience and sat on a bench before the palace until dawn. The Italian arriving early in the morning, saw the Prussian there before him, and slipped surreptitiously through the door of the king's bedroom and commenced his speech of audience. The Prussian rushed after him, pulled him back by the skirts, and commenced his harangue. The memoirs of diplomatists and the histories of Europe are full of the extreme and absurd contentions of envoys, but the foregoing are sufficient to illustrate their extreme and often farcical pretensions.

None of the monarchs of Europe was more insistent upon his rank than the "Little Corporal" when he made himself emperor of France. On inviting the Pope to attend his coronation, it was stipulated that the same ceremonies should be observed as at the coronations of the ancient kings of France, but on the arrival of the Holy Father the latter was astonished to see Napoleon take precedence over him, as if there was no question about it. In 1808 he caused the edition of the "Almanach de Gotha" to be seized because, as was its custom, it arranged the reigning houses alphabetically and did not place Napoleon first.

The contest as to the rank of states which had been waged for centuries was sought to be settled at the Congress of Vienna of 1815. A committee was appointed with instructions to fix the principles which