EFFECTS OF THE WORLD WAR The failure of diplomacy to avert the awful disaster of the World War naturally strengthened the agitation, which had begun before the war, against the personnel and methods of the tradi tional diplomacy. Diplomatists were accused of being in league with capitalists and munition-makers, out of touch with the people, and habitually using language that was "false-friendly and circumlocutory." The cry went up for "open diplomacy" and "democratic control," and was strengthened by President Wilson's announcement (in the first of his Fourteen Points) that henceforth "diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view." Open Diplomacy and Democratic Control.—In a demo cratic state the control of foreign policy must always ultimately rest with the representatives of the people, who hold the purse strings. But the public conduct of negotiations is another matter. "How is the task of peace-maker to be pursued," asked Mr. Arthur (later, Lord) Balfour, in the House of Commons, "if you are to shout your grievances from the house-tops whenever they occur? The only result is that you embitter public feeling, that the differences between the two states suddenly attain a magnitude they ought never to be allowed to approach, that the newspapers of the two countries agitate themselves, that the parliaments of the two countries have their passions set on fire, and great crises arise, which may end, have ended sometimes, in international catastrophes." Mirabeau said much the same thing in the French National Assembly in 179o, and subsequent events bore out its wisdom ; it was not the diplomatists, but the oratori cal heat of the Assembly that plunged Europe into the wars of the Revolution. The world remembers the wars that diplomacy failed to avert ; it has forgotten, or has never known of those— and they are many more—which diplomacy has averted by a conspiracy of silence.
So far as the practice of diplomacy is concerned, the war and the negotiations which followed have led to only three develop ments of any outstanding importance. The first, which needs no further discussion, is the provision of the covenant that all inter national agreements, to be generally recognized as valid, must be registered in the secretariat of the League of Nations. This is intended to ensure the publication of the result of negotiations. Its effectiveness is limited to the membership of the league ; and accusations have been made from time to time of the continued existence of secret treaties even between league members. The second is the growth of the practice of diplomacy by conference. The third is the adoption of the principle that no important treaty can be considered to be concluded until it has been ratified by the legislatures of the chief signatory states.
This direct influence of foreign ministers on the conduct of negotiations has been increased by modern means of communica tion. But it would be easy to exaggerate the importance of this change as affecting the character and status of diplomatic agents. Foreign ministers must still depend for information and advice on the "man on the spot," and the success of their policy largely depends upon his qualities of discretion and judgment. The growth of democracy, moreover, has given to the ambassador a new importance ; for he represents not only the sovereign to the sovereign, but the nation to the nation ; and he may by his per sonal qualities do a large amount to remove the prejudices and ignorances which stand as a barrier between the nations.
The example set by France was not followed in Britain till after the Napoleonic wars. By his circular of Jan. i, 1816, Castle reagh announced that "in order to provide a suitable succession of diplomatic servants, properly qualified etc.," the Prince Regent intended to nominate from time to time "to such of the Ambassa dors or Envoys, as the emergency of the service might point out, one, or at the utmost two, attaches to be domesticated in his family." (F.O. 115. 25. archives No. 2) . This was the beginning in Britain of the trained diplomatic service. When, some years later, the service was thrown open to competition, precautions were still taken to ensure that it should be manned by gentlemen, that is to say, by those who had "at least had the opportunity of mixing in society where good manners are to be expected." Thus candidates for examination had to have an income of at least a year, and were nominated by the foreign secretary on the recommendation of persons of position.
This system was modified as the result of a report issued in 1914, by the royal commission on the civil service. One of its recommendations was that the diplomatic establishment of the Foreign Office and the diplomatic corps abroad should be amal gamated up to and including the grades of assistant under-secre tary of state and minister of the lowest grade. This involved the abolition of the property qualification, which did not apply to the Foreign Office ; and it was recommended that members of the service employed abroad should receive a suitable foreign allow ance. After the publication of the findings of the commission the recommendation of the foreign secretary was made dependent on the report of a board of selection composed of members of the Foreign Office and of the diplomatic service. In this there was nothing revolutionary; and the effect of the putting in force of these recommendations has been to widen the area of selection for the service.
In its widest sense the history of diplomacy is that of the inter course between nations, in so far as this has not been a mere brute struggle for the mastery ; in a narrower sense, with which the present article is alone concerned, it is that of the methods and spirit of diplomatic intercourse and of the character and status of diplomatic agents. Whatever the influence of earlier practice, modern diplomacy dates from the rise of permanent missions, and the consequent development of the diplomatic hierarchy as an international institution. Of this the first begin nings are traceable to the 15th century and to Italy. There had, of course, during the middle ages been embassies and negotiations; but the embassies had been no more than temporary missions directed to a particular end, and conducted by ecclesiastics or nobles of a dignity appropriate to each occasion ; there were neither permanent diplomatic agents nor a professional diplomatic class. To the evolution of such a class the Italy of the Renais sance, the nursing-ground of modern statecraft, gave the first impetus. This was but natural ; for in Italy, with its numerous independent states, between which there existed a lively inter course, and a yet livelier rivalry, diplomacy early played a part as great as, or greater than, war. Where all were struggling for the mastery, the existence of each depended upon alliances and counter-alliances, of which the object was the maintenance of the balance of power. In this school there was trained a notable succession of men of affairs. Thus, in the 13th and 14th centuries Florence counted among her envoys Dante, Petrarch and Boccac cio, and later on could boast of agents such as Capponi, Vettori, Guicciardini and Machiavelli. Papal Rome, too, as was to be ex pected, had always been a fruitful nursing-mother of diplomatists; and some authorities have traced the beginnings of modern diplomacy to a conscious imitation of her legatine system. (See Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, i. p. 498.) It is, however, in Venice, that the origins of modern diplomacy are to be sought. The Venetians, in their turn, doubtless learned their diplomacy originally from the Byzantines, with whom their trade expansion in the Levant early brought them into close contact. (For Byzantine diplomacy see ROMAN EMPIRE, LATER.) So early as the 13th century the republic began to lay down rules for the conduct of its ambassadors. Thus in 1268, ambassadors were commanded to surrender on their return any gifts they had received, and about the same time it was decided that they were to hand in a written account of their mission; in 1288 this was somewhat expanded by a law decreeing that ambassadors were to deposit, within 15 days of their return, a written account of the replies made to them during their mission, together with anything they might have seen or heard to the honour or in the interests of the republic. These provisions, which were several times renewed, are the origin of the famous reports of the Venetian ambassadors to the senate, which are at once a monument to the genius of Venetian statesmen and a mine of historical material. (See Eugenio Alberi, Le Relazioni degli ambasciatori Veneti al senato, 15 vols. Florence, 1839-63.) The origin of the change from temporary to permanent mis sions has been the subject of much controversy. The theory that it was due to the evolution of the Venetian consulates (bajulats) in the Levant into permanent diplomatic posts, and that the idea was thence transferred to the West, is disproved by the fact that Venice had established other permanent embassies before the baylo (q.v.) at Constantinople was transformed into a diplomatic agent of the first rank. Nor is the first known instance of the appointment of a permanent ambassador Venetian. The earliest record' is contained in the announcement by Francesco Sforza, 'The apocrisiarii (et roupercb.pwc) or responsales should perhaps be mentioned, though they certainly did not set the precedent for the modern permanent missions. They were resident agents, practically legates, of the popes at the court of Constantinople. They were established by Pope Leo I., and continued until the Iconoclastic controversy broke the intimate ties between East and West. See Luxardo, Des vordekretalische Gesandtschaftsrecht der Papste (Inns bruck, 1878) ; also Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, i. 5o1.
duke of Milan, in 1455, of his intention to maintain a permanent embassy at Genoa, and in 146o the duke of Savoy sent Eusebio Margaria, archdeacon of Vercelli, as his permanent representative to the Curia'. Though, however, the early records of such ap pointments are rare, the practice was probably common among the Italian states. Its extension to countries outside Italy was a some what later development. In 1494 Milan is already represented in France by a permanent ambassador. In 14gs Zacharia Contarini, Venetian ambassador to the emperor Maximilian, is described by Sanuto (Diarii, 294) as stato ambasciatore; and from the time of Charles V. onwards the succession of ambassadors of the repub lic at the imperial court is fairly traceable. In 1496 "as the way to the British Isles is very long and very dangerous," two mer chants resident in London, Pietro Contarini and Luca Valaressa, were appointed by the republic subambasciatores ; and in June of the same year Andrea Trevisano arrived in London as permanent ambassador at the court of Henry VII2. Florence, too, from 1498 onwards, was represented at the courts of Charles V. and of France by permanent ambassadors.
During the same period the practice had been growing up among the other European powers. Spain led the way in 1487 by the appointment of Dr. Roderigo Gondesalvi de Puebla as ambas sador in England. As he was still there in I so°, the Spanish embassy in London may be regarded as the oldest still surviving post of the new permanent diplomacy. Other states followed suit, but it was not till late in the i6th century that permanent embas sies were regarded as the norm. The precarious relations between the European Powers during the i6th century, indeed, naturally retarded the development of the system. Thus it was not till after good relations had been established with France by the Treaty of London that, in isig, Sir Thomas Boleyn and Dr. West were sent to Paris as resident English ambassadors, and, after the renewed breach between the two countries, no others were ap pointed till the reign of Elizabeth. Nine years before, Sir Robert Wingfield, whose simplicity earned him the nickname of "Sum mer-shall-be-green," had been sent as ambassador to the court of Charles V., where he remained from sio to 1517; and in s2o the mutual appointment of resident ambassadors was made a condition of the treaty between Henry VIII. and Charles V. In 1517 Thomas Spinelly, an Italian, who had for some years repre sented England at the court of the Netherlands, was appointed "resident ambassador to the court of Spain," where he remained till his death in 1522. These are the most important early in stances of the new system. Alone of the Great Powers, the em peror remained unrepresented at foreign courts. In theory this was the result of his unique dignity, which made him superior to all other potentates; actually it was because, as emperor, he could not speak for the practically independent princes nominally his vassals. It served all practical purposes if he were represented abroad by his agents as king of Spain or archduke of Austria.
All the evidence goes to prove that the establishment of per manent diplomatic agencies was deliberately adopted as an obvious convenience. But, while all the powers were agreed as to the con venience of maintaining such agencies abroad, all were equally agreed in viewing the representatives accredited to them by for eign states with extreme suspicion. This was justified by the peculiar ethics displayed by the new diplomacy. Machiavelli had gathered in The Prince and The Discourses on Livy, the principles underlying the practice of his day in Italy ; Francis I., the first monarch to establish a completely organized diplo matic machinery, did most to give these principles a European extension. By the close of the i6th century diplomacy had be come frankly "Machiavellian," and the ordinary rules of morality were held not to apply to the intercourse between nations. This was admitted in theory as well as in practice'. The situation is 'N. Bianchi, Le Materie politiche relative all' estero degli archivi di stato piemontese (Bologna, Modena, 1875), p. 29.
2The first ambassador of Venice to visit England was Zuanne da Lezze, who came in 1319 to demand compensation for the plundering of Venetian ships by English pirates.
3Germonius, De legatis principum et populorum libri tres chap. vi. p. 164 (Rome, 1627) ; Paschalius, Legatits p. 3o2 (Rouen, 1598). So, too, Etienne Dolet in his De officio legati (1541).
summed up in the famous definition of Sir Henry Wotton, which, though excused by himself as a jest, was held to be an indiscreet revelation of the truth: "An ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country." (See Pearsall Smith, Sir Henry W otton, PP. 49, 126 et seq.) So universally was this principle adopted that, in the end, no diplomatist even expected to be believed; and—as Bismarck cynically avowed—the best way to deceive was to tell the truth.
But, in addition to being a liar ex officio, the ambassador was also "an honourable spy." "The principal functions of an envoy," says Francois de Callieres, himself an ex-ambassador of Louis XIV., "are two; the first is to look after the affairs of his own prince; the second is to discover the affairs of the other." A clever minister, he maintains, will know how to keep himself informed of all that goes on in the mind of the sovereign, in the councils of ministers, or in the country ; and for this end "good cheer and the warming effect of wine" are excellent allies'. This being so, it is hardly to be wondered at that foreign ambassadors were commonly regarded as unwelcome guests. The views of Philippe de Commines were shared by theoretical writers as well as by men of affairs. Gentilis is all but alone in his protest against the view that all ambassadors were exploratores magis quam oratores, and to be treated as such. So early as 1481 the government of Venice had decreed the penalty of banishment and a heavy fine for any one who should talk of affairs of state with a foreign envoy, and though the more civilized princes did not follow the example of the sultan, who by way of precaution locked the ambassador of Ferdinand II., Jerome Laski, into "a dark and stinking place without windows," they took the most minute precautions to prevent the ambassadors of friendly powers from penetrating into their secrets. Charles V. thought it safest to keep them as far away as possible from his court, and so did Francis I. Henry VII. forbade his subjects to hold any inter course with them, and, later on, set spies upon them and examined their correspondence—a practice by no means confined to Eng land alone. To Paschalius the permanent embassies were "a miser able outgrowth of a miserable age2." Grotius himself condemned them as not only harmful, but useless, the proof of the latter being that they were unknown to antiquity. (De jure belli et pacis, Amsterdam, 162i, c. 18, § 3. n. 2.) Development of the Diplomatic Hierarchy.—The term corps diplomatique originated about the middle of the i8th cen tury. "The Chancellor Fiirst," says Ranke (xxx. 47, note), "does not use it as yet in his report (1754) but he knows it," and it would appear that it had just been invented at Vienna. "Corps diplomatique, nom qu'une dame donna un jour a ce corps nom breux de ministres etrangers a Vienne." The middle ages, however, knew no classification of diplomatic agents ; the person sent on mis sion is described indifferently as legatus, orator, nuntius, ablegatus commissarius, procurator, niandatarius, agens or ambaxator (am bassator, etc.). In Gundissalvus, De legato (148s), the oldest printed work on the subject, the word ambasiator, first found in a Venetian decree of '268, is applied to any diplomatist. Florence was the first to make a distinction; the orat,or was appointed by the council of the republic ; the mandatorio, with inferior powers, by the Council of Ten. In 'so° Machiavelli, who held only the latter rank, wrote from France urging 'the Signoria to send ambasiadori. This was, however, rather a question of powers than of dignity. But the causes which ultimately led to the elaborate differentiation of diplomatic ranks were rather ques tions of dignity than of functions. The breakdown of feudalism; with the consequent rise of a series of sovereign states, or of states claiming to be sovereign, of very various size and impor tance, led to a certain confusion in the ceremonial relations be tween them, which had been unknown to the comparatively clearly defined system of the middle ages. The smaller states were eager to assert their dignity; the greater powers were equally 'Francois de Callieres, De la maniere de negocier avec les souverains (Brussels, 1716). See also A. Sorel, Recueil des instructions donnies aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France (Paris, 1884), e.g., vol. Autriche, pp. 77, 88, 102, 112.
2Paschalius, Legatus (1598), P. 447. So too Felix de la Mothe Le Vayer (1547-1625), in his Legatus (Paris, 1579).
bent on "keeping them in their place." If the emperor, as has been stated above, was too exalted to send ambassadors, certain states were soon esteemed too humble to be represented at the courts of the Great Powers save by agents of an inferior rank. By the second half of the i6th century, then, there are two classes of diplomatists, ambassadors and residents or agents, the latter being accounted ambassadors of the second class. At the first the difference of rank was determined by the status of the sovereign by whom or to whom the agent was accredited ; but early in the i6th century it became fairly common for powers of the first rank.to send agents of the second class to represent them at courts of an equal status. The reasons were various, and not unamusing. First and foremost came the question of expense. The ambassador, as representing the person of his sovereign, was bound by the sentiment of the age to display an exaggerated magnificence. His journeys were like royal progresses, his state entries surrounded with every circumstance of pomp, and it was held to be his duty to advertise the munificence of his prince by boundless largesses. Had this munificence been as unlimited in fact as in theory, all might have been well, but, in that age of vaulting ambitions, depleted exchequers were the rule rather than the exception in Europe ; the records are full of pitiful appeals from ambassadors for arrears of pay, and appointment to an embassy often meant ruin, even to a man of substance. But the dignity of ambassador carried another drawback; his function of "honourable spy" was seriously hampered by the trammels of his position. He was unable to move freely in society, but lived a ceremonial existence in the midst of a crowd of retainers, through whom alone it was proper for him to communicate with the world outside. It followed that, though the office of ambassador was more dignified, that of agent was more useful.
Yet a third cause encouraged the growth of the lesser diplomatic ranks ; the question of precedence among powers theoretically equal. Modern diplomacy has settled a difficulty which caused at one time much heart-burning, and even bloodshed, by a simple appeal to the alphabet. Great Britain feels no humiliation in sign ing after France, if the reason be that her name begins with G; had she not been Great, she would sign before. The vexed ques tion of the precedence of ambassadors, too, has been settled by the rule as to seniority of appointment. But while the question remained unsettled it was obviously best to evade it by sending an agent of inferior rank to a court where the precedence claimed for an ambassador would have been refused.
Thus set in motion, the process of differentiation continues until the system is stereotyped in the 1 gth century. It is mainly a question of names. The ambassador extraordinary had originally been one sent on an extraordinary mission during which his authority superseded that of the resident ambassador. But by the middle of the i 7th century the custom had grown up of calling ali ambassadors "extraordinary," in order to place them on an equality with the others. The same process was extended to diplomatists of the second rank; and envoys (envoye for able gatus) were always "extraordinary," and as such took precedence over mere "residents," who in their day had asserted the same claim against the agents—all three terms having at one time been synonymous. Similarly a "minister plenipotentiary" had originally meant an agent armed with full powers (plein-pouvoir) ; but, by a like process, the combination came to mean as little as "envoy extraordinary"—though a plenipotentiary tout simple is still an agent, of no ceremonially defined dignity, despatched with full powers to treat and conclude. Finally, the evolution of the title of a diplomatist of the second rank is crowned by the high-sound ing combination, now almost exclusively used, of "envoy extra ordinary and minister plenipotentiary." The ultimate fate of the simple title "resident" was the same as that of "agent." Both had been freely sold by needy sovereigns to all and sundry who were prepared to pay for what gave them a certain social status. The "agent" fell thus into utter discredit, and those "residents" who were still actual diplomatic agents became "ministers resident" to distinguish them from the common herd.
The classification of diplomatic agents was for the first time definitively included in the general body of international law by the Reglement, March io, 1815, at Vienna, and the whole question was finally settled at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (Nov. 21, 1818) when, the proposal to establish precedence by the status of the accrediting powers having wisely been rejected, diplomatic agents were divided into four classes : (1) ambassadors, legates, nuncios ; (2) envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, and other ministers accredited direct to the sovereign; (3) minis ters resident; (4) charges d'affaires. With a few exceptions (e.g., Turkey), this settlement was accepted by all states, including the United States of America.
During the World War certain questions were raised by the activities of the representatives of the belligerents in neutral states. In all neutral countries it was the duty of these represen tatives to obtain information useful to their governments, and to act as centres for an active propaganda of their views and aims. So long as this propaganda did not pass certain bounds no violence was done to the traditional principles of diplomacy. It was other wise when diplomatic privileges and immunities were used to cover indirect attacks on the enemy through neutral interests. This was the case with the efforts of the Central Powers to inter rupt the supply of munitions to the Allies from the United States. The discovery, in Sept., 1915, that Dr. Dumba, the Austrian ambassador, was proposing to finance strike movements on a large scale in the United States in order to hamper the manufacture of munitions led to his recall. Even more serious, however, was the subsequent discovery (October) that Capt. Boy-Ed and Capt. von Papen, the naval and military attachés to the German em bassy, had been active in a plot to destroy American munition factories and American ships carrying munitions. Their subor dinates, who were not covered by diplomatic immunity, were imprisoned ; the two attaches were recalled at the instance of the United States Government. The same fate befell Count Luxburg, German minister in Buenos Aires, the author of the famous advice that ships carrying food from the Argentine to the Allies should be "spurlos versenkt" (sunk without leaving a trace). These notorious cases, characteristic of many others, were clearly con demned by the traditional standards of diplomacy. "The ambas sador," Callieres had written in the 18th century, "may suborn the prince's subjects for the purpose of obtaining information, but not for the purpose of plotting against their master." Equally clear was the principle condemning the practice of the German diplomatists, especially in the United States, of plotting attacks on enemy states (e.g., Canada, Ireland) under cover of their im munities. This was an abuse of diplomatic privilege, since it injured the State in which the plots were hatched by imperilling its neutrality.
BIBLIOGRAPIIY.-Besides general works on international law (q.v.), Bibliograpiiy.-Besides general works on international law (q.v.), a vast mass of treatises on diplomatic agents exists. The earliest printed work is the Tractatus de legato (Rome, 1485) of Gundissalvus (Gonsalvo de Villadiego), professor of law at Salamanca, auditor for Spain at the Roman court of the Rota, and bishop of Oviedo ; but the first really systematic writer on the subject was Albericus Gentilis, De legationibus libri iii. (London, 1583, 1585, Hanover 1596, 1607, 1612) . For a full bibliography of works on ambassadors see Baron Diedrich H. L. von Ompteda, Litteratur des gesammten sowohl natiirlichen als positives V olkerrechts (Regensburg, , P. 534, etc., which was completed and continued by the Prussian minister Karl Albert von Kamptz, in Nene Literatur des Volkerrechts seit dem Jahre 1784 (Berlin, 1817), p. 231. A list of writers, with critical and bibli ographical remarks, is also given in Ernest Nys's "Les Commencements de la diplomatie et le droit d'ambassade jusqu'a Grotius," in the Revue de droit international, vol. xvi. p. 167. Other useful modern works on the history of diplomacy are: E. C. Grenville-Murray, Embassies and Foreign Courts, a History of Diplomacy (2nd ed. 1856) ; J. Zeller, La Diplomatie francaise vers le milieu du X VI e siecle (1881) ; A. O. Meyer, Die englische Diplomatie in Deutschland zur Zeit Eduards VI. and Mariens (Breslau, 1900) ; and, above all, Otto Krauske, Die Entwickelung der standigen Diplomatie vom f iin f zehnten Jahrhundert bis zu den Beschlussen von 1815 and 18r8, in Gustav Schmoller's Staats-und socialwissenschaftliche Forschungen, vol. v. (Leipzig, 1885) . To these may be added, as admirably illustrat ing in detail the early developments of modern diplomacy, Logan Pearsall Smith's Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton (Oxford, 19o7). For modern diplomacy see the Guide diplomatique of Baron Charles de Martens, new edit. revised by F. H. Geffcken, (Leipzig, 1866) ; P. Pradier-Fodere, Cours de droit diplomatique (1881) ; Sir Ernest Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice (1917) ; Denys P. Myers, "Notes on the Control of Foreign Relations," in part iii. of the Recueil de Rapports of the Organisation Centrale pour une Paix durable (The Hague, 1917), pp. 285-382, an invaluable study of the essential conditions under which diplomacy works; Edward S. Corwin, The President's Control of Foreign Relations (1917) ; Sir Maurice Hankey, Diplomacy by Conference (1921) . A. Ponsonby, Democracy and Diplomacy (1915) , puts the case for "democratic control"; and contains the findings of the Royal Commission. (W. A. P.)