I I. The universal law of nations acknowledges in the minister a perfect independence in every thing that con cerns, directly or indirectly, his functions as minister, and considers him in that respect as exterritorial. But that part of the law of nations which is founded on custom ex tends this exterritoriality still further. According to it, the minister, his retinue, his house, and his carriages, are usu ally considered, with regard to the rights of sovereignty, as out of the territory where the minister resides, and as in the state from which he is sent. This is what is now un derstood by exterritoriality. As it is, however, the effect of the will of nations, it is susceptible of limitation, and is, in Fact, limited in many respects.
12. In virtue of this exterritoriality, the minister, and all those belonging to his retinue, as well as his property, are exempted front the civil jurisdiction of the state. The mi nister can be cited before no tribunal, except that of the so vereign who sends him ; but we must except here, _first, When he is a subject of the state to which he is sent, or when he is in the service of the state to which he is sent ; second, When he has voluntarily acknowledged the juris diction of that state ; third, When, as plaintiff, he is bound to submit to the jurisdiction to which the defendant is sub ject ; and consequently is obliged to plead, in case of an ac tion against him arising from the process ;fourth, With re spect to property, that which belongs to him in any other quality than that of minister is subject to the jurisdiction of the state, and may be seized on for causes not connected with the quality of minister. Though, strictly speaking, the property belonging to him as minister is exempt from seizure during the time of his mission ; yet, the mission once terminated, if he attempt to quit the state without pay ing his debts, the state may refuse to let him depart, or at least to carry away his property ; and may even seize upon it. There are instances of this right having been exercis ed, though generally it is not.
13. Ministers and their retinue (the latter less generally) are exempt from the criminal jurisdiction of the state to which they are sent. A crime, then, committed by a mi nister, does not deprive him of the special protection of the law of nations, and of that inviolability which the inter est of his sovereign requires him to preserve. Neverthe
less, if it be some crime immediately against the safety of the state, the sovereign has a right to act against him as against an enemy of the state. If the safer% of the state re quire it, his pet son may be seized, and he may even be put to death like another enemy. But, on account of toe c•n sequences, it would be dangerous to esiabosh Ca. principle. It is a custom among the courts of Eutope, wh.:n a minis ter has committed a crime of a private nature, to demand his recal ; ane if it be a state crime, to seize his person and keep him confined as long as the state is in danger; and when that danger ceases to exist, to release him and send him home. But even imprisonment is seldom had re,:ourse to, unless the danger be so very pressing as to render it unsafe to send him home, or write for his recal. Wan re gard to the retinue of ministers, it often happens that courts do not grant the same exemptions to them as to the minis ters themselves.
14. The general notion of the exterritorialit) of the mi nister, and of his dwelling, seems to give him a great de gree of liberty on the point of religion, but this exterrhori ality itself admits of modification on all the points not es sential to the object of the mission. Every thing here, then, must depend on custom and particular conventions.
15. Time exterritoriality of the minister exempts him, and all his retinue, from the personal imposts, to which as subjects of the state they would be liable. With respect to duties, either direct or indirect, on merchandises, an ex emption from them is not essential to the quality of mi nister.
Formerly it was the custom to defray, either wholly or in part, the expences of foreign ministers while on their mis sion. Since this is fallen into disuse among the Christian powers, they have generally substituted in its room an ex emption from duties. Nevertheless, the enormous abuse that has been made of this exemption at many courts has caused it to be much restrained, or entirely abolished. At courts where it still subsists, it subsists during the first months of the embassy only ; and where it is entirely abo lished, a gratification is given in lieu of it.
It must be observed, however, that the dwelling and car riages of the minister are exempt from search, unless he consents to their being searched.