Diplomacy, as a science, has arisen out of the development of the European powers, and their rise on the ruins of the Roman empire. As a uniform system, following principles nearly as well established as those of many codes of law, it exists solely among the European powers, partly embracing those nations, such as Turkey and Persia, which have been brought into close association with them. The difficulty, however, of getting those Eastern states to understand and obey the laws of diplomacy, and submit to its restraints, has ever been an object of anxious comment to Wickefort and the other systematic writers on diplomacy. To submit to be bound in the moment of power by a theoretical system not enforced by the strong hand of any judge, spiritual or temporal, is not consistent with the Oriental mind; and the great civilized powers, in dealing with the Eastern states, as in their intercourse with barbarous tribes, have relied on their own strength, exercised with cruelty or with mildness as the case might be. Alliances and leagues, declarations of war and treaties of peace, have taken place, it is true, among those states, but it would be an historical absurdity to suppose diplomatic relations connecting together China, Burmah, and Japan, as they connect the great European powers.

In the same manner the ancient world had its treaties and leagues, but no systematic diplomatic relations. The pretensions of Rome during the empire, indeed, superseded every kind of international engagement, since she would permit of no relation between the empire and any other state, save that of predominance on her part and subjection on the other. Yet it is evidently from this system of centralization that the diplomatic relations of the European states arose. Freed from the temporal jurisdiction of the empire, and no longer mere dependencies, the European states were still subject in a modified shape to an influence radiating from the old centre of imperial authority. The bishop of Rome, in claiming a spiritual authority at least co-extensive with the geographical area of the temporal authority of the departed emperors of Rome, created a sanction, though an imperfect one, for the execution of justice among nations, and acted in some measure as a controlling influence over their diplomatic operations. A memorable instance of the influence of the Pope is found in the relations between John of England and Philip of France. The semi-judicial authority of the court of Rome was cited in support of the English conαuest cf Ireland, and was appealed to by both parties in the Scottish War of Independence. Little as the Papal authority was respected by even the most Catholic monarchs when they were at the head of large and well-found armies, yet in matters of dubious equilibrium the authority of the Pope had some weight; and as his was a power not limited to any particular state or cluster of states, but ever present throughout all the transactions of Christian realms with each other, it had, beyond doubt, an influence gradual and continuous in giving modern diplomacy the amount of specific character which it had obtained at the period of the Reformation. Under the head Balance of Power, the evils arising from the absence of a supreme power to judge between states, as the courts of law decide questions between individual citizens, will be found discussed. It suffices here to say, that much of the deficiency is filled up by the fortunate train of events which have created, throughout the civilized world, a traditional system of diplomatic practice.

The representatives of great nations, following up the traditions of the science of diplomacy, have often sought by similar acts to do what they considered their duty to their country by taking advantage of every opportunity of aggrandizing it. But modern political philosophy and morality teach us that this is not the manner in which great nations are to be supported or aggrandized, and that for their diplomatic servants there is spread out a far nobler field of exertion. It is founded on the consciousness that the real power of states must come from within—from the sound condition of the people, physically, industrially, and morally—from well-poised political institutions and good government. If these are absent no diplomatic skill can make up for them; if they be present it cannot enhance the real power of the state which possesses them. But to the diplomatic representatives of states both powerful and honest a function of a higher character still than mere national aggrandizement belongs, in the capacity, by able, temperate, and honourable negotiation, to keep feeble states from being crushed by their potent neighbours, to preserve peace in the world so long as it can honourably be preserved, and to see generally that international justice is observed among mankind. The true functions of the great powers are in some measure embodied in the well-known lines of Virgil:

“Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento; Hae tibi erunt artes; pacisque imponere morem, Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos.”

The historical events, and the industrial and commercial progress which have during the past hundred years so aggrandized the power of Britain among European nations, have, in this view of the uses of our diplomacy, become a great boon to the smaller states, and even to the citizens of the greater. The parliamentary responsibility, and the perpetual public scrutiny and discussion to which the acts of our statesmen are subjected, are not only checks on our own diplomatic acts, but on those of every other civilized state. It was a boast attributed to one of the great fabricators of British diplomacy, the elder Pitt, that not a gun should be fired throughout the world without Britain knowing why. If Britain could make good this boast, it would extend in some measure to mankind at large the blessings enjoyed at home from living under a responsible government. As it is even at present, the continuous liability of having whatever he does called before Parliament and the public, must be an ever present and influencing motive with every British diplomatist. Hence he not only dare not countenance any act of national rapacity, tyranny, or fraud, but he is, as the representative of a nation which has great power and no secrets, a check upon the diplomatic honesty of all the world.

In contrast to the old opinions which attributed the power and prosperity of nations to diplomatic ability, overlooking the substantial sources of material progress, a political sect has appeared in recent times who denounce the diplomatic system as foolish or wicked, and proclaim the doctrine of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. It is practically clear, however, that whatever degree of perfection the world may reach in time, the first great power which avows this opinion will become the immediate victim of its rivals; and thus, should Britain withdraw herself from the diplomacy of Europe, the despotic states would soon become strong enough to shut up the commerce of the world, and cast the world two centuries back in civilization.

It is perhaps scarcely necessary to mention that the source of the diplomatic organization in any nation is its supreme power; but it is useful to keep in view that, for the rapid movements of this department of politics, nations the most jealous of their constitutional rights have been obliged to place at least provisional power in the hands of individual rulers. Thus in Britain the sovereign, independently of Parliament, has technically the power to make treaties and to declare peace and war; and an authority not much less extensive is committed to the president of the United States. The guidance of a great state’s relations with foreign countries is generally committed to one department of the Government—with us it is the function of the foreign secretary. How far he is bound to consult his colleagues in his intercourse with foreign states has sometimes been matter of acrimonious discussion. The representatives of the Government at foreign courts, though the dignified character of their missions sometimes gives them a rank much higher than that of their instructor, must obey the directions of the foreign minister. In the negotiation of treaties there is an old-standing dispute among publicists, how far nations can be bound if their ambassadors exceed the instructions given to them, which are generally kept secret. When, therefore, an important international act, such as a treaty, is undertaken, there are many sanctions and ceremonials to be accomplished before it is held to be completed. While matters are in a vague condition, many briefly expressed fundamental suggestions will have passed among the negotiators in the form of notes. When the matter becomes more ripe for adjustment, it assumes the shape of a protocol, or draft of the conditions. The ambassadors, when all is adjusted, sign the articles of the treaty; but still it is generally deemed essential that the several Governments should ratify it, or, admitting that their representatives have not exceeded their instructions, engage to fulfil the bargain they have made. In this country, whenever treaties affect the private rights of the citizen, they must be ratified by Act of Parliament. In addition to notes and substantive treaties, the most important documents in diplomacy may be considered the manifestoes, in which, paying homage to public opinion and the established rules of diplomacy, Governments profess to justify their conduct. When any vile act of oppression or injustice is perpetrated, it is generally followed by an able manifesto, and the ingenuity of the accomplished diplomatist is taxed to make the deed appear just, rational, and necessary.

The nature and functions of the large body of officers who chiefly conduct the diplomacy of the world having been described under the heading Ambassador, it only remains to notice the incidental circumstance that custom has for some time established the French language as the language of diplomacy. In the 16th and during a great part of the 17th century, Latin was employed. In Ludlow’s memoirs there is, under the year 1656, a curious notice to the effect that the Swedish ambassador “com plained of the delays in his business, and that, when he desired to have the articles of this treaty put into Latin according to the custom of treaties, it was fourteen days they made him stay for that translation, and sent it to one Mr Milton, a blind man, to put them into Latin, who, he said must use an amanuensis to read it to him, and that amanuensis might publish the matter of the articles as he pleased, and that it seemed strange to him there should be none but a blind man capable of putting a few articles into Latin.” In turning over the pages of the great collection of treaties by Dumont and Rousset, one may observe how gradually, during the ascendency of Richelieu, and the subsequent reign of Louis XIV., the use of the French language radiates from the immediate’ diplomatic transactions of France over those of Europe at large. Probably its propagation was originally connected with the visions of that universal French empire to which Louis XIV. seemed to be marching before he encountered the combinations of William of Orange. At the present day it can only be pronounced a fortunate thing that diplomatists have agreed to use one language, and that the best adapted for their peculiar functions.

Imperial decrees and privileges, public acts and treaties, and, no doubt, contracts between private persons, were in remote times inscribed on marble and stone, on wood and on metal. The wonderfully preserved monuments of ancient Nineveh show the prevalent use of sun-burnt brick. Tn Egypt papyrus was used from the remotest times. The Greeks and Romans recorded public documents on wooden tablets, on stone, bronze, lead, and ivory, as well as on papyrus, parchment, and other substances. Tablets of wax served for letters and writings of various kinds, but must have been unsuitable for public acts. Pliny speaks of the use of rolls of lead and of linen. There are many Greek documents preserved in the British Museum, the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, and elsewhere, such as royal letters, petitions, contracts, and wills, of the time of the Ptolemies, written on papyrus. See Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits, tome xviii., with plates. The Byzantine emperors often used golden and coloured inks from the 8th to the 12th century.

We know that archives were provided by the Romans for the preservation of their public acts; but fire and war have been the great destroyers of these documents so precious to the historian. Suetonius relates that Vespasian undertook to restore from copies 3000 brazen tablets, containing most ancient records, dating almost from the beginning of the republic, which had been consumed when the Capitol was burnt. Original documents of the nature of diplomas, written in Latin, are now not forthcoming of an earlier period than the 5th century. The acts emanating from royal authority anterior to the 13 th century are almost exclusively derived from ecclesiastical archives, and consist of foundations of monasteries, and grants of property, privileges, and immunities. In England, from the 13th century they are systematically registered in the royal chancery; the series of rolls in which they are written, under different classes, is very complete from the reign of King John. History is greatly indebted to the care with which religious houses registered their title deeds. From an early time it was their practise to copy them into volumes, arranging them generally under the name of the property. Chartularies of this character of the lθth century are still extant. The chartulary of Winchester Abbey, compiled early in the 12 th century, and containing numerous documents of the time before the Conquest, is in the British Museum.

Imperial acts affecting the state at large were proclaimed through the governors of provinces; as in later times, in England royal writs and ordinances were addressed to the sheriffs of the several counties. In England, it would seem, when the object was to appeal to the people, the document was publicly exhibited. When Edward III. landed, as Prince of Walès, on the Yorkshire coast, with the design of overthrowing his father’s government, he drew up a manifesto of his purposes, addressed to the citizens of London, who exhibited it on the cross in the Cheap, placing copies in their windows (Chron. Monasterii de Melsast

At all times diplomas have been drawn very much in set forms. The Romans employed official clerks, {scribcfi), assigning them to the different magistrates. Under the empire they are called tabelliones, and act as public notaries. After the breaking up of the Roman empire, there was a period when the chanceries of the new states were imperfectly served. The notarial science was partially Jost, and, in the general neglect of learning, the composing a public act or private document was a task of difficulty. In the 7th century the monk Marculfus composed a formulary for guidance in drawing up documents of various kinds. It was first published by Bignon in 1613. In Migne’s edition, Patrologioe Cursus, vol. xxxvii., it is accompanied with several anonymous compilations of the same character. In the 12th and 13th centuries we meet with works of the same kind under the title of de arte dictaminum. A very interesting collection of precedents of royal warrants, state letters, papal bulls, and other documents, arranged under many heads of subjects, was compiled by the English poet Occleve, while he was a clerk in the council office at the beginning of the 15th century, and is now in the British Museum. We are best able to understand the nature of early diplomas by examining the originals, still extant, on papyrus or parchment, which go back in date to the 5th oentury. The oldest come chiefly from Ravenna. They have been commented on by Maffei in his Istoria diplomatica, 1727, and printed in full with facsimiles in the Papiri diplomatid of the Abbate Marino-Marini, 1805. A considerable number of the original diplomas of the Merovingian and succeeding sovereigns of France have also been preserved, and have been published in facsimile (Letronne, Diplomata et Charta), and in letterpress. England also can boast of a series of very beautifully written royal charters from the 7th century. The larger number of them are in the British Museum, and are in course of publication in facsimile {Facsimiles of Ancient Charters, parts i. ü. iii,). Many original papal bulls, too, of an early date, are still extant, in different repositories.

There is a general uniformity in the diplomas of the earlier times. Taking the French series as examples, we find a regularity of formulas in the following order :—

1. An invocation, as In nomine domini Dei Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi. 2. The name and style of the sovereign, and the narµe and title of the person addressed. In the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, the style of the French kings was in general N. Francorum rex, vir inluster; Pepin added Dei Gratia. From the time of Louis le Débonnaire the form was Divina ordinante (or propitiante, annuente, or favente) providentia (clementia, or misericordia). Popes called themselves simply bishop until the end of the 11th century, when, or only rarely before, they used the title Papa. Gregory the Great (590-604) introduced the form servus servorum Dei. They placed their name before or after that of the person addressed indifferently, before the 10th century, when the custom prevailed to give it precedence.

3. A preamble, consisting of a moral or religions reflexion, or a recital of the motives to the grant. In the earlier times the moral sentiment is expressed briefly, as Memor finis mei, or Paenas inferni cupiens effuger» ; but later on it is often of great length and in inflated language, with admixture of barbarized Greek words.

4. The substance of the act or donation.

5. A protecting clause, in the nature of an imprecation on such as should infringe the privilege granted, or thwart the object of the act. It is first met with in papal bulls of the 6th century, and appears in an exaggerated form in a later time, the bitterest curses being heaped on the hypothetical offender without measure. The papal type is closely followed in French and English diplomas. In the 12th century it took a milder form, as in papal bulls, Nulli ergo hominum liceat, &c. In the 10th and 11th centuries the commin-atory clause was often placed after the date, having sometimes been previously introduced into the text.

6. The Merovingian sovereigns authenticated their diplomas by the addition of their signature. Those who were unable to write signed with their monogram. The Carlovingians signed with a monogram, and the same form prevailed from the 9th century in Germany and Italy. It ceased to be used in France in the 14th century.· The clergy adopted the use of the monogram in the 11th and 12th centuries. It is not found in the charters of English sovereigns. In the earlier times the monogram was formed of letters of tall cursive character; capitals and uncials were afterwards riιore commonly used. Sometimes the word rex was added. It is possible that the monogram was in some instances entered by the hand of the sovereign, for so much is indicated by the words in which it is introduced, but it was usually added by the chancellor or scribe. It was not used for some kinds of documents, as judgments, decrees, and mandates. In acts of the later Roman emperors, the form of subscription is simply the word Legi, with a cross prefixed, as in a diploma of Valentinian, printed by Marini, p. 94. The name of the referendary or chancellor, with the expression optulit, was in France, in the earliest time, inserted before, subsequently after, the subscription of the monarch. A paraph of the word subscripsi, and often tironian notes, accompanied the subscriptions. Sometimes in royal diplomas, and commonly in private charters, the names of several witnesses were subscribed, each preceded by the word signum, with a cross, or followed by subscripsi. The popes, in their bulls, originally used the form of Bene valète, or Deus te incolumem servet, in place of subscription of their name, which they applied only to synodal and other public acts. At the beginning of the 9th century they used their monogram. In the 14th century they signed with their own hand. In the 9th century also began the practice of adding the subscriptions of cardinals, but it was not commonly followed until the middle of the 12th Oentury. Sentences from the Scriptures were used by popes for a signature, instead of their names, in consistorial bulls in the 11th cehtury. English kings, before the Conquest, neither signed their name nor used a monogram. They affixed the sign of the cross— the scribe adding Signum manus N. regis, or valuations of the form.

7. Dating clause. In France, this followed the subscription and attestation. The manner of dating varied at different times, and in different countries. In diplomas of the emperors, the year is not expressed. For example, an act of Valentinian of about 480 a. d. has simply the words, Dot. sexto idus Januarii, Ravennae. + Legi. The Merovingian kings and their successors dated by their regnal years, adding the day of the month, the place, and generally the word feliciter. Some dated from epochs in their reign, as Louis le Débonnaire from Easter 781, the day of his coronation at Rome; from September 813, when he was associated in the imperial power; and from the 28th of January 814, the day of his accession after the death of Charlemagne.

The year of the incarnation was seldom used by the French kings before the end of the 9th century. In England it was generally added to royal charters in the times preceding the Conquest, but, subsequently to the death of William the Conqueror, was very rarely used in public or private deeds until the 13th century. The English charters of the early period often added also the regnal year and papal indiction. In papal bulls the date was given by the names of consuls from 385 to 546; by years of the Greek emperors from 550 to 772; by years of emperors of the west from 802 to 1047, and in 1111; and by years of the pontificate as early as the year 781, but often still by the year of the emperor, or by both together, eventually by the year of the pontificate alone. The year of the incarnation is found in bulls as early as the 7th century, and came into ordinary use in 968. Up to 1088, in the papal dominions, the year was calculated from the 25th of December; subsequently the Florentine and Pisan years were used, the former beginning three months after the nativity, the other nine months before it. The indiction was also added :—from 584 to 1087, that of Constantinople, beginning on the 1st of September; afterwards the Constantinian, or Caesarean, beginning on the 25th of September, and the Papal, beginning on the 1st of January. These dates were accumulated principally in the bulls; in the briefs the year is rarely designated from 1086 to 1124, and is always wanting from 1124 to 1187. (See Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum.)

An additional security was given to diplomas by the seal, —the antiquity (going back to remotest ages), the form, colour, substance, and use of which are treated of at great length in works on diplomatics (see Seals). It was in use by the popes from the earliest time, and under the Merovingian kings and their successors; but by the great feudatories only from the 10th century. In England it is not found during the Saxon period, saving in a few instances in the reign of Edward the Confessor. The use of it came in with the Conquest and became general. The popes’ seals were of lead, or in rare instances of gold, and suspended to the document. The precious material was introduced by Charlemagne, and was freely employed by the emperors of Constantinople, who with their principal officers used metal seals. In France, under the Merovingians, and elsewhere at the same period, the seal was of white wax, fixed “en placard,” or to the surface of the document. From the 10th century, it was suspended, first by a parchment label, afterwards by cords of silk or other substances. The colour of the cords by which papal bullae were attached varies under different pontiffs. White wax, but of various qualities, was in use to the 13th century, in which and subsequently it was coloured chiefly yellow, red, or green. The quality of the wax, the shape, the legend or inscription, the character of the charge or device—which was sometimes the impression of an antique gem—all these change with the progress of time and become evidence of age.

English charters of the Saxon period have forms in many respects different from those of foreign diplomas. Variations have been already noticed, as, that the king signed neither with his name nor with his monogram, but only with a cross, and that they were dated from the incarnation. It would appear, indeed, that the charters were not drawn up by an officer of the chancery, as in France, but were composed and written by ecclesiastics, whose services were employed for the occasion. In the grant of the monastery of Reculver to Christ Church, Canterbury, by King Eadred, in the year 949, to which Dunstan, then abbot of Glastonbury, and one of the king’s principal ministers is a witness, he states that he both drew up the form and wrote the document with his own hand. It is on this account that we find in English charters before the Conquest a variety of styles of writing, even in those of the same date; whereas on the Continent the writing is uniform in the several states. In the absence of a strictly official character, the grant was attested by numerous witnesses, varying from four or five, the more ordinary number in the earlier times, to from 30 to 100 subsequently. For it was always an object with the religious houses in whose favour a grant was made to fortify its authority and secure its recognition by impressive solemnities. They made the benefaction a religious act by inviting the grantor to offer the charter to God on the altar of their church; and they obtained the approval and attestations of the members of the court, or of the council over which the king might be at the time presiding. The names which are subscribed to the English charters add greatly to their historical value. A difference in another respect from the foreign type is attended with advantage to the study of both the language and manners of the time. The property conveyed was defined by a minute description of its boundaries, written in English; and, as the documents are dated and can generally be referred to special localities, dialectic differences and the formation of names, with other incidental lights on subjects of antiquity, are preserved. In English charters of as early a date as the 9th century, and from that time onwards, is sometimes found, at the top or the bottom, the upper or lower half of an inscription. It is often the word chirographum, but sometimes other words, or merely letters. It was used when it was an object that two parties to a contract should each have a copy of the deed, which accordingly was written in duplicate on one skin; the inscription was written in large letters between the copies, and the skin was then divided. The line of division was at a later period generally indented, and the document was called an indenture. The custom was not introduced into France until the middle of the 11th century.

The practise of forging and falsifying diplomas, ecclesiastical constitutions, and documents of all kinds is traced back to very early times. The laws of the Visigoths of the 7th century enact severe punishments on offenders of this class, as do the Capitularia of Charlemagne. The English chronicler ïïoveden, under the year 1196, gives an account of wholesale forgeries of papal bulls and briefs by an agent of the archbishop of York. A decretal of Innocent III. (1195-1216) gives rules for detecting fabricated bulls (Epist. i. 201, ed. Baluz.). It. was so easy to impose upon the ignorance of people, and the temptations to falsify were so great, that we cannot doulot it was done extensively. The science of diplomatics professes to give the power to detect these forgeries. The two concluding books of the Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique treat of the subject at great length, but the rules given for distinguishing the true from the false document can only be applied by one who is practically versed in the study. In passing judgment on a professed original, not only the foimulas, historical facts, and date have to ba tested, but the external features have to be regarded—the material, the ink, the forms of abbreviation and character of writing, and the seal; and the properties and characteristics of these cannot well be learnt from written instruction. They are treated of in works on the general subject of palaeography.

In testing the authenticity of diplomas, assistance will be found, in addition to authors already quoted, in the following works :—Germon (Barthélemi), De veteribus regum Francorum diplomatibus, Paris 1703-1707, 3 vols. 12mo; Muratori, De diplomatis et chartis antiquis; Antiquit. Itdl. medii aevi, tom. iii.; Raguet, Hist, des contestations sur la diplomatique, 12mo, 1708, and 8vo, 1767; Hickes, De antiques litteraturae septentrionalis utilitate dissertatio epistolaris, fol. Oxon. 1703; Marino-Marini, Diplomatica pontificia, 4to, 1841; Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus aevi Anglosaxonici, 6 vols. 8vo, 1839-1848; Quantin, Dictionnaire raisonné de Diplomatique Chrétienne, in Migne’s Encyclopédie Théologique, 1846; Archives de T Empire, Monuments Historiques, Cartons des Rois, ed. J. Tardif, Paris, 4to 1866; Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, 1839-1875; Gloria, Compendio di Paleo-graüa e Diplomatica, 8vo., 1870.