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 The pretensions of Rome during the empire, indeed, superseded every kind of international engagement, since she would permit of no relation between the empire and any other state, save that of predominance on her part and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.