Exterritoriality of Orientals in England. peached the jurisdiction, and claimed exter ritoriality as a foreign " sovereign." The Court of Appeal had to allow this prepos terous contention, as an English statute makes the certificate of the Foreign Office that the potentate is a "sovereign" conclusive in the courts. It is conceivable that Ger man jurists would feel thankful for the crea tion of a similar beneficent agency for the interpretation of " sovereignty; " but to the ordinary mind a reductio ad absurdum like that furnished in the Johorecase seems rather an argument against the present statute, and against entrusting to a non-legal official like a Secretary of State a matter properly for judicial decision. Even in the face of the statute, the court would have been within its right in holding the privilege of exterri toriality waived by the conduct of the defen dant. This precise point about the exterri toriality of the " Sultan" of Johore has been repeatedly before the British Court of the Straits Settlement. That court, being much nearer to the territory of the potentate, had no difficulty whatever in deciding on the "sovereignty" contention in a precisely contrary way. It seems, in fact, to be a hereditary device of Sultans of Johore to in cur liabilities, sometimes on bills of ex change, and then to plead exterritoriality; but in the Straits Settlements the pleasing fiction is brushed aside. Another case, though in connection with a minor matter, deserves notice. The exec utor of the late Turkish ambassador, Musmurus Pasha, sued for the recovery of bonds admitted to be the property of the Ambassador, and tried to prevent the de fendants from raising a counter-claim for £3,000, due as far back as 1873. The court, in its decision of the 22d Novem ber, found for the defendants, holding that the exterritoriality of the Ambassador having prevented his being sued in Eng land, also prevented the Statute of Lim itations from running against the de fendants. The inconvenience arising from
389
the fiction in this case was apparent; the defendants' claim could not be decided dur ing twenty years, although the Ambassador was in England the whole period. The time seems rapidly approaching when some international agreement on the subject will become inevitable. The drift of opinion among leading writers on inter national law is setting steadily in that direc tion, and the tendency will be rendered irresistible by the increasing number of in stances of abuse of exterritoriality by the Oriental additions to the ranks of diplo macy. Writers of the Italian school of interna tional Law have for many years past advo cated the abolition of the privilege of exter ritoriality, root and branch. Jurists, such as Esperson and Fiore in Italy, Laurent in Belgium, Pintheiro-Ferreira in France, main tain that the privilege is really an antiquated survival from a radically different state of society. When judges were removable in in England and the Continent at the plea sure of the Crown, it was reasonable enough that ambassadors should not be subject to a legal process which might very probably be used to hamper them in the discharge of their functions. Again, there is much truth in Esperson's ascription of the exorbi tant extent of the privilege to " le orgogliose pretese dei sovrani per diritto divino." Not merely the despot, but his servant, and his servartt's servant, were above the law. The original utility of the privilege has, in fact, been greatly diminished, if not alto gether superseded, by change in the posi tion of the tribunals, and in the policy of executives, as well as in the general condi tions of European society. Some change seems required, if not in the way of abolition, at least of modification of the extent of the privilege. Laurent sums up the question : "Sans doute, l'ambassadeur doit 6tre libre; mais faut-il pour cela qu'il soit hors de la loi et audessus de la loi? Pour £tre libre, il n'est point necessaire qu'il puisse contrac
