ter des debtes sans les payer, qu'il puisse assassiner et adulterer a son aise." Even those who uphold the privilege of exterritoriality admit that it should be formally abolished as regards domestic ser vants. Vercamer points out that the ex tension of the privilege to servants really originated in the jurisdiction which the ambassador formerly exercised over his domestics; when necessarily any aggrieved person had a prompt remedy by appeal tothe ambassador's jurisdiction. It is on record that Sully, the French ambassador in London in 1603, tried for murder one of his domestics, and on conviction gave him up to the local authorities. English courts have, however, long assumed jurisdiction over domestics of an embassy in criminal cases. There is no valid reason why they should not in civil suits also. Apart from that, it is unanimously held by all recent authorities that it is the ambassador's duty to sur render the delinquent domestic on requisi tion, and to allow the local courts to do justice. It is also to be remembered that the ex tent to which the privilege is pushed at the present day, especially by our Asiatic visit ors, is not merely unsustained by any settled practice under international law, and de nounced by modern authorities, but has some tolerably ancient precedents against it. In 1772, under the ancicn regime, the Baron von Wrech, a German envoy who contracted debts in Paris, was refused his
passport until his master, the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, had promised to pay his debts. The memoire on this subject of the Due d'Aiguillon, minister of Louis XV, given in Marten's " Causes Célèbres," is an admirable example of the common sense way of regard ing such questions, and may be recom mended to the attention of the Foreign Office. When, in this age of general international conventions, a conference is held on exter ritoriality, the least to be hoped is that the privilege may be abolished in regard to all persons other than purely political officials. It should under no circumstances be held applicable to domestics. Even political officials should be held to waive their privi lege if they voluntarily enter into commer cial transactions, and especially if they incur legal obligations through seduction, or other quasi criminal acts. The right to investi gate into all cases of violent death should not be withheld from local authorities. The case of Oriental embassies, as has been shown, stands by itself. The exceed ing extent of the modern privilege' of exter ritoriality arises from the fact that Euro peans have not abused it. There is no such basis of experience in the case of the Oriental embassies. Any experience there is points unmistakably to the probability of great inconveniences from according to our Asiatic visitors the historic privileges of ambassadors of the community of Europe. M. J. F.
