the exception of the Papacy from an early date in the Middle Ages, and of the Italian States from the thirteenth century, of which Venice became conspicuous for the excellence of the reports of its representatives, it was not till the fifteenth century that permanent legations were established;[1] and it was during that and the following century that most of the European States instituted a special department of government for foreign affairs. The first main function of the permanent legation was to watch the growth of that new portent—the standing army; and that force was to be deemed an army which was made up of enough soldiers to dare openly to invade the dominions of another, for in judging of what numbers make an army we must think of the strength of him against whom it is sent or is intended.[2] Between a man armed and a man unarmed no proportion could hold;[3] and the saying of Pope Alexander VI, with reference to the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII of France, had become classic—that the French entered Italy with chalk in their hands to mark their
- ↑ On the institution of legations, see the authorities cited by Oppenheim, International Law (1905), i. 416, and for the first and early Relations des ambassadeurs venitiens (from 1268), and the connection—‘par une filiation directe’—with Byzantine diplomacy, see Recueil des Instructions . . . de France: Russie (Rambaud), i. 2–3, and authorities cited; also Villari, Machiavelli and his Times, translated by Linda Villari (1883), iii. 235.
- ↑ Grotius, ii. 16, 1.
- ↑ Machiavelli, Il Principe, xiv.
they may be rejected: ‘Optimo autem iure reiici possunt, quae nunc in usu sunt, legationes assiduae, quibus cum non sit opus, docet mos antiquus, cui illae ignoratae.’—De Iure Belli ac Pacis, ii. 18, 3. Vattel, whose work was published about the middle of the following century (1758), agrees with Grotius on the ground of right, but is against him on the ground of comity and convenience. There is no obligation, he admits, on the part of a sovereign to accept permanent ministers—such as have nothing to negotiate; but the custom of keeping resident ministers had become so strongly fixed that to refuse to conform to it would give offence, unless the reasons were very good for refusing. Le Droit des gens, iv. 5, §66.
