Chapter IV: Part II: describes the constitution as it existed at the period of (1)

the composition of the treatise (329-322 B.C.). It begins with an
account of the conditions of citizenship and of the training of the
_ephebi_ (citizens between the ages of 18 and 20). In chapters 43-49
the functions of the Council ([Greek: boule]) and of the officials
who act in concert with it are described. 50-60 deal with the
officials who are appointed by lot, of whom the most important are
the nine Archons, to whose functions five chapters (55-59) are
devoted. The military officers, who come under the head of elective
officials, form the subject of c. 61. With c. 63 begins the section
on the Law-courts, which occupied the remainder of the
_Constitution_. This portion, with the exception of c. 63, is
fragmentary in character, owing to the mutilated condition of the
fourth roll of the papyrus on which it was written. It will thus be
seen that the subjects which receive fullest treatment in Part II.
are the Council, the Archons and the Law-courts. The Ecclesia, on the
other hand, is dealt with very briefly, in connexion with the
_prytaneis_ and _proedri_ (cc. 43, 44).

_Sources._--The labours of several workers in this field, notably Bruno Keil and Wilamowitz, have rendered it comparatively easy to form a general estimate of Aristotle's indebtedness to previous writers, although problems of great difficulty are encountered as soon as it is attempted to determine the precise sources from which the historical part of the work is derived. Among these sources are unquestionably Herodotus (for the tyranny of Peisistratus, and for the struggle between Cleisthenes and Isagoras), Thucydides (for the episode of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, and for the Four Hundred), Xenophon (for the Thirty), and the poems of Solon. There is now among critics a general consensus in favour of the view that the most important of his sources was the _Atthis_ of Androtion, a work published in all probability only a few years earlier than the _Constitution_; in any case, after the year 346. From it are derived not only the passages which are annalistic in character and read like excerpts from a chronicle (e.g. c. 13. 1, 2; c. 22; c. 26. 2, 3), but also most of the matter common to the _Constitution_ and to Plutarch's _Solon_. The coincidences with Plutarch, which are often verbal, and extend to about 50 lines out of 170 in cc. 5-11 of the _Constitution_, can best be explained on the hypothesis that Hermippus, the writer followed by Plutarch, used the same source as Aristotle, viz. the _Atthis_ of Androtion. Androtion is probably closely followed in the account of the pre-Draconian constitution, and to him appear to be due the explanation of local names (e.g. [Greek: chorion ateles]), or proverbial expressions (e.g. [Greek: to me phylokrinein]), as well as the account of "Strategems" such as that of Themistocles against the Areopagus (c. 25) or that employed by Peisistratus in order to disarm the people (c. 15. 4). Whether the anecdotes, which are a conspicuous feature in the _Constitution_, should be referred to the same source is more open to doubt. It is also generally agreed that among the sources was a work, written towards the end of the 5th century B.C., by an author of oligarchical sympathies, with the object of defaming the character and policy of the heroes of the democracy. This source can be traced in passages such as c. 6. 2 (Solon turning the Seisachtheia to the profit of himself and his friends), 9. 2 (obscurity of Solon's laws intentional, cf. c. 35. 2), 27. 4 (Pericles' motive for the introduction of the dicasts' pay). But while the object ([Greek: oi boulomenoi blasphemein], c. 6) and the date of this oligarchical pamphlet (for the date cf. Plutarch's _Solon_, c. 15 [Greek: oi peri Konona kai Kleinian kai Hipponikon], which points to a time when Conon, Alcibiades and Callias were prominent in public life) are fairly certain, the authorship is quite uncertain, as is also its relationship to another source of importance, viz. that from which are derived the accounts of the Four Hundred and the Thirty. The view taken of the character and course of these revolutions betrays a strong bias in favour of Theramenes, whose ideal is alleged to have been the [Greek: patrios politeia]. It has been maintained, on the one hand, that this last source (the authority followed in the accounts of the Four Hundred and the Thirty) is identical with the oligarchical pamphlet, and, on the other, that it is none other than the _Atthis_ of Androtion. The former hypothesis is improbable. In favour of the latter two arguments may be adduced. In the first place, Androtion's father, Andron, was one of the Four Hundred, and took Theramenes' side. Secondly, the precise marks of time, which are characteristic of the _Atthis_, are conspicuous in these chapters. In view, however, of the fact that Androtion in his political career showed himself not only a democrat, but a democrat of the extreme school, the hypothesis must be pronounced untenable.

_Value._--It is by no means easy to convey a just impression of the value of Aristotle's work as an authority for the constitutional history of Athens. In all that relates to the practice of his own day Aristotle's authority is final. There can be no question, therefore, as to the importance, or the trustworthy character, of the Second Part. But even here a caution is necessary. It must be remembered that its authority is final for the 4th century only, and that we are not justified in arguing from the practice of the 4th century to that of the 5th, unless corroborative evidence is available. In the First Part, however, where he is treating of the institutions and practice of a past age, Aristotle's authority is very far from being final. An analysis of this part of the work discloses his dependence, in a remarkable degree, upon his sources. Occasionally he compares, criticizes or combines; as a rule he adheres closely to the writer whom he is using. There is no evidence, either of independent inquiry, or of the utilization of other sources than literary ones. Where "original documents" are quoted, or referred to, as e.g. in the history of the Four Hundred, or of the Thirty, it is probable that he derived them from a previous writer. For the authority of Aristotle we must substitute, therefore, the authority of his sources; i.e. the value of any particular statement will vary with the character of the source from which it comes. For the history of the 5th century the passages which come from Androtion's _Atthis_ carry with them a high degree of authority. It by no means follows, however, that a statement relating to earlier times is to be accepted simply because it is derived from the same source. And in passages which are derived from other sources than the _Atthis_ a much lower degree of authority can be claimed, even for statements relating to the 5th century. The supremacy of the Areopagus after the Persian Wars, the policy attributed to Aristides (c. 24), and the association of Themistocles with Ephialtes, are cases in point. Nor must the reader expect to find in the _Constitution_ a great work, in any sense of the term. The style, it is true, is simple and clear, and the writer's criticisms are sensible. But the reader will look in vain for evidence of the philosophic insight which makes the _Politics_, even at the present day, the best text-book of political philosophy. It is perhaps hardly too much to say that there is not a single great idea in the whole work. He will look in vain, too, for any consistent view of the history of the constitution as a whole, or for any adequate account of its development. He will find occasional misunderstandings of measures, and confusions of thought. There are appreciations which it is difficult to accept, and inaccuracies which it is difficult to pardon. There are contradictions which the author has overlooked, and there are omissions which are unaccountable. Yet, in spite of such defects, the importance of the _Constitution_ can hardly be exaggerated. Its recovery has rendered obsolete any history of the Athenian constitution that was written before the year 1891. Before this date our knowledge was largely derived from the statements of scholiasts and lexicographers which had not seldom been misunderstood. The recovery of the _Constitution_ puts us for the first time in possession of the evidence. To appreciate the difference that has been made by its recovery, it is only necessary to compare what we now know of the reforms of Cleisthenes with what we formerly knew. It is much of it evidence that needs a careful process of weighing and sifting before it can be safely used; but it is, as a rule, the best, or the only evidence. The First Part may be less trustworthy than the Second; it is not less indispensable to the student of constitutional history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--A conspectus of the literature of the _Constitution_
complete down to the end of 1892 is given in Sandys p. lxvii., and,
though less complete, down to the beginning of 1895 in Busolt,
_Griechische Geschichte_, 2nd ed. vol. ii. p. 15. In the present
article only the most important editions, works or articles are
mentioned.

Editions of the text: _Editio princeps_, ed. by F. G. Kenyon, 30th
January 1891, with commentary. Autotype facsimile of the papyrus
(1891). _Aristotelis_ [Greek: politeia Athenaion], ed. G. Kaibel et
U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Berlin, Weidmann, 1891). _Aristotelis
qui fertur_ [Greek: Athenaion politeia] recensuerunt H. van Herwerden
et J. van Leeuwen (Leiden, 1891). Teubner text, ed. by F. Blass
(Leipzig, 1892). Edition of the text without commentary by Kenyon.

Most of these have passed through several editions. The fullest
commentary is that contained in the edition of the text by J. E.
Sandys (London, 1893). The best translations are those of Kenyon, in
English, and of Kaibel and Kiessling, in German.

Works dealing with the subject: Bruno Keil, _Die Solonische
Verfassung nach Aristoteles_ (Berlin, 1892); G. Gilbert,
_Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens_ (Eng. trans.,
1895); U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, _Aristoteles und Athen_ (2
vols., Berlin, 1893), a work of great importance, in spite of many
unsound conclusions; E. Meyer, _Forschungen_, vol. ii. pp. 406 ff.
(the section dealing with the Four Hundred is especially valuable).
Articles: R. W. Macan, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (April 1891); R.
Nissen, _Rheinisches Museum_ (1892), p. 161; G. Busolt, _Hermes_
(1898), pp. 71 ff.; O. Seeck, "Quellenstudien zu des Aristoteles'
Verfassungsgeschichte Athens," in Lehmann's _Beitraege zur alten
Geschichte_, vol. iv. pp. 164 and 270. (E. M. W.)

CONSUETUDINARY (Med. Lat. _consuetudinarius_, from _consuetudo_, custom), customary, a term used especially of law based on custom as opposed to statutory or written law. As a noun "consuetudinary" (Lat. _consuetudinarius_, sc. _liber_) is the name given to a ritual book containing the forms and ceremonies used in the services of a particular monastery, cathedral or religious order.

CONSUL (in Gr. generally [Greek: hypatos], a shortened form of [Greek: strategos hypatos], i.e. _praetor maximus_), the title borne by the two highest of the ordinary magistrates of the whole Roman community during the republic. In the imperial period these magistrates had ceased practically to be the heads of the state, but their technical position remained unaltered. (For the modern commercial office of consul see the separate article below.)

The consulship arose with the fall of the ancient monarchy (see further ROME: _History_, II. "The Republic"). The Roman reverence for the abstract conception of the magistracy, as expressed in the imperium and the auspicia, led to the preservation of the regal power weakened only by external limitations. The two new officials who replaced the king bore the titles of leaders (_praetores_) and of judges (_judices_; cf. Cicero, _De legibus_, iii. 3. 8, "regio imperio duo sunto iique a praeeundo judicando ... praetores judices ... appellamino"). But the new fact of colleagueship caused a third title to prevail, that of _consules_ or "partners," a word probably derived from _consalio_ on the analogy of _praesul_ and _exul_ (Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. p. 77, n. 3). This first example of the collegiate principle assumed the form that soon became familiar in the Roman commonwealth. Each of the pair of magistrates could act up to the full powers of the imperium; but the dissent of his colleague rendered his decision or his action null and void. At the same time the principle of a merely annual tenure of office was insisted on. The two magistrates at the close of their year of office were bound to transmit their power to successors; and these successors whom they nominated were obliged to seek the suffrages of the people. The only body known to us as electing the consuls during the republican period was the _comitia centuriata_ (see Comitia). The consulate was originally confined to patricians. During the struggle for higher office that was waged between the orders the office was suspended on fifty-one occasions between the years 444 and 367 B.C. and replaced by the military tribunate with consular power, to which plebeians were eligible. The struggle was brought to an end by the Licinio-Sextian laws of 367 B.C., which enacted that one consul must be a plebeian (see Patricians).

Most of the internal history of Rome down to the beginning of the third century B.C. consists in a series of attacks, whether intentional or accidental, on the power of the executive. As the consuls are the sole representatives of higher executive authority in early times, this history is one of a progressive decline in the originally wide and arbitrary powers of the office. Their right of summary criminal jurisdiction was weakened by the successive laws of appeal (_provocatio_); their capacity for interpreting the civil law at their pleasure by the publication of the Twelve Tables and the Forms of Action. The growth of the tribunate of the plebs hampered their activity both as legislators and as judges. They surrendered the duties of registration to the censors in 443 B.C., and the rights of civil jurisdiction and control over the market and police to the praetor and the curule aediles in 367 B.C.

The result of these limitations and of this specialization of functions in the community was to leave the consuls with less specific duties at home than any magistrates in the state. But the absence of specific functions may be of itself a sign of a general duty of supervision. The consuls were in a very real sense the heads of the state. Polybius describes them as controlling the whole administration (Polyb. vi. 12 [Greek: pason eisi kurioi ton demosion praxeon]). This control they exercised in concert with the senate, whose chief servants they were. It was they who were the most regular consultants of this council, who formulated its decrees as edicts, and who brought before the people legislative measures which the senate had approved. It was they also who represented the state to the outer world and introduced foreign envoys to the senate. The symbols of their presidency were manifold. It was marked by the twelve lictors (q.v.), a number permitted to no other ordinary magistrate, by the fact that the first act of newly-admitted consuls was to take the auspices, their second to summon the senate, and by the use of their names for dating the year. The consulate was, indeed, as Cicero expresses it, the culminating point in an official career ("Honorum populi finis est consulatus," Cic. _Pro Planco_, 25. 60).

In the domestic sphere the consuls retained certain powers of jurisdiction. This jurisdiction was either (i.) administrative or (ii.) criminal. (i.) Their administrative jurisdiction was sometimes concerned with financial matters such as pecuniary claims made by the state and individuals against one another. They acted in these matters in the periods during which the censors were not in office. We also find them adjudicating in disputes about property between the cities of Italy, (ii.) Their criminal jurisdiction was of three kinds. In the first place it was their duty, before the development of the standing commissions which originated in the middle of the 2nd century B.C., to set in motion the criminal law against offenders for the cognizance of ordinary, as opposed to political, crimes. The reference of such cases to the assembly of the people was effected through their quaestors (see Quaestor). Secondly, when the people and senate, or the senate alone, appointed a special commission (see Senate), the commissioner named was often a consul. Thirdly, we find the consul conducting a criminal inquiry raised by a point of international law. It is possible that in this case his advising body (_consilium_) was composed of the _fetiales_ (see Herald, ad fin.). (Cicero, _De republica_, iii. 18. 28; Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. p. 112, n. 3).

During the greater part of the republic the consuls were recognized as the heads of the administration abroad as well as at home. It thus became necessary that departments of administration (_provinciae_) should be determined and assigned. The method of assignment varied. The least usual device was for one consul to take the field at the head of an army, while the other remained at home to transact the civil business of state. More often foreign wars demanded the attention of both consuls. In this case the regular army of four legions was usually divided between them. When it was necessary that both armies should co-operate, the principle of rotation was adopted, each consul having the command for a single day--a practice which may be illustrated by the events preceding the battle of Cannae (Polybius iii. 110; Livy xxii. 41). During the great period of conquest from 264 to 146 B.C. Italy was generally one of the consular "provinces," some foreign country the other; and when at the close of this period Italy was at peace, this distinction approximated to one between civil and military command. The consuls settled their departments amongst themselves by agreement or by lot (_comparatio_, _sortitio_), the power of declaring what should be the consular _provinciae_ was usurped by the senate, (see Senate), and a _lex Sempronia_ passed by C. Gracchus, probably in 122 B.C., ordained that the two consular provinces should be declared before the election of the consuls. At this time the consuls entered office on the 1st of January (a practice which commenced in 153 B.C.), and their military command began on the 1st of March. They could hold this military command until they were superseded in the following March, and thus their tenure of power was practically raised to fourteen months. But meanwhile the home officials invested with the imperium had proved insufficient for the military needs of the empire, and the system of prolonging the command (_prorogatio imperii_) had been growing up (see Province). The consul whose command had been prolonged now served abroad as proconsul. It is probable that Sulla in his legislation of 81 B.C. did something to stereotype this system. Certainly the government by pro-magistrates becomes the rule after this period (cf. Cicero, _De natura deorum_, ii. 3. 9; _De divinatione_, ii. 36. 76, 77), although there are several instances of consuls assuming the active command of provinces between the years 74 and 55 B.C. (Mommsen, _Rechtsfrage_, p. 30), and Cicero declares that the consul has a right to approach every province ("consules, quibus more majorum concessum est vel omnes adire provincias," Cicero, _Ad Atticum_, viii. 15. 3). Certainly in theory the provinces were still regarded as "consular," not "proconsular," and were technically, although not practically, held from the 1st of March of the consul's tenure of office at Rome (cf. Cicero, _De provinciis consularibus_, 15. 37; Mommsen, _Rechtsfrage_, _passim_). It was not until the lex Pompeia of 52 B.C. (Dio Cassius xl. 56) had established a five years' interval between home and foreign command that the theory of the _prorogatio imperii_ vanished and the proconsulate became a separate office.

Since the theory of the persistence of the republican constitution was of the essence of the Principate, the consuls necessarily lost little of their outward position and dignity under the rule of the Caesars. The consulship was the only office in which a citizen, other than a member of the imperial house, might have the princeps as a colleague, and in the interval between the death or deposition of one princeps and the appointment of another the consuls resumed their normal position as the heads of the state (cf. Herodian ii. 12). As the presidents of the senate, who after A.D. 14 elected them to their office, they were the chief personal representatives of those elements of sovereignty that were supposed to attach to that body, and they directed that high criminal jurisdiction which the senate of this period assumed (see Senate). A restored power of jurisdiction is indeed one of the features of their position during this time, and it is probable that the civil appeals which came to the senate were delegated to the consuls. They also acted for a time as delegates to the princeps in matters of Chancery jurisdiction such as trusts and guardianship (Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. p. 103). The consulship was also a preparation for certain high commands, such as the government of certain public and imperial provinces (see Province) and the praefecture of the city. It was probably due to the fact that the consulship was such a prize, and perhaps also to the expense imposed on the office by its association with the celebration of games (Dio Cassius lvi. 46, lix. 20) that the tenure was progressively shortened. In the early principate the consuls hold office for six months, later for four to two months (Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. pp. 84-87). The consuls appointed for the 1st of January were called _ordinarii_, the others _suffecti_; and the whole year was dated by the names of the former.

This distinction continued in the Empire that was founded by Diocletian and Constantine. The _ordinarii_ were nominated by the emperor, the _suffecti_ were nominated by the senate, and their appointment was ratified by the emperor. The consulship was still the greatest dignity which the Empire had to bestow; and the pomp and ceremony of the office increased in proportion to the decline in its actual power. The entry of the consuls on office was celebrated by a great procession, by games given to the people, by a distribution of gifts, such as the ivory diptychs, a long series of which has been preserved. But the senate, over which they presided until the time of Justinian, was little more than the municipal council of the city of Rome; and the justice which they meted out had dwindled down to the formal and uncontested acts of manumission and the granting of guardians. Sometimes there was a consul of the West at Rome and a consul of the East at Constantinople; at other times both consuls might be found in either capital. The last consul born in a private station was Basilius in the East in A.D. 541. But the emperors continued to bear the title for some time longer.

AUTHORITIES.--Mommsen, _Roemisches Staatsrecht_, ii. pp. 74-140 (3rd
ed., Leipzig, 1887); Herzog, _Geschichte und System der roemischen
Staatsverfassung_, i. p. 688 foll., 827 foll. (Leipzig, 1884, &c.),
Lange, _Roemische Alterthuemer_, i. p. 524 foll. (Berlin, 1856, &c.);
Schiller, _Staats- und Rechtsaltertuemer_, p. 53 foll. (Munich, 1893,
_Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft_, von Dr Iwan von
Mueller); Daremberg-Saglio, _Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et
romaines_, i. 1455 foll. (1875, &c.); De Ruggiero, _Dizionario
epigrafico di antichita Romane_, ii. 679 foll., 868 foll. (Rome,
1886, &c.); Pauly-Wissowa, _Realencyclopaedie_, iv. 1112 foll. (new
edition, Stuttgart, 1893, &c.).

For the consular diptychs, cf. besides Daremberg-Saglio, _l.c._,
Gori, _Thesaurus veterum diptychorum_ (Florence, 1759), and Labarte,
_Histoire des arts industriels au moyen age_, i. p. 10 foll., 190
foll. (1st ed., Paris, 1864). (A. H. J. G.)

CONSUL, a public officer authorized by the state whose commission he bears to manage the commercial affairs of its subjects in a foreign country, and formally permitted by the government of the country wherein he resides to perform the duties which are specified in his commission, or _lettre de provision_. (For the ancient magisterial office of consul see separate article above.)

A consul, as such, is not invested with any diplomatic character, and he cannot enter on his official duties until a rescript, termed an _exequatur_ (sometimes a mere countersign endorsed on the commission), has been delivered to him by the authorities of the state to which his nomination has been communicated by his own government. This _exequatur_, called in Turkey a _barat_, may be revoked at any time at the discretion of the government where he resides. The status of consuls commissioned by the Christian powers to reside in Mahommedan countries, China, Korea, Siam, and, until 1899, in Japan, and to exercise judicial functions in civil and criminal matters between their own countrymen and strangers, is exceptional to the common law, and is founded on special conventions or capitulations (q.v.).

The title of consul, in the sense in which it is used in international law, is derived from that of certain magistrates, in the cities of medieval Italy, Provence and Languedoc, charged with the settlement of trade disputes whether by sea or land (_consules mercatorum, consules artis maris_, &c.)[1] With the growth of trade it early became convenient to appoint agents with similar powers in foreign parts, and these often, though not invariably, were styled consuls (_consules in partibus ultramarinis_).[2] The earliest foreign consuls were those established by Genoa, Pisa, Venice and Florence, between 1098 and 1196, in the Levant, at Constantinople, in Palestine, Syria and Egypt. Of these the Pisan agent at Constantinople bore the title of consul, the Venetian that of baylo (q.v.). In 1251 Louis IX. of France arranged a treaty with the sultan of Egypt under which French consuls were established at Tripoli and Alexandria, and Du Cange cites a charter of James of Aragon, dated 1268, granting to the city of Barcelona the right to elect consuls in _partibus ultramarinis_, &c. The free growth of the system was, however, hampered by commercial and dynastic rivalries. The system of French foreign consulships, for instance, all but died out after the crushing of the independent life of the south and the incorporation of Provence and Languedoc under the French crown; while, with the establishment of Venetian supremacy in the Levant, the _baylo_ developed into a diplomatic agent of the first class at the expense of the consuls of rival states. The modern system of consulships actually dates only from the 16th century. Early in this century both England and Scotland had their "conservators" with "jurisdiction to do justice between merchant and merchant beyond the seas"; but France led the way. The alliance between Francis I. and Suleiman the Magnificent gave her special advantages in the Levant, of which she was not slow to take advantage. Her success culminated in the capitulations signed in 1604, under the terms of which her consuls were given precedence over all others and were endowed with diplomatic immunities (e.g. freedom from arrest and from domiciliary visits), while the traders of all other nations were put under the protection of the French flag. It was not till 1675 that, under the first capitulations signed with Turkey, English consuls were established in the Ottoman empire. Ten years earlier, under the commercial treaty between England and Spain, they had been established in Spain.

The frequent wars of the succeeding century hindered the development of the consular system. Thus, though the system of consuls was regularly established in France by the ordinance of 1661, in 1760 France had consuls only in the Levant, Barbary, Italy, Spain and Portugal, while she discouraged the establishment of foreign consuls in her own ports as tending to infringe her own jurisdiction. It was not till the 19th century that the system developed universally. Hitherto consuls had, for the most part, been business men with no special qualification as regards training; but the French system, under which the consular service had been long established as part of the general civil service of the country, a system that had survived the Revolution unchanged, was gradually adopted by other nations; though, as in France, consuls not belonging to the regular service, and having an inferior status, continued to be appointed. In Great Britain the consular service was organized in 1825 (see below); in France the series of ordinances and laws by which its modern constitution was fixed began in 1833. In Germany progress was hindered by the political conditions of the country under the old Confederation; for the Hanse cities, which practically monopolized the oversea trade, lacked the means to establish a consular system on the French model. The present magnificently organized consular system of Germany is, then, one of the most remarkable outcomes of the establishment of the united empire. It was initiated by an act of the parliament of the North German Confederation (Nov. 8, 1867), subsequently incorporated in the statutes of the Empire, which laid down the principle that the German consulates were to be under the immediate jurisdiction of the president of the Confederation (later the emperor). The functions, duties and privileges of French and German consuls do not differ materially from those of British consuls; but there is a great difference in the organization and _personnel_ of the consular service. In France, apart from the _consuls elus_ or _consuls marchands_, who are mere consular agents, selected by the government from among the traders of a town where it desires to be represented, and unsalaried, the consular body proper was, by the decrees of July 10, 1880, and April 27, 1883, practically constituted a branch of the diplomatic service. It is recruited from the same sources, and its members are free to exchange into the _corps diplomatique_, or vice versa. Candidates for the diplomatic and consular services have to undergo the same training and pass the same examinations, i.e. in the constitutional, administrative and judicial organization of the various powers, in international law, commercial law and maritime law, in the history of treaties and in commercial and political geography, in political economy, and in the German and English languages. They have to serve three years abroad or attached to some ministerial department before they can enter for the examination which entitles them to an appointment as attache or as _consul suppleant_. This assimilation of the consular to the diplomatic service remains peculiar to France.[3]

In Germany it was enacted by the law of February 28, 1873, that German consuls must be either trained jurists, or must have passed special examinations. The result of this system has been the establishment throughout the world of an elaborate network of trained commercial experts, directly responsible to the central government, and charged as one of their principal duties with the task of keeping the government informed of all that may be of interest to German traders. These annual consular reports were from the first regularly and promptly published in the _Deutsche Handelsarchiv_, and have contributed much to the wonderful expansion of German trade. The right to establish consuls is now universally recognized by Christian civilized states. Jurists at one time contended that according to international law a right of "ex-territoriality" attached to consuls, their persons and dwellings being sacred, and themselves amenable to local authority only in cases of strong suspicion on political grounds. It is now admitted that, apart from treaty, custom has established very few consular privileges; that perhaps consuls may be arrested and incarcerated, not merely on criminal charges, but for civil debt; and that, if they engage in trade or become the owners of immovable property, their persons certainly lose protection. This question of arrest has been frequently raised in Europe:--in the case of Barbuit, a tallow-chandler, who from 1717 to 1735 acted as Prussian consul in London, and to whom the exemption conferred by statute on ambassadors was held not to apply; in the case of Cretico, the Turkish consul in London in 1808; in the case of Begley, the United States consul at Genoa, arrested in Paris in 1840; and in the case of De la Fuente Hermosa, Uruguayan consul, whom the _Cour Royale_ of Paris in 1842 held liable to arrest for debt. In the same way consuls are often exempt from all kinds of rates and taxes, and always from personal taxes. They are exempt from billeting and military service, but are not entitled (except in the Levant, where also freedom from arrest and trial is the rule) to have private chapels in their houses. The right of consuls to exhibit their national arms and flag over the door of the bureau is not disputed.

Until the year 1825 British consuls were usually merchants engaged in trade in the foreign countries in which they acted as consuls, and their remuneration consisted entirely of fees. An act of that year, however, organized the consular service as a branch of the civil service, with payment by a fixed salary instead of by fees; consuls were forbidden also to engage in trade, and the management of the service was put under the control of a separate department of the foreign office, created for the purpose. In 1832 the restriction as to engaging in trade was withdrawn, except as regards salaried members of the British consular service.

The duty of consuls, under the "General Instructions to British Consuls," is to advise His Majesty's trading subjects, to quiet their differences, and to conciliate as much as possible the subjects of the two countries. Treaty rights he is to support in a mild and moderate spirit; and he is to check as far as possible evasions by British traders of the local revenue laws. Besides assisting British subjects who are tried for offences in the local courts, and ascertaining the humanity of their treatment after sentence, he has to consider whether home or foreign law is more appropriate to the case, having regard to the convenience of witnesses and the time required for decision; and, where local courts have wrongfully interfered, he puts the home government in motion through the consul-general or ambassador. He sends in reports on the labour, manufacture, trade, commercial legislation and finance, technical education, exhibitions and conferences of the country or district in which he resides, and, generally, furnishes information on any subject which may be desired of him. He acts as a notary public; he draws up marine and commercial protests, attests documents brought to him, and, if necessary, draws up wills, powers of attorney, or conveyances. He celebrates marriages in accordance with the provisions of the Foreign Marriage Act 1892, and, where the ministrations of a clergyman cannot be obtained, reads the burial service. At a seaport he has certain duties to perform in connexion with the navy. In the absence of any of His Majesty's ships he is senior naval officer; he looks after men left behind as stragglers, or in hospital or prison, and sends them on in due course to the nearest ship. He is also empowered by statute to advance for the erection or maintenance of Anglican churches, hospitals, and places of interment sums equal to the amount subscribed for the purpose by the resident British subjects.

As the powers and duties of consuls vary with the particular commercial interests they have to protect, and the civilization of the state in whose territory they reside, instead of abstract definition, we summarize the provisions on this subject of the British Merchant Shipping Acts.[4] Consuls are bound to send to the Board of Trade such reports or returns on any matter relating to British merchant shipping or seamen as they may think necessary. Where a consul suspects that the shipping or navigation laws are being evaded, he may require the owner or master to produce the log-book or other ship documents (such as the agreement with the seamen, the account of the crew, the certificate of registration); he may muster the crew, and order explanations with regard to the documents. Where an offence has been committed on the high seas, or aboard ashore, by British seamen or apprentices, the consul makes inquiry on oath, and may send home the offender and witnesses by a British ship, particulars for the Board of Trade being endorsed on the agreement for conveyance. He is also empowered to detain a foreign ship the master or seamen of which appear to him through their misconduct or want of skill to have caused injury to a British vessel, until the necessary application for satisfaction or security be made to the local authorities. Every British mercantile ship, not carrying passengers, on entering a port gives into the custody of the consul to be endorsed by him the seamen's agreement, the certificate of registry, and the official log-book; a failure to do this is reported to the registrar-general of seamen. The following five provisions are also made for the protection of seamen. If a British master engage seamen at a foreign port, the engagement is sanctioned by the consul, acting as a superintendent of Mercantile Marine Offices. The consul collects the property (including arrears of wages) of British seamen or apprentices dying abroad, and remits to H.M. paymaster-general. He also provides for the subsistence of seamen who are shipwrecked, discharged, or left behind, even if their service was with foreign merchants; they are generally sent home in the first British ship that happens to be in want of a complement, and the expenses thus incurred form a charge on the parliamentary fund for the relief of distressed seamen, the consul receiving a commission of 21/2% on the amount disbursed. Complaints by crews as to the quality and quantity of the provisions on board are investigated by the consul, who enters a statement in the log-book and reports to the Board of Trade. Money disbursed by consuls on account of the illness or injury of seamen is generally recoverable from the owner. With regard to passenger vessels, the master is bound to give the consul facilities for inspection and for communication with passengers, and to exhibit his "master's list," or list of passengers, so that the consul may transmit to the registrar-general, for insertion in the Marine Register Book, a report of the passengers dying and children born during the voyage. The consul may even defray the expenses of maintaining, and forwarding to their destination, passengers taken off or picked up from wrecked or injured vessels, if the master does not undertake to proceed in six weeks; these expenses becoming, in terms of the Passenger Acts 1855 and 1863, a debt due to His Majesty from the owner or charterer, where a salvor is justified in detaining a British vessel, the master may obtain leave to depart by going with the salvor before the consul, who, after hearing evidence as to the service rendered and the proportion of ship's value and freight claimed, fixes the amount for which the master is to give bond and security. In the case of a foreign wreck the consul is held to be the agent of the foreign owner. Much of the notarial business which is imposed on consuls, partly by statute and partly by the request of private parties, consists in taking the declarations as to registry, transfers, &c., under the Mercantile Shipping Acts. Consuls in the Ottoman empire, China, Siam and Korea have extensive judicial and executive powers.

Since the incorporation of the British consular service in the civil service there have been several proposals to "reform" the system with the view of increasing its usefulness, more particularly from the point of view of providing assistance to British trade abroad (see _Reports of Special Committees of the House of Commons on the Consular Service_, 1858, 1872, 1903). It has been frequently urged that British consuls in their commercial knowledge and intercourse with foreign merchants compare unfavourably, for example, with the consuls of the United States. It must be remembered, however, that there are points of striking dissimilarity between the duties of the consuls of these two countries. The American consul is necessarily brought much into touch with the trade and commerce of the country to which he is assigned through the system of consular invoices (see Ad Valorem); in his ordinary reports he is not confined to one stereotyped form, and when preparing special reports (a valuable feature of the United States consular service) he is liberally treated as regards any expense to which he has been put in obtaining information. He is practically free from the multifarious duties which the English consul has to discharge in connexion with the mercantile marine, nor has he to perform marriage ceremonies; and financially he is much better off, being allowed to retain as personal all fees obtained from his notarial duties. The Committee of 1903 was appointed to inquire, _inter alia_, whether the limits of age--25 to 50--for candidates should be altered, and whether service as a vice-consul for a certain period should be required to qualify for promotion to the rank of consul; whether means could not be adopted to give consular officers opportunities of increasing their practical knowledge of commercial matters and to bring them more into personal contact with the commercial community. The suggestions of the committee as the result of its inquiries were adopted in principle by the Foreign Office. The consular service is now grouped into three main divisions: (1) the general service; (2) Levant and Persia; and (3) China, Japan, Korea and Siam. The general consular service is graded into three divisions: first grade, consuls-general, salary L1000 with local allowances; second grade, consuls-general and consuls, salary L800 and local allowances; third grade, consuls, salary L600, with local allowances. Vice-consuls have an annual salary of L350, rising by annual increments of L15 to L450. In the general consular service appointments are sometimes made to the higher offices from the ranks, but more usually from a select list of nominees, who must pass a qualifying examination. A proportion of the vacancies are reserved for competition amongst candidates who have had actual commercial experience. Divisions 2 and 3 are recruited by open competition. There were at one time a small number of commercial agents whose business consisted in watching and reporting on the commerce, industries and products of special districts, and in answering inquiries on commercial subjects. Their duties were subsequently transferred to the consular staff, and a new class of officers, consular attaches, created. The consular attaches divide their time between special investigations abroad, and visits to manufacturing districts in the United Kingdom. The headquarters of the commercial attaches in Europe, except those at Paris and Constantinople, were transferred to London, without defined districts, in 1907 (see _Report on the System of British Commercial Attaches and Agents_, 1908, Cd. 3610). "Pro-consuls" are frequently appointed for the purpose of administering oaths, taking affidavits or affirmations, and performing notarial acts under the Commissioners for Oaths Acts 1889.

The position of the United States consuls is minutely described in the Regulations, Washington, 1896. Under various treaties and conventions they enjoy large privileges and jurisdiction. By the treaty of 1816 with Sweden the United States government agreed that the consuls of the two states respectively should be sole judges in disputes between captains and crews of vessels. (Up to 1906 there were eighteen treaties containing this clause.) By convention with France in 1853 they likewise agreed that the consuls of both countries should be permitted to hold real estate, and to have the "police interne des navires a commerce." In Borneo, China, Korea, Morocco, Persia, Siam, Tripoli and Turkey an extensive jurisdiction, civil and criminal, is exercised by treaty stipulation in cases where United States subjects are interested. Exemption from liability to appear as a witness is often stipulated. The question was raised in France in 1843 by the case of the Spanish consul Soller at Aix, and in America in 1854 by the case of Dillon, the French consul at San Francisco, who, on being arrested by Judge Hoffmann for declining to give evidence in a criminal suit, pulled down his consular flag. So, also, inviolability of national archives is often stipulated. To the consuls of other nations the United States government have always accorded the privileges of arresting deserters, and of being themselves amenable only to the Federal and not to the States courts. They also recognize foreign consuls as representative suitors for absent foreigners.

The United States commercial agents are appointed by the president, and usually receive an _exequatur_. They form a class by themselves, and are distinct from the consular agents, who are simply deputy consuls in districts where there is no principal consul.

By a law of April 1906 the U.S. consular service was reorganized and graded, the office of consul-general being divided into seven classes, and that of consul into nine classes; and on June 27 an executive order was issued by President Roosevelt governing appointments and promotions.

See A. de Miltitz, _Manuel des consuls_ (London and Berlin,
1837-1843); Baron Ferdinand de Cussy, _Dictionnaire du diplomate et
du consul_ (Leipzig, 1846), and _Reglements consulaires des
principaux etats maritimes de l`Europe et de l`Amerique_ (ib., 1851);
Tuson, _British Consul's Manual_ (London, 1856); De Clercq, _Guide
pratique des consulats_ (1st ed., 1858, 5th ed. by de Vallat, Paris,
1898); C. J. Tarring, _British Consular Jurisdiction in the East_
(London, 1887); Lippmann, _Die Konsularjurisdiktion im Orient_
(Berlin, 1898); Zorn, _Die Konsulargesetzgebung des deutschen Reichs_
(2nd ed., Berlin, 1901); v. Koenig, _Handbuch des deutschen
Konsularwesens_ (6th ed., Berlin, 1902); Martens, _Das deutsche
Konsular-und Kolonialrecht_ (Leipzig, 1904); Malfatti di Monte
Tretto, _Handbuch des oesterreichischungarischen Konsularwesens_ (2
vols., 2nd ed., Vienna, 1904). See also the _Parliamentary Reports_
referred to in the text. For British consuls much detailed
information, including, e.g., minute directions for the uniforms of
the various grades, will be found in the official _Foreign Office
List_ published annually. As regards American consuls, see C. L.
Jones, _The Consular Service of the U. S. A._ (Philadelphia, 1906);
_Publications of Univ. of Pennsylvania_, "Series in Pol. Econ. and
Public Law," No. 18; and Fred. Van Dyne, _Our Foreign Service_
(Rochester, N.Y., 1909).

FOOTNOTES:

[3] The title of consul was borne by the chief municipal officers of
several cities of the south of France during the middle ages and up
to the Revolution. The name was not due to their being the
successors of the chiefs of the Roman _municipia_. They were members
of the governing body known as the _consulat_, and in Latin
documents are sometimes styled _consiliarii_, i.e. councillors. The
_consulat_ itself is not traceable beyond the 12th century.

[2] Particular quarters of mercantile cities were assigned to
foreign traders and were placed under the jurisdiction of their own
magistrates, variously styled syndics, provosts (_praepositi_),
echevins (_scabini_), &c., who had power to fine or to expel from
the quarter. The Hanseatic League (q.v.), particularly, had numerous
settlements of this kind, the earliest being the Steelyard at
London, established in the 13th century.

[3] i.e. as regards the organization of the system. Consuls, or
consuls-general, of other countries have sometimes a diplomatic or
quasi-diplomatic status. Consuls-general charges d'affaires, e.g.,
rank as diplomatic agents. Of these the most notable is the British
agent and consul-general in Egypt, whose position is unique. The
diplomatic agent of Belgium at Buenos Aires, e.g., is
minister-resident and consul-general, and the minister of Ecuador in
London is consul-general charge d'affaires.

[4] See also instructions to consuls prepared by the Board of Trade
and approved by the secretary of state for foreign affairs.

"CONSULATE OF THE SEA," a celebrated collection of maritime customs and ordinances (see also Sea Laws) in the Catalan language, published at Barcelona in the latter part of the 15th century. Its proper title is _The Book of the Consulate_, or in Catalan, _Lo Libre de Consolat_, the name being derived from the fact that it embodied the rules of law followed in the maritime cities of the Mediterranean coast by the commercial judges known generally as consuls (q.v.). The earliest extant edition of the work, which was printed at Barcelona in 1494, is without a title-page or frontispiece, but it is described by the above-mentioned title in the epistle dedicatory prefixed to the table of contents. The only known copy of this edition is preserved in the National Library in Paris. The epistle dedicatory states that the work is an amended version of the _Book of the Consulate_, compiled by Francis Celelles with the assistance of numerous shipmasters and merchants well versed in maritime affairs. According to a statement made by Capmany in his _Codigo de los costumbras maritimas de Barcelona_, published at Madrid in 1791, there was extant to his knowledge in the last century a more ancient edition of the _Book of the Consulate_, printed in semi-Gothic characters, which he believed to be of a date prior to 1484. This is the earliest period to which any historical record of the _Book of the Consulate_ being in print can be traced back. There are, however, two Catalan MSS. preserved in the National Library in Paris, the earliest of which, being MS. Espagnol 124, contains the two first treatises which are printed in the _Book of the Consulate_ of 1494, and which are the most ancient portion of its contents, written in a hand of the 14th century, on paper of that century. The subsequent parts of this MS. are on paper of the 15th century, but there is no document of a date more recent than 1436. The later of the two MSS., being MS. Espagnol 56, is written throughout on paper of the 15th century, and in a hand of that century, and it purports, from a certificate on the face of the last leaf, to have been executed under the superintendence of Peter Thomas, a notary public, and the scribe of the Consulate of the Sea at Barcelona.

The edition of 1494, which is justly regarded as the _editio princeps_ of the _Book of the Consulate_, contains, in the first place, a code of procedure issued by the kings of Aragon for the guidance of the courts of the consuls of the sea, in the second place, a collection of ancient customs of the sea, and thirdly, a body of ordinances for the government of cruisers of war. A colophon at the end of these ordinances informs the readers that "the book commonly called the _Book of the Consulate_ ends here"; after which there follows a document known by the title of _The Acceptations_, which purports to record that the previous chapters and ordinances had been approved by the Roman people in the 11th century, and by various princes and peoples in the 12th and 13th centuries. Capmany was the first person to question the authenticity of this document in his _Memorias historicas sobre la marina, &c., de Barcelona_, published at Madrid in 1779-1792. Pardessus and other writers on maritime law followed up the inquiry in the 19th century, and have conclusively shown that the document, whatever may have been its origin, has no proper reference to the _Book of the Consulate_, and is, in fact, of no historical value whatsoever. The paging of the edition of 1494 ceases with this document, at the end of which is the printer's colophon, reciting that "the work was completed on the 14th of July 1494, at Barcelona, by Pere Posa, priest and printer." The remainder of the volume consists of what may be regarded as an appendix to the original _Book of the Consulate_. This appendix contains various maritime ordinances of the kings of Aragon and of the councillors of the city of Barcelona, ranging over a period from 1340 to 1484. It is printed apparently in the same type with the preceding part of the volume. The original _Book of the Consulate_, coupled with this appendix, constitutes the work which has obtained general circulation in Europe under the title of _The Consulate of the Sea_, and which in the course of the 16th century was translated into the Castilian, the Italian, and the French languages. The Italian translation, printed at Venice in 1549 by Jean Baptista Pedrezano, was the version which obtained the largest circulation in the north of Europe, and led many jurists to suppose the work to have been of Italian origin. In the next following century the work was translated into Dutch by Westerven, and into German by Engelbrecht, and it is also said to have been translated into Latin.

An excellent translation into French of "The Customs of the Sea,"
which are the most valuable portion of the _Book of the Consulate_,
was published by Pardessus in the second volume of his _Collection
des lois maritimes_ (Paris, 1834), under the title of "La Compilation
connue sous le nom de consulat de la mer." See introduction, by Sir
Travers Twiss, to the _Black Book of the Admiralty_ (London, 1874),
which in the appendix to vol. iii. contains his translation of "The
Customs of the Sea," with the Catalan text. (T. T.)