INVASION OF SPAIN., 91 If this were the case, the propriety of Ferdi- chapter . . XIII. nand's conduct in refusing the ratification depends '■ — on the question how far a sovereign is bound by the acts of a plenipotentiary, who departs from his private instructions. Formerly, the question would seem to have been unsettled. Indeed, some of the most respectable writers on public law in the begin- ning of the seventeenth century maintain, that such a departure' would not justify the prince in with- holding his ratification ; deciding thus, no doubt, on principles of natural equity, which appear to require, that a principal should be held responsible for the acts of an agent, coming within the scope of his powers, though at variance with his secret orders, with which the other contracting party can have no acquaintance or concern.^ The inconvenience, however, arising from adopt- ing a principle in political negotiations, which must necessarily place the destinies of a whole nation in the hands of a single individual, rash or incompe- tent, it may be, without the power of interference or supervision on the part of the government, has led to a different conclusion in practice ; and it is now generally admitted by European writers, not merely that the exchange of ratifications is essen- Ihe attitude assumed by the nation vorably for Ferdinand, were it not at that very time for maintaining its for the freedom with which he usu- claims by the sword ; " and he dis- ally criticizes whatever appears misses the subject with a redection, really objectionable to him in the that seems to rest the merits of the measures of the government, case more on might than right. 8 Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pa- " Exitus, qui judex est rerum Eeter- cis, lib. 2, cap. 11, sec. 12; lib. 3, nus, loquatur. Nostri regno po- cap. 22, sec. 4. — Gentilis, De Jure tiuntur majori ex parte." (Opus Belli, lib. 3, cap. 14, apud Bynker- Epist., epist. 257.) This reserve shock, Quaest. Juris Publici, lib. 2, of Martyr might be construed unfa- cap. 7.
