SELECT COMMITTEE ON DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
167 1766.
With regard to the general character of the Diplomatic Service, ami right in stating the impression as I have derived it from your Lordship to be, that although we might on one occasion meet in other services in matters of negotiation, one man who was better than our negotiator, on the other hand we might on another occasion meet an interior, so that you consider the general average character of our diplomatists to be equal to that of the rest of the world?
—I should say so, decidedly.
3767.
Chairman] Do you think that the relations between the Foreign Office of this country and the heads of missions, in regard to the appointment of persons sent to those missions, are satisfactory ?—I
think it might be better if the head of a mission were allowed to exercise rather more influence in the appointment of his immediate subordinates.
I have myself been occasionally disconcerted by receiving a letter from the Foreign Office, saying that such and such a gentleman, of whom I had never heard before, was to be received into my family.
At Constantinople, and possibly elsewhere, this practice has been modified by what I mentioned before; but for a married man, or one having grown-up daughters, the incon¬ venience is obvious.
Considerations that would have weight in a private family can hardly be overlooked with propriety at an ambassador's residence.
1768.
In a distant mission and in a somewhat stiange country, is it not almost compulsory upon a minister to live very intimately" with the gentlemen of his mission?—So
it is ; but I think the amount of intimacy should be the result of a kind disposition on one side and of a sense of duty on the other, and not the mere result of a forced familiar intei course, which at times may engender serious evil.
*
1769.
In a country where there are only very few English residents, are they not so much thrown together that conditions of that kind are much harder than in any European capital ?—No
doubt.
1770.
You think that some communication might take place between the head of a mission and the Foreign Office before definite appointments were made of the subordinate members of the mission?—I
incline to that opinion.
1771.
Do you know whether that is the practice in other countries?—I
cannot tell; it appears to have been formerly in ours.
1772.
With regard to communications between the Foreign Minister,and the head of a mission, do you think that any advantage has resulted from the largely increased habit of writing private letters ?—The
practice of private correspondence, I think, is one upon which it would hardly answer any good purpose to lay restric¬ tion.
Upon the whole, I think that more advantage results from the use of private correspondence than the contrary; but the practice may be carried too far.
1773.
In a certain degree, must not a tery continual private correspondence detract something from the influence of the public documentary correspondence ?
—Not, if it be carried on in the right spirit.
I conceive that the use of private correspondence is to afford a clearer view of the scope and intent of the official instruction, and to convey suggestions, or matters of information, without being committed to the formalities of the official correspondence, and to the publicity which frequently attends it; but anything which has the effect of contradicting in private what is made matter of instruction in the public correspondence, or any¬ thing that produces an action in public affairs, of which there is no trace in the public correspondence, is open to objection, as it is liable to abuse.
1774.
Have you found yourself annoyed or restricted in your correspondence with the Secretary of State by the circumstance of most of the important despatches being from time to time laid before Parliament ?—I
do not remember at this moment to have experienced any annoyance from it myself; but there are, doubt¬ less, occasions where the public interests might be compromised by indiscriminate publication.
There have been cases where 1 should have wished a Despatch to be published, and others where I should have deprecated its publication.
It would be difficult to lay down any precise rule for such matters.
1775.
Have you ever had cause to complain of communications, which you regarded as of a private nature, having been laid before Parliament ?—No
; I do not remember any instance respecting myself; but I must say that I hold it to be a most unfair thing, and one of which 1 should have thought myself entitled to complain, if any letter of mine marked " private," and written in the usual form of private personal correspondence, had been laid before the public without my 0.47.
X4 express
Viscourtt Stratford de Redcliffe.
13 May 1861.
