HC Deb 08 April 1853 vol 125 cc878-88
MR. J. WILSON

moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, lie must express a hope that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would not press for any Votes to-night. [Mr. BROTHERTON: Why?] He would tell the hon. Member for Salford the reason why. Although the Estimates were presented to the House on the 18th March, they were not delivered until yesterday, and therefore a sufficient time had not been allowed for their examination. He did not wish to throw any impediments in the way of the Government, but he did think hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of examining the Votes, seeing that the increase had been so enormous. In 1830, when the Duke of Wellington was in the Ministry, the amount for civil services was 1,950,000l. Under Sir Robert Peel's Administration, in 1835, the amount was 2,100,000l. But at the present time the charge was little short of 4,500,000l., and he was anxious to ascertain the causes of this extraordinary increase. Unless the House of Commons was prepared to resign its functions altogether, it was bound not to allow of such an extraordinary departure from practice as that which was now proposed to be presevered in. The manner in which these estimates were thus thrust upon the House was very discreditable. Generally an abstract accompanied them; but in this instance there was none. He would therefore very strongly object to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair. He certainly should take the sense of the House against the granting of any Votes at the present moment.

MR. EWART

said, he thought his hon. Friend was stealing a march upon those whose names had precedence upon the paper. He hoped that, having delivered his protest, his hon. Friend would so far restrain his economical ardour as to permit the questions which stood on the paper to be gone into. A notice stood in his (Mr. Ewart's) name, "to call attention to the expediency of instituting examination of candidates for the diplomatic service." The House was familiar with the subject, which he had frequently pressed on its attention. He believed it was the intention of the late Government, and he hoped it was the intention of the present Government, to see whether they could not introduce some species of examination for that important department—the diplomatic service of this country. He would not, of course, insist upon an examination in the case of the higher functionaries; but he believed the subordinate appointments would be much better filled if the candidates for those offices had to undergo a preliminary examination, in which the knowledge of foreign languages should form an important part. In our own country this system had been established in regard to appointments in the Army and Navy; it had been successfully adopted in other countries, and lie thought it was high time it should be applied to the diplomatic as well as to other departments here. He bad great hopes, too, that the Indian patronage would before long be bestowed on a system of free pub- lie examinations, where the best qualified would be the successful candidates. When he last called attention to the subject, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), had referred to the proposal in approving terms, and had stated that materials bearing upon the question were being collected from the embassies abroad; and that, as soon as they were fully brought together, it would be in a position to be dealt with. He would not, therefore, detain the House by going over the whole ground again. Meanwhile, he wished to know whether the inquiries promised by the late Government upon the subject of an examination for candidates for diplomatic appointments, had been proceeded with, and whether the present Government had come to any decision on the subject?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, the subject, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, had been under the consideration of the late Government, and they had instituted inquiries as to the practicability of the course suggested. He could not say that during the period he had held the seals of the Foreign Office he had had the time to attend to the matter, but he would certainly communicate with the noble Earl who had succeeded him, and as soon as Lord Clarendon had come to a decision upon the subject he would inform the House.

LORD STANLEY

said, the subject was one which had been pressed upon the attention of the late Government, and had been by them fully considered. He was bound to say, that as the result of that consideration, it did appear to those who were then connected with the Administration that there were no insuperable, nor indeed any very material difficulties in the way of establishing such a plan of examination as that which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), if only the system upon which that examination was founded was approved of by Parliament. He thought, for instance, it would be perfectly practicable to require of all candidates for entrance upon the diplomatic service that they should subject themselves, in the first place, to a preliminary examination—one of a very simple character—one not professing to do more than apply a test as to the general ability of the candidate, his knowledge of languages, and to ascertain the general nature of the education he had received. After that examination, at an interval of two or three years, another and more stringent examination would be desirable. He thought they might allow the candidate, during the interval, to pass the time in some subordinate capacity in the service, until he should be qualified to pass his second examination, and then receive him as a paid agent in the diplomatic service. That was the outline of the scheme which, if they adopted a system of examination for the diplomatic service, he considered would be desirable to be established. But he could not help thinking that they would ultimately find it necessary, if they dealt with this question, to introduce a change of a much wider and more comprehensive character. The question was, whether they were to treat diplomacy as a profession in the same sense in which the military profession, for example, was treated. At present that theory was adopted in part only, but not altogether. Every man who entered into the military profession was supposed to devote his life to it, and received a special training for it; and it was on the strength of his having received that training, and devoted his life to that service, that he was held to be entitled to a pension when he retired from the service. Now, it appeared to him a very doubtful question whether it was desirable to render diplomacy a profession in that sense. The system adopted by the United States was to select men for the superior diplomatic offices abroad who had shown their ability for conducting public business at home. All such men were deemed eligible for diplomatic appointments; and he was not aware that the diplomatic service of the United States was less ably conducted than the same service of other nations where a different theory was supposed to prevail. In the case of India, civil and military officers were taken indiscriminately for the performance of diplomatic duties, and no such thing as a special diplomatic service existed. When this country had some special negotiations of great importance to carry on with any neighbouring States, it was well known that the men selected to discharge that service were not those who had been previously trained up to diplomacy, but those men were chosen who, without any special training, were considered qualified by their general aptitude and intelligence for the duty. Thus, in practice, the rule was broken through, which was supposed, in the theory, to be established. Nothing in theory appeared certainly more unfair; but nothing was more common in practice than to take men who had not received a diplomatic education, and who had not been in a diplomatic office, and appoint them to conduct some of the most important diplomatic functions in which the interests of this country were concerned. In point of fact, they almost invariably departed from the theory in the case of the appointment of the Secretary of State, who conducted the public business of the country in regard to our foreign relations. The Foreign Secretary was the person at the head of the whole diplomatic profession. He had to decide all those questions which might be too important or too intricate to be settled by the Minister abroad; and it certainly, therefore, did appear to him that they were acting very inconsistently, and were deviating from the rule they had established, when they said that a Minister at a Foreign Court must be trained, but that it was not necessary that the Minister who was at the head of the Diplomatic Department at home, and who had the direction of the whole diplomatic service, should be previously trained for those duties. He believed the whole system by which diplomacy was made an exclusive service, might safely be abolished, and that a system analogous to that adopted in the public offices at home might be established. His belief was, that the knowledge which the training was supposed to confer on the superior diplomatic servants, with regard to the details of diplomatic business, might be easily supplied by attaching to the missions abroad persons who should act in the same capacity as the clerks of our public offices at home, who should be previously trained to the service, and whose duty it should be to furnish all the necessary professional knowledge which such superior diplomatic Ministers might require, and of which, coming new to the business, they must necessarily be deficient. By having such a body of men to render that assistance, the door of the diplomatic service might be thrown open, and they might then appoint any public officer to the higher ranks of diplomacy whose merits and general acquirements in other respects might entitle him to the appointment. According to the present system, their diplomatic appointments were very much guided by the rule of seniority, and by the claims of individual members of the diplomatic service. He did not know that they could altogether get rid of that evil, except by throwing open the profession, and, at the same time, by doing away with retiring pensions. He thought it possible to place the diplomatic service of the country upon exactly the same footing as the Consular Department. By doing away with pensions, and at the same time abandoning the system of appointments according to the rule of seniority, they might effect a great saving to the country, and the public service might be carried on with greater efficiency.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that, with regard to the question to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) had referred, he begged to state, that when he held the seals of the Foreign Office, he did take steps with a view of establishing an examination for the junior members of the diplomatic service. His notion was very much like what had been stated by the noble Lord who had just addressed the House, that a moderate examination might be established for those who were candidates for the office of unpaid attaché. which was the first step, and that a more complete examination should take place with regard to candidates for the office of paid attaché. He entered into a communication with the authorities of the London University, with a view to establishing arrangements for the examinations that were to take place. He could not, however, confine himself merely to this point of the question, for he was bound to say, that he did not concur in all the opinons which the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had expressed. The noble Lord seemed to think that it would be better to change the existing system of our diplomatic service, and no longer consider it as a sort of professional body, and the noble Lord quoted, as an example, the practice of the United States. But the House must recollect the entire difference between the condition of the United States with regard to their relations with foreign countries, and the condition of this country in respect to its foreign relations. The United States, except, perhaps, in this country and in France, had hardly any interests to maintain or any objects to accomplish with the countries of Europe. If the noble Lord wanted an example to look at, let him look at the example of those countries which had the greatest interest and influence in European politics. What was done by France? What was done by Russia? What was done by Austria? What was done by Prussia? Why, by all those countries it was thought to be of great advantage to employ men who trained their minds to the matters with which they had to deal. It was thought in those countries expedient to employ persons to do a thing who really understood the thing that was to be done. Now, it might be all very pleasant to employ gentlemen in this country who might wish to travel and pass a few years at foreign Courts, through the means of the diplomatic service. But the noble Lord admitted it was expedient that the inferior offices of the diplomatic service should be filled by those very men whom he nevertheless said he wished to see abolished; and he was of opinion that we might safely have a person appointed superior Minister to a foreign Court who was ignorant of his duty, provided he was assisted by a diplomatic official who knew it. This might be very well, as long as this subordinate official could write the despatches of his ignorant superior, and read to him, and make him understand, the despatches he received. That would be all very well, as long as the subordinate officer was standing at the elbow of his ignorant superior; but let the House only conceive this ignorant superior going to a conference with the Minister of the country to which he was accredited on a question involving an intimate knowledge of the law of nations, a familiar acquaintance with politics, with the stipulations of treaties, and with past transactions. Imagine that ignorant superior called upon by the Minister of that country to give his opinion under such circumstances. He would say—" Wait, Sir; I must send for my secretary. I am sent here only to do the ornamental part; the man who is to do the business is in my office at home; you must allow me to send for him before I can solve the question which you have propounded." He conceived the great matter was, that the man who had to do the business should understand how the business was most efficiently to be done. However, he would say this, it was the fashion for many persons to speak disparagingly of the diplomatic body of this country. He had had some experience of that body, and he could say, with the utmost sincerity, that no Government is better served, and that no other Government is—he would not say better informed, but—so well informed as the Government of this country is by its diplomatic agents, or who had received such correct information as to the real state of foreign countries, or as to what was going to take place; and that at times when the agents of other countries had been led into error, and misled either with respect to the existing state of things, or of the then expected events. But he was going to say that that which the noble Lord had called the rule was not the rule. Undoubtedly the practice, and the just practice, was, that all persons holding sub-ordinate ranks in the diplomatic profession went into that body without salary; and they might be called the "great unpaid." They were first unpaid attachés, then paid attachés, then secretaries of legation, and secretaries of embassies. But it was by no means the invariable rule that missions should be filled by persons taken from the next in rank. He could mention many instances which occurred in his time where missions were filled by men conversant with the affairs of the world, but who had not gone through the various services of diplomacy. There was his noble Friend the Earl of Clarendon, who went as Ambassador to Spain without having risen through the various ranks to that position; there was Sir Henry Bulwer, who had only nominally gone through them; and Mr. Wyse, our representative at the Court of Greece, had not gone through previous training in the diplomatic service; therefore it was not the case that the country was dependent for their diplomatic missions upon the system of promotion as stated by the noble Lord, but was often served by men who, though not having filled any previous diplomatic office, yet were, by their official knowledge and personal ability, qualified to serve their country in that department. The fact was, that those persons who had been long connected with political life in this country, and especially Members of either House of Parliament, did by practice acquire a great deal of that knowledge which was essential for well conducting the business of a diplomatic station. They became acquainted with the political events of Europe, with public law, and were in all respects perfectly competent to perform the duties required. Therefore it would be seen that this country had now the very system which the noble Lord wished to establish. They had the advantage in the inferior ranks of having men well trained in acquiring a knowledge of the interests and relations of the different countries in Europe, and when a vacancy happened in any mission it was filled either by some distinguished man who had arrived up from the inferior ranks by his capacity to a superior position, or by some person of great talent, who, by his knowledge and personal ability at home, had shown himself qualified to take charge of the interests of his country abroad. It therefore seemed to him that there was no change that could be made in the diplomatic service which could supersede the advantage of an examination for those who were to enter the service in the inferior ranks.

MR. DISRAELI

said, the last few sentences of the noble Viscount's speech completely answered the earlier part of his argument. The noble Lord first assumed that every person who was not trained and professionally educated as a diplomatist, ought not to be appointed to that office; though he concluded by saying that the diplomatists of this country were selected from that class of men who, having entered Parliament, had trained themselves for the office, by acquiring a knowledge of history and knowledge of human nature, an acquaintance with the law of nations, and those other acquirements which were deemed necessary. The fact was, their own experience contradicted the conclusions of the noble Lord. Why, some of the most eminent diplomatists of this country, even in our own times, had never been trained in the inferior ranks of diplomacy. Was the Duke of Wellington trained to a diplomatist—he who transacted such great historical affairs, and who might be fairly called the most beneficial negotiator of our time? Was Lord Ashburton trained a diplomatist, and yet was he not highly accomplished, and fit to take upon him the highest office required for conducting diplomatic intercourse;—though, perhaps, it was infelicitous to quote the the Ashburton treaty to the noble Lord? Who was Mr. Thomas Grenville? Was he a trained diplomatist? Yet he was sent to Paris at the most important epoch in the history of France. Was Lord Castlereagh trained to diplomacy? Why, the instances were so numerous upon this subject, that those he had adverted to were only a few that had occurred to him without the slightest preparation. He could prove from experience that there was not a shadow of foundation for the argument of the noble Lord. He believed that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had laid down a sound and good policy, and that it was a policy which must come to pass. The noble Lord partially professed to adopt it, but it must be adopted completely. The present system was an imperfect training—it was merely a nominal, and not a real, training. The argument of his noble Friend was, that if they wanted efficient men, they did not take them from trained men. The noble Lord gaily attacked that remark when he first rose; but before he sat down he confuted his own argument, and maintained the principle advocated by his (Mr. Disraeli's) noble Friend. It was his (Mr. Disraeli's) firm belief that, sooner or later, they would have a reform of the diplomatic service on the principle laid down by his noble Friend, and he believed that by carrying out that principle they would render the service much more efficient and much more economical.

MR. BOWYER

said, he was sure the House would be gratified to learn that it was the intention of the Government to insist upon the diplomatic education of candidates for these offices. It was impossible they could attain to any eminence without training. No doubt they might acquire some knowledge of international law in that House; but then their teaching was sometimes very loose, and he did not think that House was the very best school. It was quite impossible without a knowledge of the civil law to obtain a knowledge of international law; and he felt quite sure, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary for our diplomatists, who had to argue questions of the kind with the most subtle and experienced minds, to have, if not perhaps a complete education in civil law, at least a training of, say six months or a year in that branch of jurisprudence—an accomplishment that would prove of the greatest value to them in their after career. The Americans were fully alive to the importance of diplomatic qualifications. No doubt there were many distinguished persons who were adapted at once for the office; but that was not a sufficient reason why a complete system of education should not be adopted in this country which had been found so highly beneficial in all other countries in the world.

MR. J. PHILLIMORE

said, he was not disposed to consider a knowledge of civil law as essential for diplomatists as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think. He believed that in no diplomatic service in the world was more ability displayed than in the Russian service, and yet he doubted if those able men were ever remarkable for their knowledge of civil law.

MR. R. PHILLIMORE

said, on the contrary, he was of opinion that an inmate knowledge of civil law was most requisite to further the ends of diplomacy, and in support of that opinion, he was able to cite one of the most masterly decisions on jurisprudence ever delivered—one of Lord Stowell's—in which that great authority declared the civil law to be the foundation of all international jurisprudence. In reference to the observations of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) relative to Lord Ashburton, it must be in the remembrance of the House that that noble Lord not only discharged his functions with great ability, but also that he had been entrusted with the discussion of two of the nicest points of international law which had arisen during the last twenty years, namely, the case of the Creole, and that of coterminous international law in the case of the Caroline. He quite agreed in the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), that it was highly desirable for the interests of the country that the higher offices in the diplomatic career should be open to men of large and liberal education, who were as well versed in international jurisprudence as those who had been trained from the very first in the Foreign Office. Indeed that was a view which received his most perfect accord.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."