4. Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in connection with the contemplated reforms in the Diplomatic Service, he will consider the desirability of so altering the titles of Ambassadors and Ministers that they will cease to be representatives only of the Sovereign and accredited only to Foreign Courts and be designated in future as British instead of His Majesty's Ambassador or Minister, and be accredited to the Government and people of the country in which they reside; and whether similarly foreign representatives might be received in this country as accredited to the Government and people of the United Kingdom instead of as at present only to the Court of St. James?
§ The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil)The answer is in the negative.
Mr. PONSONBYMay I ask whether as this accrediting to Kings and Courts exercises a harmful influence on diplomacy, these titles should not be abolished according to modern ideas?
§ Lord R. CECILThe hon. Gentleman will be perfectly well aware that all our public proceedings are transacted in the name of the King, and I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should take any exception to it now.
§ Mr. WHYTEWill the Noble Lord say that in the general instructions that are drawn up for the guidance of Attaches serving abroad at all events the spirit, if not the letter, of my hon. Friend's question is observed?
§ Lord R. CECILThat is an entirely different matter. I entirely agree as to the importance of keeping up the diplomatic or other relations, or whatever you may like to call them, between ourselves and the populations of the various other countries.
§ Mr. KINGIs not the Noble Lord aware that these old traditions were established when all the world was under monarchies, and that now, when the great majority of the countries are under republics, the matter is different?