^{page 143 note 1} Report [from the Select Committee on Diplomatic Service], 1861. Parliamentary Papers, H. of C, 1861, vi. (459). P. ix;Google Scholar q. 33, p. 24 (4) and q. 112, p. 32 (12) (Hammond); q. 688, p. 97 (77) (Wodehouse); q. 951, p. 121 (101) (Clarendon); q. 2184, p. 217 (197) (Seymour). For a general note on the sources of this essay, see below, pp. 171–2.

^{page 143 note 2} Ibid. q. 690, p. 97 (77) (Wodehouse).

^{page 143 note 3} Ibid. q. 951, p. 121 (101) (Clarendon).

^{page 143 note 4} Ibid. q. 689, p. 97 (77) (Wodehouse).

^{page 143 note 5} Ibid. q. 10, p. 22 (2).

^{page 144 note 1} British Diplomatic Representatives, 1789–1852. Edited for the Royal Historical Society by S. T. Bindoff, M.A., E. F. Malcolm Smith, M.A, Ph.D., and C. K. Webster, Litt.D., F.B.A. Camden Third Series, Volume L. London … 1934.

^{page 144 note 2} This and all following figures exclude the North African and Asiatic embassies and missions which, throughout the period in question, were on a different footing from the general diplomatic service and were specially staffed.

^{page 145 note 1} The first example of the use of the word “attaché” given in the New English Dictionary is dated 1835, but earlier examples can be found. See the extract from the circular despatch of 1 Jan. 1816, quoted below, p. 148 n. 1, and Clancarty to Castlereagh, Frankfort, 15 Sept. 1816: “… that young Seymour is to be sent out to me as an attaché upon my working staff …” Castlereagh Correspondence, iii. 297.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} Report, q. 1767, p. 187 (167).Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 1} Quoted in Temperley, , The Foreign Policy of Canning, 265.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 2} I have not been able to discover exactly when this regulation was introduced. The bound series of “Appointments. Attachés” (F.O. 366/314 ft), comprising these letters, begins only in 1836, but similar letters may be found scattered among the General Correspondence from 1815 onwards. Cowley's statement before the Committee of 1861 that Canning was the first Foreign Secretary to appoint all attachés himself may mean that Canning first made the issue of these letters obligatory in all cases. Cf. Lamb to Planta, Madrid, 27 June, 1825: “Sir, I have to request that you will be so good as to send me a Letter of Attaché for Mr. Stanhope, who is attached to this Legation, but has neglected to bring one with him.” F.O. 72/301.

^{page 146 note 3} The following list shows the number of attachés officially appointed (excluding those attached to special missions) each year, from 1836, when the regular series of letters of attache begins, until 1860:

^{page 147 note 1} Although as late as 1858 the rule might be evaded. Cf. Malmesbury to Cowley, 4 Sept. 1858: “There never was such a hash as between Bulwer and Stratford [de Redclifie] about their palaces. Stratford has taken out six gentlemen as attachés, but not one do I know by name, and not one has had his appointment signed, so they will have no status at all!” Malmesbury, , Memoirs of an Ex-Minister (1884), ii. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 2} Palmerston, in appointing Sir Edmund Lyons's son attaché in 1839, wrote: “I do so as a mark of approbation of the manner in which you have performed your public duties in trying and difficult circumstances.” Quoted in G.E.C., , Complete Peerage, vii. 308Google Scholar n. (b) from a source not mentioned.

^{page 147 note 3} Cf. Stratford Canning's efforts to have Layard attached to him in the 'forties. Lane-Poole, , Life of Stratford Canning, ii. 138.Google Scholar Westmorland's hesitation to ask for an attachéship for R. B. D. Morier may perhaps be connected with the same situation. MrsWemyss, Rosslyn, Memoirs and Letters of Sir Robert Morier, i. 132–4.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 4} Cf. Hammond's evidence in 1861. Report, q. 64, p. 28 (8).Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 1} Instructions for conduct of business. “… And in addition to this assistance, and in order to provide a suitable succession of diplomatick Servants, properly qualified to discharge the functions of Secretary of Embassy and Secretary of Legation, His Royal Highness intends to nominate from time to time to such of the Ambassadors or Envoys as the exigency of the Service may point out, one, or at most two ‘Attaches,’ to be domesticated in his Family, and in the receipt of a small allowance from the publick, not necessarily equal to their expences, but in compensation for their services…” F.O. 83/81.

^{page 148 note 2} Return of Diplomatic Service, 7 Dec. 1846. F.O. 366/367 (p. 158).

^{page 148 note 3} Report, App. IV, pp. 503–5 (483–5).

^{page 148 note 4} Cf. the manuscript note by Lenox-Conyngham attached to the estimate for civil contingencies for 1832. F.O. 366/344.

^{page 148 note 5} Even as late as 1861 unpaid attachés were scarcely reckoned as belonging to the service. Cf. Hammond, : “A person has a right to consider himself as belonging to the diplomatic service from the day of his appointment as paid attache…” Report, q. 656, p. 91 (71).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} See his article, signed “P.L.,” on “The Diplomatic Service” in the New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, 1833, i. 418–29. I am indebted for this reference to Professor C. K. Webster.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} Cf., for example, Clarendon to Stratford de Redcliffe, 15 Sept. 1853, attaching Mr. W. K. Loftus at Constantinople in order to give him protection while engaged in antiquarian researches in Mesopotamia. F.O. 366/314.

^{page 149 note 3} Jerningham, H. E. H., Reminiscences of an Attaché”, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 4} Clancarty to Castlereagh, Frankfort, 15 Sept. 1816. Castlereagh Correspondence, iii. 297.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 6} I have found no evidence to support Crampton's statement before the Committee of 1861 that all notifications of appointments to attachéships formerly bore this rider. Report, q. 1318, p. 151 (131).Google Scholar On the contrary, entries such as the following suggest that it was the exception and not the rule: Canning to Wynn, 17 June, 1823, notifying the appointment of Mr. Grenville Pigott as attaché, bears a note: “It is understood that this Letter is not to be considered as giving Mr. Pigott a Claim, hereafter, to Promotion in the Diplomatic Line. See letter to Duke of Buckingham of June 14.” F.O. 82/16. The letter to the Duke of Buckingham is bound up at the end of the same volume.

^{page 150 note 1} Cf. Earle and Fane before the Committee of 1861. Report, qq. 2058–60, p. 208 (188); q. 3285, p. 309 (289).Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} Report, q. 950, p. 121 (101)Google Scholar (Clarendon); qq. 729–31, pp. 101–2 (81–2) (Wodehouse); qq. 3283–4, p. 308 (288) (Fane).

^{page 150 note 3} Newton, , Lord Lyons, i. 2;Google Scholar Mrs. Rosslyn Wemyss, SirMorier, Robert, ii. 10–11, 130.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 1} The names of 24 men who afterwards entered the diplomatic service appear in the registers of Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn and the Middle Temple between 1812 and i860. Lincoln's Inn Admissions, 1800–1893; Gray's Inn Admissions, 1521–1889; Notable Middle Templars (London, 1902).Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 1} The phrase is Jacob Bosanquet's, referring to his son George while an unpaid attaché. Bosanquet to Castlereagh, 29 Sept. 1819. Castlereagh Correspondence, iv. 152.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 2} Namely, that two F.O. clerks should always be employed at missions abroad.

^{page 152 note 3} Report, p. 14 (xiv).Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} According to Hammond, Canning always had four or five private secretaries at work in the Office, one at least of whom was apparently officially recognised as “assistant private secretary.” Report, q. 470, p. 69Google Scholar (49), and Foreign Office List, 1859, ii. 7–8, which also mentions several “assistant private secretaries” during the period 1841–59 and “assistant precis writers” in 1807, 1831 and 1842.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} For an indication of the functions of the précis writer at the beginning of our period, see Lane-Poole, , Stratford Canning, i. 29–30.Google Scholar The précis writer later took the name and functions of assistant private secretary. Report, q. 1473, p. 162 (142),Google Scholar and Tilley, and Gaselee, , The Foreign Office, 207.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} Before 1812 promotion generally took place from the private secretaryship to the précis writership; after 1812 it invariably went the other way. Strachey's remark before the Committee of 1861 that Ponsonby, the private secretary, assisted Clarendon in diplomatic promotions in the 'fifties is the first indication I have found of the private secretary's intervention in this sphere, which he afterwards made his own. Report, q. 2698, p. 257 (237);Google ScholarTilley, and Gaselee, , The Foreign Office, 207–9.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} Thomson, , The Secretaries of State, 1681–1782, 132.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} On the position of the undersecretaries of state in this period, see Jones-Parry, E., “Under-Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs; 1782–1855.” in English Historical Review, xlix (1934), 308–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 155 note 3} Abercromby to Palmerston, Berlin, 22 Oct. 1834. F.O. 64/196.

^{page 156 note 1} Namely, Lord Wodehouse. The case of A. H. Layard, who was undersecretary from Feb. to May, 1853, and again from 1861 to 1866, and who was given a diplomatic appointment in 1869, is mentioned below.

^{page 156 note 2} Namier, , The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, i. 49;Google ScholarThomson, , Secretaries of State, 133.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 3} Of the 10 governmental undersecretaries from 1796 (G. Canning) to 1807 (Viscount Fitzharris), 7 were also M.P.s.

^{page 156 note 4} Jones-Parry, , loc. cit., 311.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 5} See below, pp. 167–8.

^{page 157 note 1} Letters to The Times, i Nov. 1869, p. 9,Google Scholar col. b, and 6 Nov. 1869, p. 10, col. f. Letters defending the appointment are in 2 Nov., p. 6, col. a, and 8 Nov., p. 10, col. f. The best criticism of Layard's appointment from the “professional” diplomatist's point of view is that by R. B. D. Morier printed in MrsWemyss's, Sir Robert Morier, ii. 142–8.Google Scholar According to Lord Napier, Wodehouse's appointment to St. Petersburg in i856also “excited some temporary discontent.” Report, App. I, p. 414 (394).Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 2} See his letter to the King, 9 Dec. 1825, on Stuart's recommendation of Chamberlain as envoy to Brazil. Stapleton, E. J., ed. Some Official Correspondence of George Canning, i. 341–5.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 1} Parl. Deb., 3rd series, cxxxix. 670 (H. of L., 10 07, 1855).Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} At the same time Castlereagh also found secretaryships for John James and Edward Michael Ward, both previously in the army, who had married his two half-sisters.

^{page 159 note 2} On the relation of governmental and personal patronage in this respect, see the interesting letter from Canning to Liverpool, 27 Oct. 1824, in Stapleton, , Correspondence of Canning, i. 183 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 1} Parl. Deb., 3rd series, cxxv. 879 ff.Google Scholar (H. of C, 8 April, 1853) and 899 (H. of L., 11 April, 1853).

^{page 160 note 2} Cf., for example, Hammond: “Generally speaking, I think, if you make diplomacy a profession, it is rather hard to bring in strangers into the higher ranks. I am not sure that we have not gone too far in making it a profession, and that the old system of the ambassador, taken generally from political men, and carrying as attaches his friends with him, giving them no eventual claim upon the public, may not have been better for the public service than that which now exists…” Report, q. 282, p. 49 (29);Google Scholar also ibid., q. 808, p. 109 (89) (Wodehouse); q. 973, p. 124 (104), and qq. 1026–7, PP– 129–30 (109–10) (Clarendon); qq. 3130–4, p. 296 (276) (Spring Rice); and App. I, p. 414 (394) (Napier).

^{page 161 note 1} See the article by Contenson, Ludovic de, “Lamartine Secretaire de Legation” in Revue d'Histoire Diplomatique, 39^me année (1925), 231–62.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} Cf. Strachey's evidence before the Committee of 1861. Report, q. 2695, p. 256 (236).Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 1} Report, qq. 269–9, pp. 256–7 (236–7).Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 2} Ibid., p. 9 (ix).

^{page 162 note 3} The case of Charles Townshend Barnard, who was secretary of legation to Saxony for 54 years (1824–78), was exceptional, as for the last 37 years of this period Barnard resided at Coburg and Gotha as acting chargé d'affaires to Saxe–Coburg.

^{page 163 note 1} Of the 59 secretaries appointed between 1812 and 1830 34 or 58 per cent, later obtained missions and 6 embassies; of the 31 between 1831 and 1845 15 or 48 per cent, obtained missions and 7 embassies; and of the 46 between 1846 and i860 33 or 72 per cent, obtained missions and 8 embassies. The higher proportion for the years 1846–60 reflects the improvement in the system of promotion resulting from the reforms of the 'sixties and 'seventies.

^{page 163 note 2} Parl. Deb., 3rd series, cxxxviii. 919 (22 05, 1855).Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 1} G. H. Seymour and T. W. Waller were two of William IV's protégés. See his letter (as Duke of Clarence) to Canning, 17 June, 1827, recommending Seymour for promotion, in Stapleton, , Correspondence of Canning, ii. 323,Google Scholar and the story in Hertslet, , Recollections of the Old Foreign Office, 219–20, of William Smith and the Lisbon consulate.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 2} a See Melbourne's letters of 10 and 12 Sept. 1841, to the Queen in Letters of Queen Victoria 1837–1861, i. 407–9.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 3} Instances of the Queen's intervention in diplomatic appointments will be found in Letters of Queen Victoria 1837–1861, i. 414; ii. 341–3; and iii. 478 ff.;Google Scholar and in Walpole, Spencer, Life of Lord John Russell, ii. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 4} MrsWemyss, , Sir Robert Morier, i. 162–3.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 1} Derby even appointed his son Edward Stanley governmental undersecretary, although he was then abroad and did not arrive in England until nearly three months later. Malmesbury, , Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, i. 319, 334.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 2} MrsWemyss, , Sir Robert Morier, i. 124–5.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 3} Lord William Russell, brother of Lord John, received his mission from Palmerston, and his diplomatic career was ended before his brother went to the Foreign Office.

^{page 166 note 1} Douglas to Howard de Walden, private, Brussels, 17 Aug. 1827. F.O. 37/155.

^{page 166 note 2} Aberdeen to Douglas, 25 Nov. 1828. F.O. 37/159.

^{page 166 note 3} Malmesbury, , Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, i. 318.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 1} May, Erskine, Parliamentary Practice (13th edn., 1924), 43 and n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 2} Official Returns, ii. 263, 266, 293, 302, 317, 329.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 3} It appears that as early as 1813 a diplomatist en disponibilé, i.e., temporarily unemployed and in receipt of a government allowance, was not allowed to enter Parliament, Lane-Poole, , Stratford Canning, i. 188–9.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 1} For the case of R. L. Sheil in 1852, see Commons Journals, cvi. 3, 12, 94;Google ScholarParl. Deb., 3rd series, cxiv. 134–6.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 2} Thus, for example, Erskine, a Whig, gave his proxy to the Torygovernment of 1828–30 while envoy at Munich (Parl. Deb., N.S., xix. 237; xxi. 396, 696),Google Scholar but voted consistently for the government of Earl Grey. The Duke of Devonshire, when offered a special mission to Russia in 1826, stated that “his political principles and party attachments would be in no degree influenced by the acceptance of this employment,” but nevertheless withdrew his proxy from being given against the government (Stapleton, , Correspondence of Canning, ii. 22–3, 54;Google ScholarWellington Despatches, 2nd series, ii. 297–300).Google Scholar Strangford, then ambassador to Russia, gave his proxy against the government on 11 May, 1826 (Stapleton, , op. cit., ii. 54)Google Scholar and Hertford did the same in June, 1827, while engaged on a Garter mission to Russia. Canning described the latter case as “without example,” and adduced it as a reason for not acceding to the Duke of Clarence's recommendation of G. H. Seymour, who was related to Hertford, for diplomatic promotion (Stapleton, , op. cit., ii. 323–4).Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 1} Parl. Deb., 3rd series, viii. 343.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 2} Tilley, and Gaselee, , The Foreign Office, 104–5.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 3} Parl. Deb., 3rd series, xxvi. 949.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 4} Lamb did not resign the Vienna embassy during the short Tory administration of 1834–5, but was on leave of absence the whole time, while Bagot, a Tory, went to Vienna on a special mission April-May, 1835.

^{page 169 note 5} Cf. Palmerston's remark on Grey's suggestion that Durham might go to Paris in 1834: “I protested against it, saying that Durham I knew to be my enemy, and was a man whom I could not trust, and that Paris is the pivot of my foreign policy, and that I must have there a friend and a man in whom I can place confidence …” Bulwer, , Palmerston, ii. 195.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} Palmerstoa to W. Temple, 25 Nov. 1834. Ibid., ii. 214.

^{page 170 note 2} Malmesbury, , Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, ii. 196.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 1} Parl. Deb., N.S., xxv. 40 (H. of C, 7 06, 1830).Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 2} Parl. Deb., 3rd series, xxvi. 938 ff. (H. of C, 13 03, 1835).Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 3} Ibid., cxxiii. 245 (H. of C, 19 Nov. 1852).

^{page 171 note 4} Report, q. 284, p. 49 (29).Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 5} Parl. Deb., 3rd series, clxi. 1647–55 (8 03, 1861).Google Scholar