No. 170.
Mr. Welsh to Mr. Evarts .

No. 46.]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose a report prepared by Mr. E. S. Nadal, second secretary of this legation, upon the British diplomatic service, which appears to me to be clear and comprehensive, and which I beg to commend to the favorable notice of the Department of State.

I have, &c.,

JOHN WELSH.
[Inclosure in No. 46.]

Report on the British diplomatic service.

In the year 1870 a committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the constitution of the diplomatic and consular services of Great Britain. The committee was reappointed in 1871. They received a great deal of testimony; that which concerned the diplomatic service was published in two large reports. The committee, after they had completed their inquiries, recommended that certain changes be made in the conduct of the diplomatic service. No act of Parliament was passed to force these changes upon the secretary of state for foreign affairs; but several of the recommendations of the committee were approved by him. Accordingly he issued a revised table of regulations, which went into effect in January, 1873. The degree to which these new regulations have been enforced, and any changes in the character of the British diplomatic service which may have taken place since their announcement, it has been easy for me to learn in conversation with several English diplomatists and members of the foreign office.

The nomination of persons to enter the diplomatic service is made by the secretary of state for foreign affairs. It is thought that the choice should be made by him solely, in order that the responsibility for the character of his appointments may be wholly his. The only regulation which restricts his liberty of choice, is that he may not nominate any one who shall not have completed the twentieth year of his age, or shall have exceeded the twenty-sixth. But there are two other restrictions, which, though not mentioned in any regulation, are perfectly understood.

It is necessary that persons entering the diplomatic profession should have a fortune. It was said, by all those gentlemen who were asked by the committee as to the amount of fortune needed by a diplomatist, that no person should enter the British diplomatic service who could not count upon a private income of £400 or £500 a year. Sir Andrew Buchanan, at that time ambassador to St. Petersburg, said, “I have two or three sons myself, and I have not put one of them into diplomacy; I cannot afford it.” In the diplomatic services of several of the countries of Europe, it is expressly required that candidates for admission to them must have a specified income. In France this income is $1,200, and in Italy $1,600. In the English service the possession of no fixed income is required.

The second practical limitation upon the choice of the secretary, is, that the candidates selected must be from a certain class of society. To this subject I shall refer again. I should say, however, that it is not necessary that the candidate should be connected with the aristocracy of the country. In the foreign-office list one finds, besides certain great family names, the names of families which have been lately ennobled for public services, the names of families which have been long connected, mostly in rather subordinate capacities, with various departments of the government, [Page 252] the names of great merchants, of eminent physicians, of successful solicitors and attorneys. By a computation made at the foreign office, it was found that, out of the one hundred and twenty persons composing the British diplomatic service, there were fifty connected with noble families to seventy who were not so connected.

The person nominated by the secretary of state is required to present himself within three months from the date of his nomination for examination. He is examined in orthography, handwriting, and précis writing; he must be well grounded in Latin grammar, and able to construe some Latin author; he must be well acquainted with the first four rules of arithmetic, and with decimal fractions, and must have a knowledge of geography; he must be able to talk and write French, must possess a general knowledge of English constitutional history, of the political history of Europe, and of the United States from 1815, to 1860, and of political economy. It is also required that he shall show general intelligence and quickness; though, as the examination is not competitive, I should not think this provision important. Candidates who have taken a degree in one of the universities of the United Kingdom are exempted from examination, except in handwriting, précis, and French. The examination is held before the civil-service commissioners.

During the six months following his admission, the attaché is required to serve in the foreign office. This period is included in the probationary two years of unpaid service which he is required to pass before becoming a third secretary of legation. The period of unpaid service was, before 1873, four years. Before 1861 it often happened that a man spent twelve or fourteen years as an unpaid attaché. These years, moreover, did not “count” toward his pension. The two years of unpaid service at present required of the attaché do “count” toward his pension. Different opinions were given by distinguished English diplomatists as to the question of the value of unpaid service. Lord Clarendon thought that unpaid service was never so good as paid service. He thought that the man who received £100 for his work did it better than he who received nothing. But the others were generally of the opinion that the attachés did their work extremely well. It was thought, how ever, that the government had done well in shortening the period of unpaid service. But Sir Henry Bulwer regretted that a certain class of unpaid attachés were no longer employed. He referred to those young men of fortune formerly attached to embassies and legations, who did not expect to remain in the service, but who were willing to do a certain amount of work in exchange for the opportunities of observation and enjoyment which a diplomatic appointment gives. Sir Henry Bulwer regretted that these men were no longer employed, because their retirement after a few years made room for those who intended to remain in the profession, but chiefly from the fact that they usually owed their appointment to the ambassador or minister with whom they served, and were therefore very desirous to please him. He thought that since the chief had ceased to be consulted in the selection of his staff, the secretary or attaché was apt to think that so long as the foreign office was pleased, it made little difference whether the chief was pleased or not.

The fact that in general the chief had no longer any authority in the selection of his staff was to be regretted. He said that Lord Lyons was the only British diplomatist who had been allowed to choose his own staff. One other diplomatist told the committee that there was among secretaries a want of disposition to please the heads of missions. But from the drift of the testimony given by ambassadors and ministers, it was plain that they did not think this. It is true that the heads of missions are, by the new regulations, required to make a report annually upon the manner in which each junior secretary and attaché has performed his duty during the year. Whether this regulation was intended to give the chief a guarantee for the good behavior of the subordinate I am not certain, but several of the heads of missions to whom it was suggested that such reports should be made said that they were not necessary, and that they would be harmful. The intention of the regulation is no doubt in part to compel the chief to communicate to the secretary of state the conduct of young men who are not doing credit to the country, or whose example is a source of danger to their associates. It is in part, also, that the secretary may be informed as to the men whom it is desirable to promote. These communications are strictly private, and as a rule are not placed among the archives.

After a period of two years unpaid service, the attaché becomes a third secretary of legation. In order to become a third secretary, it is only necessary that he shall obtain a certificate from the minister with whom he has last served that he is able to understand and speak French and one other language. On his appointment to the grade of third secretary he receives a salary of £150 a year. If he is able to pass an examination in public law, he is entitled to receive besides his salary £100 a year. There is no fixed period for service in the grade of third secretary, nor, indeed, for service in any grade except that of attaché. The minimum salary of a second secretary is £300 a year, which increases by £15 a year till it reaches a maximum of £450 a year. Any secretary or attaché may get £100 a year, besides any salary he may be receiving, by obtaining from the minister or ambassador with whom he is [Page 253] employed a certificate that he possesses a competent colloquial or other knowledge for ordinary purposes of the Russian, Turkish, Persian. Japanese, or Chinese language, while serving in any country where such language is the common one.

The minimum salary of a secretary of legation or embassy, is fixed at £500 a year. The highest salary paid to a secretary of legation, higher than that of any secretary of embassy, is £1,200, which is paid to the secretary of legation in Persia. The secretaries of legation in China and Japan get each £800. The minimum salary of £500 is given to the secretaries of legation in Greece and the Argentine Republic. The highest salary of a secretary of embassy is £900, which is received by the secretaries at St. Petersburg and Constantinople; the secretary of embassy at Rome receives the lowest, which is £800.

It is not expected that the secretary of embassy or legation shall work in the office of the mission. He may, and often does, come into the chancellerie and work with the rest, but he is not obliged to do this. His business appears to be mainly to wait, in order to take the place of the chief during his absence or illness. He is, indeed, required once a year to prepare a report upon some subject connected with the politics or commerce of the country in which he is residing. His exemption from the duty of working in the chancellerie was defended by some who testified before the committee, and condemned by others. Some said that such work as copying should not be expected from a secretary of legation, to which Mr. Christie, formerly minister to Brazil, replied that there was always a great deal of work in a legation which a secretary might take off the hands of the chief and which it would be perfectly becoming for him to do. That the exemption existed at all was denied or very nearly denied by Mr. Robert Lytton, who did not understand what was meant by gentlemen who said that the secretary of legation did no work in the chancellerie. But from the nature of the evidence given before the committee, and from what I have heard British diplomatists say, I am sure that to a certain degree the exemption exists. I suppose custom to be the chief reason for it. It is not confined to the English service, but seems to be a general tradition of the diplomatic profession in Europe.

The salaries of the heads of the British missions vary from £750 received by the chargé d’affaires at Saxe-Coburg to £10,000 received by the ambassador at Paris. The lowest salary of a minister resident, £1,200, is received by the minister to Hayti. The ministers resident to Central America, Chili, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, receive £2,000. The lowest salary of an envoy is that of the ministers to Sweden and the Argentine Republic, £3,000. The highest, £6,000, is paid to the envoys in China and the United States. The lowest salary of an ambassador is £7,000, which is paid to the representatives in Italy and Germany.* An ambassador retires upon a pension of £1,700, but must have served three years in this capacity before he is entitled to receive this sum; an envoy of the first class receives a pension of £1,300, but must have served five years in this capacity; a minister resident or chargé receives £900, but must have served five years. A secretary of legation who may have served ten years abroad is entitled, after fifteen years from the date of his first commission have elapsed, to retire upon a pension. But of course the retirement of a secretary of legation occurs extremely rarely.

It is required by law that each retiring diplomatist, indeed that each retiring civil officer, shall make a declaration that the amount of his income from other sources is so limited as to bring him within the meaning of the pension act. I am assured, however, that the retiring diplomatist often receives his pension without having made this declaration. A gentleman recently retired from the diplomatic service, being entitled to a pension of about £200; he had come into a fortune of £20,000 a year, but continues to draw his pension.

Before 1869 the sums of money to defray the expenses of the diplomatic service were taken from the consolidated fund; since that time they have been annually voted by Parliament. The grant for the year ending March 31, 1877, was £250,013; the actual expenditure was £246,273 4s. 1d. In accordance with the law applying to all departments of the government, that the net surplus of the grant over the expenditures shall be surrendered to the treasury, £3,739 15s. 11d. was returned. In the grant specified sums are set apart for each of a number of heads, such as wages, telegrams, postage, outfits, &c. The sum granted by Parliament for “the relief of distressed British subjects” was £100; that expended was £48 16s. 3d. This grant of £100 was to be divided among distressed British subjects throughout the world.

Promotion in the service is almost entirely by seniority. In the new regulations it is announced that the secretary of state will not be restricted by claims founded on seniority or membership of the profession from making any such selections as he may think right to make. But any departure from the rule of seniority is, in the usual course of the profession, rare. When a vacancy occurs the person next in point of [Page 254] length of service expects to he promoted, and would think himself injured, indeed insulted, if a rule so generally followed should he departed from in the one instance in which he was concerned. So that the system of seniority, tempered by selection, which would appear to be the ideal one, exists rather upon paper than in practice.

Mr. Mitford, secretary of legation in Japan, said in his evidence before the committee: “There is no encouragement whatever to a man to do his work well, simply because he sees his neighbor, who is shirking his work and shuffling, go up, as he himself might do, knowing at the same time that he is working hard in the interests of his country.” In the instances in which the system of promotion by seniority is departed from, it is said by some that it is the principle of promotion by favoritism rather than selection which takes the place of it. When a vacancy occurs in a first secretaryship of embassy, a secretary of legation is, of course, promoted to it, but I have heard men complain that it is not he who has proved himself the ablest who is promoted, nor always he who has served longest, but he who has many friends in Parliament or who is connected with a great family. One gentleman told me that it was on account of his want of these qualifications that, after twenty-five years of service, he was still a second secretary. I should add, however, that this gentleman has been retired by his government on a pension of £500 a year, which is more than he was receiving at the time of his retirement. I believe that one way, perhaps the only way, to get on rapidly in the service is to accept disagreeable appointments. A post at Pekin becomes vacant; it is offered to the man who is next in point of length of service; if he declines it, it is offered to the next and the next; and he who finally goes to Pekin jumps over the heads of those who have refused to go.

The secretary of state announces that he holds himself at liberty to commend to the Queen for any of the higher diplomatic posts the names of persons who have not been connected with the diplomatic profession. But this is seldom, I may say never, done. Some consuls, as in Japan and China, have been made ministers. Mr. Layard, now ambassador to Turkey, was appointed as minister to Spain in 1869, he having at that time no connection with the diplomatic service. But Mr. Layard had been under secretary of state for foreign affairs and began life as an attaché in Constantinople. I may say, therefore, that not a single appointment to a high diplomatic position has been made of late years from without the service. No person so appointed now occupies such a post.

Yet the committee were strongly of the opinion that some appointments to responsible posts should be made from without. It was thought, for instance, that some man not connected with diplomacy might have shown qualities and won a reputation which would make it for the public advantage to send him to Washington. In general it was considered that a profession so closely constituted at its commencement should be open in its higher ranks. The secretary of state must appoint to the lowest steps of the career only the sons of rich men, and the sons of those who have a certain position in society. The question of the position in society of persons appointed to the profession was discussed before the committee. It was felt to be an invidious one, and as little as possible was said of it, but all the persons examined were of the opinion that a diplomatist should be able to take easily a good position in the society of a foreign capital, and that he would not be likely to be able to do this unless he had held a good position in his own country. They thought that should a man of different origin, although himself of good appearance, character, and abilities, be appointed to the service, the society of the place to which he was sent would be sure to learn all about him and would be likely to avoid him. Besides the money and class limitations, there is the limit of age, which was regretted by one gentlemen, as depriving the public of the services of men who, still young, may yet have had opportunities to show peculiar aptitudes for diplomatic business. Was it reasonable that the interests of England abroad should be entirely in the hands of men whom a secretary of state, hampered by such limitations, had selected forty years earlier?

That the diplomatic profession should look upon the appointment of outsiders as a hardship to themselves is to be expected, for promotion in the career is at best extremely slow. It is true that the block in the service caused by the abolition of missions after 1866 has been nearly worked off. And certainly there is less complaint of slowness of promotion now than when the report of the committee was made. It was then said that, owing to the lessening attractions of diplomacy, there was less disposition to enter the service than formerly, and that other departments of the civil service were preferred to it. It was said that a number of men, tired of waiting for advancement, had left the service to enter various commercial and international undertakings in which their knowledge of languages and of many countries commanded a high price. I am told, however, that the present state of things is precisely contrary to this. There is now a pressure to get into the diplomatic service, and Lord Derby has lately said that he will be unable for some time to come to entertain more applications for admission. British diplomatists still object to take their turn in South America, but nobody is leaving the service. This is, of course, to be ascribed in part to the changes in the business aspect of the world which have taken place since 1871, [Page 255] changes which dispose men to look with favor upon the established places of society, and to be content with moderate rewards.

The practical changes in the constitution of the diplomatic service, resulting from the investigations of the committee, appear to have been few and slight. The suggestion that the rank of diplomatic agents in South America should be raised from that of chargé d’affaires to that of minister resident, without an increase of pay, was accepted and put in force; so, also, were the suggestions that the pay of attachés should begin two years earlier; that the heads of missions should be permitted to accumulate two years’ leave of absence in one. But recommendations which looked to any real modification of the constitution of the service have not been accepted, or, if accepted, have not been enforced. The regulations that the period of duration of service at one post should be limited; that exchanges between diplomatists and foreign-office clerks should be compulsory; that appointments should be made to responsible posts from without the service, have not been put in practice. The regulation that the duration of appointments of heads of missions at one place shall not exceed five years, and that heads of missions who have been five years at one place may only remain by reappointment, has not been put in force till within a month. The occasion of this was a desire to get rid of one diplomatic agent. In order to do this, all heads of missions who had been five years at their posts were reappointed, the reappointment being withheld in the case of this individual.

Among the new regulations is one concerning the interchange of employment between second and third secretaries of legation and clerks in the foreign office. A more extensive system of interchange between the diplomatic service and the foreign office was advised by all those who appeared before the committee. It was urged that a diplomat would learn much by a service in the foreign office, for in no embassy or legation could there be the same variety of practice, the same drill and discipline, as in the foreign office. On the other hand, it would be of advantage to the head of a bureau to have served abroad, for he would thus know, by actual contact, subjects which he could otherwise know only by correspondence or by books. The heads of departments at the foreign office are the natural critics of the work of the diplomatists; they would be able to judge it better if they had served in missions and had themselves done work of the same kind. It has long been the custom for exchanges to be made between the foreign office and the diplomatic service, but by the new regulations the secretary of state is able to compel such exchanges. But, in fact, no compulsory exchanges are made. Diplomatists are usually glad to exchange with foreign office clerks; the reluctance to exchange is on the part of the clerks. The clerks have their ties in London, and have “got into a groove.” An exchange, beside, would generally be to their pecuniary disadvantage. A small income, together with his pay, might enable the clerk to live very well in London, but would be insufficient in St. Petersburg. Or, he may, as many do, live at home, in which case, of course, a transfer to a distant place would greatly increase his expenses. For married men, these removals would be especially inconvenient. Still, exchanges often take place; a first-class junior clerk and a second secretary of legation exchange titles; and a second or third class junior clerk and a third secretary of legation exchange titles. Commissions as acting secretaries of legation are made out for the clerks who are transferred to missions. The secretary of state may also direct that a clerk may serve abroad or a secretary of legation at home without an exchange. Both to those who exchange and to those appointed at home or abroad, without exchanging, the secretary assigns such pay as he thinks just and proper.

A considerable part of the testimony of the diplomatists before the committee took the form of an apology for the existence of their profession. The committee were not so rude as to ask the diplomatists if they were really useful, but it was evident that the question was in their minds. This was plainly the motive of the many questions asked as to the reasons of the success of America in diplomatic business; if a country without an organized diplomatic service was able to get what it wished, what was the advantage of having a service? The British diplomatists thought that while the foreign affairs of America had no doubt been in the hands of very able men, still the country owed its diplomatic victories to certain accidental advantages of its own even more than to the abilities of its representatives. They had in mind such accidents in our favor as the popularity and moral influence of the country throughout the world, and that independent position which enables it to approach every matter of business with a boldness resulting from the consciousness that whatever happens nothing can harm it. It was intimated that our diplomacy was a little “reckless.” A British diplomatist of great eminence said to the committee that one cause of American success in diplomatic negotiations was that an American diplomat was able to assume a bolder tone than a diplomat of any other country; he was able to do this because he knew that he would be supported by the government and by the public sentiment of his country in assuming a bold tone. He said that had it been Americans instead of English who were murdered by Greek brigands in 1870, “more satisfactory redress” [Page 256] would have been obtained from Greece by the American Government than had been obtained by the English Government.

Mr. (now Lord) Odo Russell said that he considered diplomacy to be “a profession in its infancy.” This opinion seems an interesting and almost novel one, contradicting as it does the vague though general notion existing in America, and even in Europe, that diplomacy is an institution created by and suited to the times which have passed or are passing away, remaining among us mainly by the power of custom, and at variance with reason and with the democratic directions of society. Yet the remark, taken literally, was nearly a truism; for it is only of late years that diplomacy has become a profession. Years ago the English Government sent upon foreign missions eminent politicians and men of high rank, who, as a rule, had not passed their lives in diplomatic employment. These diplomatists returned when the governments which appointed them retired from office. It was only after order had been introduced into the entire civil service of Great Britain that diplomacy became a profession. It is curious to see that Mr. Otway, parliamentary under-secretary of state with Lord Clarendon, believed that it was still the better way that an incoming government should be represented by ambassadors of its own appointment. But Mr. Otway was singular in this opinion. It was thought generally that a diplomatist who had served well under one government should be able to serve well under another government of an opposite party. Some said that in case a diplomatist were a peer, he might feel it his duty to oppose in Parliament the government he was serving. But it was answered that, as a usual thing, a diplomatist who was a peer would not embarrass a government which employed him, by undue opposition.

Several of the diplomatists while not going to the length of Mr. Odo Russell, in holding that the British diplomatic body, if organized like the Jesuits, or the Prussian army, upon the principle of selection, would become a “body of men who would insure the peace of the world,” strenuously denied that the business of diplomacy had been supplanted or rendered useless by any of the peculiarities of recent society, by the newspapers, for instance, or by the invention of the telegraph. If the newspapers got hold of news it was because the officers of government gave it to their agents; besides, the newspapers often spread false and harmful news which it was the business of the diplomatists to contradict. It was said by one gentleman that so far from the truth was it that the use of the telegraph made it no longer necessary that diplomatists should be able men, the contrary was true; the use of the telegraph in diplomatic negotiations made it necessary that the diplomat should have abilities which were not formerly required of him; to present correctly within the compass of a telegram or cablegram a political situation or the state of a negotiation, was a feat of the mind, an intellectual tour de force of a high order. In general it may be said that the telegraph even when best used is a deceptive invention. To be within, an hour’s communication of any place makes upon the mind a strong impression of contiguity; but when we attempt to traverse the intervening distance we discover that oceans are not less wide, and the customs and ideas of other countries scarcely less strange, than before the telegraph was invented. The impossibility of any one person being in more than one country at a time no doubt constitutes the real necessity of the diplomatic profession. No matter how complete may be a statesman’s means of communication with distant parts of the world, he can never comprehend a public sentiment or a political situation existing in another country as well as if he were living in that country. So true is it that to understand a country completely it is necessary to live in it; the English diplomatists testified that they soon forgot their own country when away from it. No matter how faithfully they read the newspapers, things in England became dim and indistinct to them. This was said by the diplomatists by way of urging the utility of permitting them long vacations in which to visit their country. Before 1871 the head of a mission was not permitted to be absent more than two months in one year. He was not permitted, as were secretaries and attachés, to accumulate two years’ leave of absence. At best he could only take the last two months of one year and the first two of the next. Heads of missions may now accumulate two years’ leave of absence.

I may here say that a complaint was made before the committee of a tendency on the part of the foreign office to take business entirely into its own hands, and to deprive the diplomatists of that agency and responsibility which they once possessed.

I have said there was a disposition on the part of the committee to ask some radical questions of the diplomatists. The years in which this committee sat, 1870 and 1871, were years in which the sentiment of change and progress was very active in England. There was an impression abroad in society that a future was approaching, in which, as was said by one of the liberal leaders, “No institution could stand which was not able to supply a reason for its existence.” It was intimated that the diplomatic profession had a more dignified position, lived in larger houses and at more expense, and, in general, assumed a greater consequence than the services they rendered justified. What was the use of the houses, the dinners, and the parties? What, indeed, was the use of diplomacy? These were the questions which were hinted by members of the committee and asked by a large part of the public. It is quite possible that in this disposition [Page 257] of mind toward the diplomatists there was something of democratic jealousy and self-conceit; and the diplomatists might in their turn have asked whether, in this reasonable future, men might not be able to acknowledge the utility of social expenditure from which they derived no personal benefit. I believe, however, that a jealousy of the diplomatists exists in all countries in governing which the people have a considerable part. I am told by the Greek chargé d’affaires here that in the boule, or chamber, of his country no part of the budget provokes such debate and criticism as that which “relates to the diplomatic expenses.

From various parts of the conversation in the committee, and from the general drift of the testimony, I am able to gather the following answer of the diplomatic profession to the questions of the committee and the public: That diplomacy is engaged for the most part in the obscure and usually thankless task of preventing mischief; that the position of privilege and distinction which the diplomatist finds prepared for him has great advantages; that it would be foolish to throw away these advantages, and especially foolish to throw them away when they were retained by other representatives with whom he would have to contend; that a diplomatic representative should mix in society, and should be, by his position at home and his social education, fit for it; that he should be given a position of independence in it, and a sufficient income to do his part; that it is difficult to compute, weigh, or measure the advantage to any country from having its representative to appear with dignity before another country, but that it is possible that such advantage may not be dear at five or even ten thousand pounds; but that in whatever manner the representative of one country in another may live, and by whatever name he may be known, no changes which may take place hereafter in the constitution of the world can destroy his utility, because it is inevitable that he shall understand the country better, shall know better its public men, its political situations, its national sentiment, and its relation toward any negotiation, than these things can be known by individuals who do not live in that country.

E. S. NADAL.

  1. At Constantinople, Vienna, Paris, and Washington the mission houses are owned by the government; at some of the other missions an allowance is made for rent. Secretaries of embassy receive an allowance for rent.