Page:Diplomacy and the Study of International Relations (1919).djvu/275

 was before?—I think not; I think that upon the whole one gains a great deal by telegrams, though they sometimes cause embarrassment; telegraphic instructions are very concise, and it may be difficult to understand them exactly; on other occasions, a minister asks for instructions, and he is obliged to act before they arrive; but, upon the whole, I think telegrams are useful.'—Ibid., 129–30.

(3) Evidence of Lord John Russell (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs):

'With respect to the effect of telegraphs, do you consider that they have diminished the necessity for diplomatic agency?—No; of course, one has to think of these matters as there has been a great change; but they rather seem to me to increase the necessity for diplomatic agency. Formerly, a Minister, such a man as Mr. Canning, considered all the contingencies of a case, and all the arguments that might be used; and he wrote a long despatch, explaining clearly all those matters, which formed an instruction to the Minister, so that the Minister was obliged to go and speak to a foreign minister; he had his brief in his hand; but now he asks a question, or instructions, in a few words; he is obliged to supply, therefore, a great deal more than a Minister abroad formerly was obliged to supply.'—Ibid., 308.

(1) Evidence of Lord Wodehouse (Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, formerly Minister, for two years, at St. Petersburg):

'I believe that in the papers which have been laid before the House, containing the opinions of different diplomatists abroad, there are one or two who refer to the publication of despatches in this country indiscriminately as rendering it difficult for them to obtain information for fear of the persons on the Continent communicating it becoming compromised; have you had any experience to that effect?—There is certainly some reluctance, on the part of foreign diplomatists,