with the public despatches?—Certainly it is not, and it would be impossible to carry on the business between Paris and London without a great deal of private correspondence.
'I believe that it disappears from the office with the Minister?—Yes.
'But it is so managed, that what is important is embodied in a public dispatch.—Always.
'Therefore, the objection to what is called secret diplomacy you do not think holds good?—There is no secret diplomacy, properly so called.
'As to the publication of despatches, have you ever found yourself inconvenienced by the publication of your despatches?—No, I cannot say that | have.
'Do you think that it creates any difficulty as to obtaining information?—Yes; perhaps not so much in Paris, but in Germany, I think, that it must constantly interfere with our obtaining information, and with that confidence which a foreign minister would be ready to repose in an English diplomatist if he was certain that it would not be made use of publicly.
'Is there any difference made as to publishing your despatches if you state them to be confidential, or should you consider yourself ill-used if they were published in such a case?—No, everything in the form of a despatch I consider to be open to publication.'—Ibid., 232–3.
(5) Evidence of Lord John Russell (Foreign Office):
'Questions have been raised here with reference to the conduct of business by private correspondence; I presume you find that necessary as your predecessors did?—Yes, I do.
'Do you, however, agree with them in stating that there is no private correspondence carried on, of which there is not a sufficient record left in despatches in the office?—If a matter comes to be a subject of public argument, there is sure to be some record of it in the office; but, of course, there are things, I should say a number of things, upon which there is some hint or suggestion thrown out either abroad or here, and the suggéstion comes to nothing, and then it does not lead to public despatches.
