must be left to the discretion and the tact of the diplomatist?—No doubt.
'In that way would not telegrams rather require superior agents to interpret and deal with them than inferior ones?—When an instruction for immediate execution is transmitted to a distant representative abroad, it is more likely, I should think, to be couched in peremptory terms than when prepared in the form of a Despatch. A greater responsibility must, therefore, attach to any departure, however necessary, from the strict apparent intention, and an agent of inferior weight and position might well shrink from the personal hazard of incurring it.'—Report from the Select Committee on the Diplomatic Service, 1861, p. 168.
(2) Evidence of Sir A. Buchanan:
'Has the adoption of telegraphic communications much changed the nature of the relations between the Secretary of State and the foreign missions?—It reduces, to a great degree, the responsibility of the minister, for he can now ask for instructions instead of doing a thing upon his own responsibility; but at the same time it very often happens that he cannot get an answer in time, and that the instructions arrive after he has been obliged to act.
'Has the general effect of these telegraphic communications been to weaken the sense of responsibility on the part of the minister?—I do not think so.
'Do you think that the responsibility of these and other means of communication at all affects the question of the necessity of keeping up diplomatic establishments?—I think not; inasmuch as you will still require some organ on the spot to communicate verbally with the Foreign Minister.
'Do you think that, in some degree, it makes the presence of that organ, and the importance of that organ, less necessary?—I do not think so. One great use of a minister is to prevent the necessity of written communications, and to be able to communicate with foreign governments verbally.
········
'In the transaction of large and complicated affairs, is not the position of a minister made almost more difficult than it
