which you regarded as of a private nature, having been laid before Parliament?—No; I do not remember any instance respecting myself; but I must say that I hold it to be a most unfair thing, and one of which I should have thought m yself entitled to complain, if any letter of mine marked "private", and written in the usual form of private personal correspondence, had been laid before the public without my express consent. I have always understood that private letters of this kind are as correspondence between individuals, although relating to public subjects.
'When you have headed a Despatch "Private and Confidential", have you thereby intended that that Despatch should not go beyond the Secretary of State himself?—Letters marked "Private and Confidential", written in regular form on large paper, are usually considered as part of the public correspondence, subject, as to publicity, to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
'You draw, then, a clear distinction between Despatches you must consider of a reserved character, and the private correspondence between individuals?—Decidedly; it was to the latter class of private correspondence that my remarks were addressed; but I submit that the public in fairness has nothing to do with them. The Foreign Office might be moved by Parliament to put an end to such correspondence; but that is a different point; as long as there is no intervention of the kind, I consider the correspondence in question as being between two individuals, and, in honour, not to be communicated beyond the writer's intention.'—Ibid., 167–8.
(4) Evidence of Lord Cowley:
'You have held the post of Ambassador at Paris under several different English Ministers of different complexions, and you have carried on, I believe, a great deal of your business by private correspondence with all of them?—A great deal.
'Have you found any difficulties arise from a change of Ministry, in consequence of losing the thread of the private correspondence?—No, certainly not.
'Are you prepared to state that the mode of communication by private correspondence is not contrary to or inconsistent
