Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: CHAPTER VIII THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL FROM THE FOREIGN OFFICE In the year 1851 the dispute occurred between Lord Russell and Lord Palmerston, which led to the Foreign Office being given to Lord Granville. It had always been Lord Palmer- ston's custom in his negotiations not only to use the weapons of the arguments of official despatches, but also to employ very largely private correspondence, and semi-official or personal representation of the case he desired to enforce. He used to say that such a method of procedure was often necessary to the smooth working of affairs. ' You may as from yourself, ' he would write to an ambassador, 'say to the King, or to the minister, that it will be to his interest to act in such and such a way.' Of these communications to British representatives abroad there was, of course, no trace left in any official correspondence. The official despatch sent with the concurrence of the Cabinet would perhaps follow the same general argument or even use the same phrases; but often the private letter, or the inculcation of a particular tone on our plenipotentiary in dealing with the ministers of a foreign Power, was not in strict accordance with what would appear publicly in the Blue Book submitted to Parliament. It was essential, Lord Palmerston said, that a Foreign Minister should be allowed to work in this way. But some of Lord Palmerston's colleagues were veryjealous of such exercise of influence. The reasons given against anything being sent except the letters known to the Cabinet were briefly that ' a man must either write, when Foreign Secretary, letters for which in that capacity he is prepared to be publicly answerable, or if he writes as a private person he must not ask the British Minister, if the British Minister at a foreign capital be his co..