Tr was said of Lord Palmerston and Sidney Herbert, that they were excellent types of the old and new-generation of statesmen. The one satisfied with a general direction of affairs, careful only of great questions and leaving details to his subordinates; the other, painstaking, hardworking and thorough, himself doing work which his colleague would have delegated or passed over. It may be an open question which was the better type of statesman.* Many will hold that the man who kept from worrying with details was-more likely to take a broad view of the greater questions that claimed his attention, while others admire thermore painstaking man of the newer school. However this may be, the change is fact, and the two men have been well selected as types of the old and new generation. A somewhat different but equally great change has taken place in diplomacy. The men who worked tortuously and delighted in intrigue, who regarded gallantry almost as a branch of their profession, and secrecy as its essence, are no more, Negociations are conducted more openly, and are often influenced by public criticism even as they go on. The late Belgian difficulty, for instance, was followed step by step in Parlin ment and in the public Press. The men who "used language to conceal their thoughts" have been succeeded by new school, of which Prince Bismark may be taken as an extreme type, as Talleyrand, perhaps, was of the old. It is often complained that language is becoming attenuated, and that the Practice of uttering a strong thought in firm words, is dying out; but there is at least a desire that the thought shall be outspoken, People are beginning to believe that as much may be done by frankness as by trickery; and that diplomacy need not necessarily involve mystery. As Sir Henry Rawlinson has put it:—The feeling of the age is against all secrecy, as tending to mislead and confuse; and in ordinary affairs, perhaps, it may be admitted that publicity and an appeal to the common sense of mankind are the safest guides to follow." Sir Henry, however, reserves the point as regards Asiatics. There can be no doubt, he says, "that in dealing with suspicious and half-instructed Orientals, indiscreet revelations even premature discussion may cause an infinity of mischief." And in some respects he is no doubt right. "Reserve is more necessary in a diplomatist who has to deal with Persians, than in one stationed at Berlin. But reserve is a totally different thing from silence. La Rochefoucauld defines silence as the safest course for cases where premature revelation or comment would be injurious, but. in such cases it is easily prevented. Far more generally, the plain statement of fact and opinion is a direct advantage it must strengthen the strong hand, and tends to convince the weak one of its folly.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.