The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-13 00:00:00

Earl of DUST began this by his elaborate oration
on the House of Peers. Let us draw the attention '
of his lordship, and of the public, and of the present
Administration, to another point of companion—
the diplomatic services of England and thaw of the
United States.
The expense of our diplomatic &RI esoselar
establishments, for the three years 1j150,4851, 1.852,
averaged about 328,8401. per annuli; fire!he first
of these years it was 320,9121. •, in t second
329,5921.; in the third, 328,6181. The period is too
limited to admit of &positive conclusion as to whether
this branch of the national expenditure is
perma-
nently on the increase. The different sums char
in the different years may be the result of accidental
circumstances mewing an oscillation from year
to year that does not materially affect the
average of a longer period. But it is pretty clear
that this source of national outlay is not
being diminished. If diplomatic and consular
establishments are to be regarded as means of pre-
serving amity among nations, it may be said that
the cost of our peace-preserving department of state
is managed much more economically than our war-
making departments. A sum of 330,0001. is a mere
flea-bite compared with the huge mouthfuls of mil-
lions taken out of the public revenue by the army
and navy. And yet, if it can be shown that our
English diplomatic and consular establishments are
inadequate to the purposes for which they are pro-
feseedly maintained, or that they are even in some
cases counteragents to these purposes, it will be ad-
mitted that they are dear even at the compara-
tively small amount appended to them in the
national accounts. Of the annual expenditure
for diplomatic and consular services a small
sum--amounting one year with another to about
30,0001.—is incurred for Wits and analogous extras.
The great bulk of the outlay is divided pretty
equally between the diplomatic and the consular
services. The former has, if anything, enjoyed the
larger share. Of late years, however, there has been
an apparent tendency to increase the portion allotted
to the consuls, and diminish that expended on am-
bassadors. Abstractly considered this is a very
laudable tondeecy, but the exact degree of praise
due to it can only be ascertained after a narrow
scrutiny of the actual character and composition of
both services.

The utility, the necessity of consuls in all foreign
countries with which wo have commercial or other
relations is unquestionable. Their functions are
clearly defined, and the services they render (or
ought to render) obviously useful. The duties of
diplomatists are of a more vague character, and their
value not so easily appreciable. Scarcely a day passes
in which the assistance of a consul is not required
by some Englishmen at Hamburg, Marseilles,
and other great marts of commerce. Even at less
important stations it can never with safety be assumed
that a week or a month will pass over without some
need for his assistance emerging. With ambassadors,
chargé. creative, et hoc genus oinue,—on the contrary,
long intervals elapse during which they are absolutely
useless. At least it is impossible upon any other
assumption to account for the long and frequent
leaves of absence obtained by these functionaries.
But though consuls are unquestionably of more per-
manent and unequivocal use than diplomatists, they
may, by the mode of selecting them, and other
causes, be lowered to their level. For this
reason we reserve our judgment on the cost of our
consular establishment until we shall have leisure
to examine a little more narrowly into the minutia
of its actual composition. Our business at present is
with an annual diplomatic expenditure—amounting
in 1850 to 160,8831.; in 1841 to 159,2851.; and in
18.52 to 152,7981.

These sums may not per se seem very exorbitant.
But the question remains—does the country get its
money's worth in return for them ? Nay, some go
so far as to ask whether the services rendered for this
money are not in many instances absolutely detri-
mental to the country ? The first question admits of
an easy answer. Let us take, for example, the Earl
of WESTMORELAND. About the same time that the
Free Kirk missionaries to the Jews at Pesth were
expelled from Hungary, an American clergyman,
travelling in that country, was arrested by the Aus-
trian authorities. His arrest was kept secret, but
somehow or other rumour of it reached the ears of
the gentleman (a loyal Austrian subject) who sits as
American consul at Vienna. Mr. M.CtraDY, the
American minister, chanced to be absent at the time,
and a remonstrance was addressed to Prince Selman-

Wine by the assel. The moment Mr. WCURDY
returned, he tookup the question vigorously, although
he had received (and could receive) no oommtinication
from his countryman. He gave the Austrian
government no rest until the Rev. Mr. Banco was
tried, acquitted, and set at liberty. And when the
Austrian police, on two subsequent occasions, at-
tempted to lay hold of Mr. BRACE, Mr. M'Cusiov
immediately interfered, obtained his liberation on the
first, and was only prevented from being equally
successful on the second by Mr. BRACE'S having
permanently quitted the country. Let us now com-
pare (or contrast) the conduct of Lord WESTMORE-
LAND with that of Mr. WCURDIr.
Lord

was at Vienna when the
the Free Kirk Missionaries was
rinelbitie was not left in ignorance of
t, a gentleman of high character and
inflows proceeded immediately from the
some of action to inform him of what had taken
But Lord WESTMORELAND declined to inter-
and the reason assigned for his non-interfe-
reuse was that the missionaries had not forwarded to
him a written statement of their case. The American
Minister did not wait to be applied to by his country-
man; he moved energetically (and successfully) rn
his behalf the moment he received a tint vague inti-
mation from other sources that wrong had been done
to him. The British Minister, although fully in-
formed of the injustice done to his country-
men by their highly respectable agent, re-
fused to give himself any trouble in the
matter, because it was not brought under
his notice in the exact mode he had chosen to
prescribe, but had never before that moment inti-
mated to the public. And in his correspondence on
the subject with the British Government, Lord
WESTMORELAND took upon him to be the advocate
and apologist of the Austrian authorities, repeating,
without examination, their false statements regarding
the missionaries.

Persons unacquainted with the facts might, per-
haps, imagine that the American Minister had a
better case than was submitted to the English
Minister. On the contrary, if there be any
difference, it is in favour of the English-
men. In both eases the charges of the
Austrian authorities were frivolous and false.

But the American had entered Hungary after civil
war began ; he had penetrated into districts seldom
visited, and thus escaped at times (without seeking
to do so) even from the prying eyes of the police. In
the circumstances of the time, in his erratic move-
ments there was some faint semblance of an excuse
for suspicion. But the Fine Kirk Missionaries were
residing where they had resided for years. They bad
settled there not only with the permission but with
the erpress approbation and encouragement of the
government. It is now established that they had
complied rigorously with all the conditions exacted
from them. Their case was much more simple, and
much more easy to defend, than that of the Ame-
rican.
It is clear, then, that in this one cue Lord WEST-
MORELAND has served his country and his country-
men less efficiently than the American Minister, at
the same court, has served his under greater difficul-
ties. Mr. M'CURDT did his duty in a manly and in-
telligent manner, yet he did no more than kis duty.
Lord Wasmonatax phis, therefore, done leak and un-
fortunately this is not an isolated case of neglect on
his part. a MEW of Mr. PRIDRAM and Mr. NEWTON
have been made public, but there are others equall y
flagrant to which general attention has not yet been
drawn. Andin all theceaes that have attained to public
notoriety, it is palpable that the Ambassador's
contemptuous neglect of his countrymen and qco-
pliancy to the Austrian Government is the pervading
sentiment of his whole bureau ; that the English
embassy at Vienna is an anti-English establishment.

In this the English embassy at Vienna is not
Dre. It is the same at Berlin ;it is the same at
sden; until very lately it was the same at
Florence, and is still there in the lower official
The mass of our English diplomatists resifereeeli
foreign courts are still affected with the stale, sour,
leaven of absolutism and legitimacy. They draw
their pensions, and endeavour to make themselves
as comfortable as they can. They conform
to the prejudices of the courts to which they are