The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-04 00:00:00

The Hudson Correspondence.

On September the 10th, that is, about three

week after the whole affair had been discussed in
the English papers—Earl Russell addressed Sir
James Hudson, informing him, amidst many com-
pliments, that he had, "at Sir James's own desire,"
sent him his letter of recall, Sir James's letter to
that effect, it will be perceived, not being published
at all. On October 4th the removed Minister in-
forms the Foreign Secretary that he had taken leave
of the King, that his Majesty had asked him why
he was going, and that he had explained how "he
felt himself bound by an engagement with Esrl
Russell to do so." In other words, Sir James told
his lordship with diplomatic discretion but unmis-
takeable distirctness, that the story about the recall
being " at his own desire" had only an apparent
foundation. His correspondent did Doc like this, so
six days after his lordship writes to Mr. Elliot,
ordering him to explain to the King that there was
no engagement. " I made no engagement with Sir
James Hudson, and never expected that he would
resign till it should suit his own convenience to do
so. When, therefore, in the spring of this year he
intimated to me his intention to resign his post, I
concluded that, after more than thirty years of pub-
lic service, he wished to retire from an anxious and
laborious post. I never supposed that Sir James
Hudson was bound to me by any engagement, nor
till very recently did I imagine that he conceived
himself to be so bound. Upon the face of this para-
graph, either Earl Russell or Sir James Hudson
would seem either to have invented, or to have mis-
understood the real reason for the resigna-
tion or recall, and the balance of evidence
is, on the whole, with Sir James. For,
if no engagement bound him to resign, why
did be do it when be did not wish, and that he did
not wish is now admitted by Earl Russell himself ?
But by a little reading between the lines, it is pos-
sible to reconcile the official statements without
examining who either blundered or fibbed.
An engagement pre-supposes two persons,
sod only one did anything in the matter.
Earl Russell allows that in March, 1862, he did try
to kick Sir James upstairs, by offering an embassy
to a man who he knew well enough would not take
it. This offer was the last of more than one offer
directly or indirectly conveyed, and Sir James in
just annoyance wrote, as Lord Russell says, stating
that he wished to remain in Turin until, at all
events, his pension was due. This was not an
e engagement," for the Foreign Office did not reply,
and could not have held Sir James to it if he had
chosen to hold on ; but it was a promise, only to be
broken at the request of him to whom it was made,
and as such we do not doubt it was regarded.
Otherwise it is just a little odd that Mr. Elliot
should have been so pleasantly ready to drop into the
vacant post; and that Lord Russell valuing Sir
James so highly should have made him no request
to stay ; and that Sir James, a clear-brained man
of the world, should have such a bitter sense of the
eagerness with which his honourable adherence to
the tacit understanding was at once seized upon for
recall. Ministers every month ask men to recon-
sider their resignations, and as for the excuse of
"lona service'' and " arduous toil," the Foreign
office knows quite well whether its men are healthy
or not. The service knows more about its own
members than any caste in the kingdom, more even
than the bar, and we will be bound that Earl
Russell could have discovered among his own staff
men who knew the minutest tittle tattle about the
diplomatic family at Turin. The truth is, the post
was wanted, and as the Foreign Office could not
turn Sir James out, they made him put himself out,
as Indian thieves do, by tickling him till he rolled
oat of bed.
If the Foreign Secretary thinks the retirement
was voluntary, his course is sufficiently clear. Let
him offer the Minister his Post, with the grade
that the post deserves, that of full Ambassador.
‘Vhen that has been done, and the offer rejected,
the public will believe that Earl Russell is in the
right. Till then, it will, in spite of " all the
papers," continue to think that had Turin been a
deadly climate there would have been no vacancy.
—Spectator.