Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:44:04.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Foreign Office Reforms, 1919–21

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Zara Steiner  and
M. L. Dockrill
Zara Steiner
Affiliation:
New Hall, Cambridge
M. L. Dockrill
Affiliation:
King's College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Little has been written about the Foreign Office reforms of 1919. Contemporaries hoped that war-time experiences would lead to a massive overhaul of the whole diplomatic machine. Radical critics, in particular, were vehement in their insistence that the diplomatic and foreign-policy-making process and the diplomatic services should be subjected to ‘democratic’ oversight and control. Even the less radical reformers believed that the transition from war to peace would provide the opportunity for modernizing and rationalizing the existing administrative system. Yet the changes introduced in the years of peace proved to be less decisive than any of these men intended. The difficulty arose from the sheer number of problems to be solved, a confusion of aims among those responsible for reform, financial considerations and a sharp diminution in public interest and pressure after 1919.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1974 , pp. 131 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For information see Craig, Gordon and Gilbert, Felix, The Diplomats (Princeton, 1953), pp. 18–25;Google ScholarThe Records of the Foreign Office, 1782–1939 (London, 1969), pp. 9, 22–3, 27, 67;Google ScholarTilley, John and Gaselee, Stephen, The Foreign Office (London, 1933), p. 71;Google ScholarStrang, Lord, The Foreign Office (London, 1955);Google ScholarCambridge History of British Foreign Policy (3 vols., Cambridge, 1923), III, pp. 620–30;Google ScholarBishop, D., The Administration of British Foreign Relations (Syracuse, 1961), passim;Google ScholarBritish Year Book of International Law (1920–1921), pp. 97–108.Google Scholar For a recent article, see C. Larner, ‘The Amalgamation of the Diplomatic Service with the Foreign Office’, which has appeared in the Journal of Contemporary History. We are grateful to Mrs Larner for permitting us to see an advance copy of her article.

F.O. 366/788.

3 Swartz, M., The Union of Democratic Control in British Politics during the First World War (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar

4 Frederic Harrison, Bernard Pares, H. M. Hyndman and H. J. Mackinder were also contributors, as were many members of the P.I.D. (Namier, Saunders, Rex Leeper). R. W. Seton-Watson later became joint editor with A. F. Whyte; George Glasgow served as sub-editor.

5 ‘How to Make Peace’, New Europe, vol. IX, no. III, 28 12. 1918;Google ScholarPhillips, W. Alison, ‘The Price of the “Society of Nations”’, New Europe, vol. IX, no. 112, 5 12. 1918;Google Scholar‘La Victoire Integrate in 1919’, New Europe, vol. IX, no. 116, 3 01. 1919;Google Scholar‘After Three Years: The Need of a Foreign Policy’, New Europe, vol. XIII, no. 157, 16 10. 1919;Google Scholar‘Another Secret Agreement’, New Europe, vol. XII, no. 167, 25 12. 1919;Google ScholarYoung, George, ‘Foreign Office Reform’, New Europe, vol. XIV, no. 182, 8 04. 1920.Google Scholar See also five articles by Percy, Lord Eustace on ‘Foreign Office Reform’, in New Europe, vol. XI, nos. 133–7, I, 8, 15 and 29 May 1919.Google Scholar

6 The setting up of the Department of Overseas Trade and its consequences for the Foreign Office will be treated in a separate article. For reference, see Platt, D. C. M., Finance, Trade and Politics in British Foreign Policy, 1815–1919 (Oxford, 1968), pp. 378–80, 393–4.Google Scholar

7 F.O. 366/780, Minute by Cecil. Undated but probably 12 Sept. 1918.

8 For details, see Warman, Roberta, ‘The Erosion of Foreign Office Influence in the Making of Foreign Policy, 1916–18’, The Historical Journal, XV, 1 (1972), 150–7.Google Scholar

9 ‘The Change at the Foreign Office’, New Europe, vol. XIII, no. 159, 30 10. 1919.Google Scholar

10 Jones, R., The Nineteenth Century Foreign Office (London, 1971), pp. 131–5.Google Scholar

11 The Records of the Foreign Office, pp. 14–15, 22–4.Google Scholar

12 F.O. 366/781, Hardinge to Curzon, 26 Sept. 1919.

13 F.O. 366/789, Curzon to Hardinge, 13 Aug. 1920.

14 The functions and the personnel of the Intelligence Bureau had been transferred to the Foreign Office in 1918 despite a sharp quarrel with Lord Beaverbrook. Hardinge to J. W. Headlam, Department of Information, 21 Feb. 1918, F.O. 366/787; Hardinge to Curzon, 27 Aug. 1920, and F.O. Minute (unsigned), 16 Oct. 1920, F.O. 366/790.

15 F.O. 366/781, Hardinge to Curzon, 26 Sept. 1919.

16 Ibid. On Curzon's insistence, papers from the Eastern Department were to come to him via Crowe and Hardinge. Ibid. Hardinge to Crowe, 22 Oct. 1919.

17 Ibid., Hardinge to Campbell, 25 Aug. 1919.

18 Ibid., Hardinge to Crowe, 22 Oct. 1919.

19 F.O. 366/787, F.O. Memorandum, 14 Mar. 1918.

20 Crowe complained to the prime minister that ‘the haggling spirit of the Treasury is never content until expenditure is reduced to below what is really effective’. MacDonald entirely agreed. ‘A Home Office Inspector would scrap our present accommodation if he could order us as he does a private firm.’ F.O. Minute, H. Montgomery, 6 Dec. 1923, F.O. 766/807; Sir L. Earle, Office of Works, to Montgomery, 7 Feb. 1924; Crowe to Earle, 13 Feb. 1924, F.O. 366/815; Crowe to Ramsay MacDonald, 14 June 1924, and Minute by Ramsay MacDonald, 15 June 1924, F.O. 366/816; Office of Works to the Foreign Office, 19 June 1925, F.O. 366/826.

21 F.O. 366/789, Hardinge to Curzon, 6 Aug. 1920.

22 Curzon minuted to Crowe, when the Chief Clerk was upgraded, ‘I am very glad that your insistence has been rewarded’. F.O. 366/800, 31 July 1922.

23 The relevant material will be found in F.O. 366/789 which covers the negotiations between the two departments between 4 Aug. 1920 until 29 Mar. 1922.

24 For a summary of the MacDonnell's Commission's arguments, see Steiner, Z., The Foreign Office and Foreign Policy, 1898–1914 (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 167–9.Google Scholar

25 F.O. 366/780, Drummond to Hardinge, 4 Apr. 1918.

26 F.O. 366/786, Treasury to Foreign Office, 24 Jan. 1917.

27 Ibid. Balfour to Langley, 5 Feb. 1917.

28 Larner, C., ‘The Amalgamation of the Diplomatic Service with the Foreign Office’, Journal of Contemporary History, VII, 1–2 (1972), p. 117.Google Scholar

29 F.O. 366/780, Baldwin to Cecil, 20 Feb. 1918.

30 F.O. 366/780, Hardinge to Cecil, 23 Feb. 1918.

31 Ibid. Committee report is dated 10 Mar. 1918.

32 Ibid. Memorandum by Cecil, 16 Apr. 1918.

33 Ibid. Hardinge to Cecil, 7 Apr. 1918.

34 Ibid. Minute by Crowe, 11 Sept. 1918.

35 Ibid. Minute by Tilley, 13 Aug. 1918.

36 Ibid. Minute by Drummond, 13 Aug. 1918.

37 Ibid. Minute by Cecil, 3 Sept. 1918.

38 Ibid. Minute by Hardinge (4 Sept.), Drummond (9 Sept.), Crowe (18 Sept.) and Tilley (23 Sept.) 1918.

39 Ibid. Minute by Crowe, 18 Sept. 1918. For a more detailed account of Crowe's views towards amalgamation, see Mrs Steiner's forthcoming book on Crowe and the Foreign Office, The Most Perfect Servant.

40 F.O. 366/780, Minute by Crowe, 18 Sept. 1918.

41 Ibid. Cecil to Hardinge, 16 Oct. 1918.

42 Ibid., F. L. Heath, Treasury to Hardinge, 31 Dec. 1918.

43 Lamer, , op. cit. p. 124,Google Scholar quoting Cecil to Bonar Law, Jan. 1919.

44 There were also difficulties about war bonuses which were to be settled for the whole civil service by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board and which delayed the Treasury-Foreign Office decision.

45 F.O. 366/780, Montgomery to Tilley, 23 Apr. 1919.

46 The MacDonnell Commission had found that too much power had been given to the Foreign Secretary's private secretary both in terms of selection and for promoting, assigning and transferring members of the diplomatic staff. Between 1915 and 1921, these powers were actually exercised by a Diplomatic Secretary. The Promotion Board was an Advisory Committee set up in July 1919 to advise Curzon on promotions after complaints from the Diplomatic Service about changes being made in their service solely on the advice of the Foreign Office under-secretaries. The diplomatic secretary continued to be a diplomat with special responsibilities for the diplomatic service but he was after 1921 just an assistant private secretary. The Promotion Board both fulfilled the wishes of the MacDonnell Commission and met the complaints of the diplomats. Curzon Papers, Folder F/2/2 M-P 1919, Ian Malcolm to Curzon, 9 June, 8 July, 27 July 1919; also Steiner, , The Foreign Office and Foreign Policy, pp. 29–31, 169;Google ScholarRecords of the Foreign Office, p. 10.Google Scholar

47 F.O. 366/781, Minute by Akers Douglas, 6 Nov. 1919.

48 F.O. 366/789, Hardinge to Curzon, 6 Aug. 1920.

49 F.O. 366/789, Tilley to Hardinge, 29 July 1920.

50 Ibid. Curzon to Hardinge, 13 Aug. 1920. Some parts of this letter from Curzon to Hardinge are quoted by Mrs Larner in her article. It should be noted that the committee of the Promotion Board also suggested that the Treasury-imposed reduction in assistant under-secretaries be reversed and Tyrrell promoted to a second assistant under-secretaryship. Its recommendation was accepted by Hardinge and Curzon as were other suggestions for revision.

51 Larner, C., op. cit. p. 115 for statistical tables illustrating these points; our conclusions differ in point of emphasis.Google Scholar

52 Tilley and Gaselee state that: ‘Since the War the proportion of Etonians coming into the Foreign Office has been smaller, but this is largely because a greater number of Etonians go into business than formerly.’ Tilley, and Gaselee, , The Foreign Office, p. 195.Google Scholar See Appendix I.

53 A table of family backgrounds is too incomplete to be published yet. The main difficulty is that many gentry and landowning families had entered the professions - for instance, the army and law - so that a clear breakdown between gentry and middle class is difficult to achieve. Our appendices differ from the statistical findings in R. Nightingale, Personnel of the British Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, 1851-/920, Fabian Tract No. 232. See Appendices I and II for educational details.

54 Cmnd. 2276, Report of the Committee on Representational Service Overseas appointed by the Prime Minister under the Chairmanship of Lord Plowden (1964), p. 88.

55 Watt, D. C., Personalities and Policies, Studies in the Formulation of British Foreign Policy in the Twentieth Century (London, 1965).Google Scholar For a discussion of developments since the 1943 reforms in recruitment, see pp. 187–98.

56 F.O. 366/758, Memorandum by Foreign Office, undated; The Records of the Foreign Office, p. 67.Google Scholar

57 F.O. 366/787, Eyre Crowe to Treasury, 26 Aug. 1918.

58 F.O. 366/787, Crowe to Hardinge, 23 Aug. 1918.

59 Ibid. Report of the Sub-Committee on Staffs, 3 Aug. 1918.

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid. Minute by Crowe, 23 Aug. 1918.

62 Ibid. Re-organization of Foreign Office Registers, Report of Inter-departmental Committee, 14 Nov. 1918. The Treasury nominees were A. T. V. Robinson, John Jeffrey and S. de Jastrzebski. D. A. Leake, the Foreign Office assistant librarian, was the secretary.

63 Details are in F.O. 366/787, Memorandum by Crowe, 23 Aug. 1918.

64 For a description of the new system, see The Records of the Foreign Office, pp. 67–71.Google Scholar Papers in a docket sheet with a registry number and the name of the country to which it related was passed together with a precis jacket also stamped with the name of the country to the section clerk in the Archive Branch responsible for that country. On the precis jacket, in addition to the precis, was a record of the action taken and the movements of the papers from and to the Archive Branch.

65 F.O. 366/789, Draft by H. Montgomery to Treasury, 9 Jan. 1920.

66 See Appendix III. In November 1925 the Foreign Office pointed out that, of the 880 staff on its vote, 293 were at the Passport Office, 9 at the Passport Control Office and 87 at the code and cypher school. ‘After these deductions there remains an increase of 146 per cent in the staff of the Foreign Office proper (since 1914)’, which was attributable to the rapid growth in the workload since the end of the war. Foreign Office to J. C. C. Davidson, Admiralty, 5 Nov. 1925, F.O. 366/826.

67 Austen Chamberlain MSS. Curzon to Chamberlain, 14 July 1921.

68 F.O. 366/801, Crowe to Treasury, 8 Nov. 1922.

69 F.O. 366/783, Petition from Second Division Clerks supported by Staff Clerks.

70 Ibid. Minute by John Tilley, 2 Nov. 1918.

71 F.O. 366/807, Memorandum by Montgomery, Oct. 1923 and 12 Dec. 1923.

72 See Appendix IV.

73 ‘A Farewell Survey’, New Europe, XVII, 211, 28 10. 1920.Google Scholar