f public opinion on the art of diplomacy has been to
extend the sphere of its application; it is but one more factor to be
dealt with; and experience has proved that it is subject to the wiles of
a skilful diplomatist no less than were the princes and statesmen with
whom the old diplomacy was solely concerned.

The third factor making for change--the revolution in the means of
communication which has brought all the world into closer touch--remains
to be discussed. It is obvious that before the invention of the
telegraph, the diplomatic agent was in a far more responsible position
than he is now, when he can, in most cases, receive immediate
instructions from his government on difficult questions as they arise.
When communication was still slow there was often no time to await
instructions, or the instructions when they arrived were not seldom
already out of date and had to be set aside on the minister's own
responsibility. It would, however, be easy to exaggerate the importance
of this change as affecting the character and status of diplomatic
agents. It is true that the tendency has been for ministers of foreign
affairs to hold the threads of diplomacy in their own hands to a far
greater extent than was formerly the case; but they must still depend
for information and advice on the "man on the spot," and the success of
their policy largely depends upon his qualities of discretion and
judgment. The growth of democracy, moreover, has given to the ambassador
a new and peculiar importance; for he represents not only the sovereign
to the sovereign, but the nation to the nation; and, as a succession of
notable American ambassadors to Great Britain has proved, he may by his
personal qualities do a large amount to remove the prejudices and
ignorances which stand as a barrier between the nations. It marks an
immense advance in the comity of international intercourse when the
representatives of friendly powers are no longer regarded as "spies
rather than ambassadors," to be "quickly heard and dismissed," as
Philippe de Commines would have them, but as agreeable guests to be
parted from with regret.

As to the qualifications for an ambassador, it is clearly impossible to
lay down a general rule, for the same qualities are obviously not
required in Washington as in Vienna, nor in Paris as in Pekin. Yet the
effort to depict the ideal ambassador bulks largely in the works of the
earlier theorists, and the demands they make are suf