PRUSSIAN PERFIDY.—PAST AND PRESENT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 287, 1 August 1855, Page 3

PRUSSIAN PERFIDY.—PAST AND PRESENT.

Among; the historical allusions with which Lord Lyndhurst's speech abounded, and which served toillustrate the traditional policy of the Prussian Court, one especially deserves to fix attention. In 1794 Lord Mahnesbury was sent by Lord Granville to Berlin to claim the assistance of Prussia in the joint operations of the allies against the French Republic. A treaty was signed ; a subsidy was half paid by the British Government ; but die stipulations entered into on behalf of' the Prussian Crown were never fulfilled, and in the following1 year the peace of Basle w;is concluded.between Prussia and the French Directory. Lord Lyndhurst remarked, that the letter in which this trnnsaoaction was described by Lord Mulmesbury, though perfectly applicable to the present state of affair's, was so stn'iffiu its lan»u;ig-a that he omitted to read it. That omission is now supplied, and, alilitmjrri upwards of sixty years have elapsed since this despatch was written, it has all the freshness and point of a letter written by Lord John Russell during- his present visit to the same capital. Lord Mal.inesbury thus addressed Lord Granville :—

'•The manner iv which your lordship sees the

conduct and designs of the court of Berlin*is, as far as my judgment and information go, strictly the truth. It is particularly painful to me, to whom so considerable a share of this'business has fallen, to have met with so little good faith; but it required more suspicion than 1 ever wish to possess, and more penetration than I have any claim to, to suppose that there could exist in a great court such a total disregard to public character and to sound policy, and I hope I shall stand acquitted of every other charge on this occasion, but that when these two considerations unite they are in general tolerably good securities for the performance of engagements. .The present case has been unfortunately an exception to this rule. I have, however, little doubt that his Prussian Majesty, from the insulated position in which (in consequence of what lias now passed) he must sooner or later be placed, will have to lament much greater inconveniences from his having abandoned that principle than we feel from his defection.'1 That language of the British envoy was prophetic in times past; it may be equally so in the future.