MR. DISRAELI'S SUPPOSED ANTIPATHY TO GERMANY. (Hamburger Nachrichten.)

Waikato Times, Volume VIII, Issue 425, 6 February 1875, Page 2

MR. DISRAELI'S SUPPOSED ANTIPATHY TO GERMANY. (Hamburger Nachrichten.)

If England in the present day took a more active part than she does iv European affairs, we might be forced to ascribe serious political significance to the language used by her Prime Minister, Mr Disraeli, at the recent Lord Mayor's banquet in London. The least that can be said of his conduct on that occasion is that it does not show very friendly feelings towards Germany, and it is easy to understand how such sentiments on the part of the leader of an active and energetic people might be regarded as a threat of hostile resolutions. But the mairt jNiogina of the present foreign policy of England is neutrality and peace at any price. Therefore the words of London statesmen with reference to foreign affairs are mere words, which may be very piquant and interesting, but have no further significance. That being the case, any excitemeVi\^out Mr Disraeli's speech would of course be folly. do not please Mr Disraeli, and he to took the opportunity afforded by the Lord Mayor's banquet to let us know this by a few sharp side-blows. That is, in short, the whole matter, and it is not very serious. In fact, we are what we are, not in ord^r V> please Mr Disraeli. The English Premier has in v l|is own country the reputation of being a vskv clever man, and it would perhaps to a certain extent our vanity, which we have as well as other nations, to hear a well-framed eulogy pronounced upon ua by such a man. But the pain inflicted upon us by his centorious outburst is not so great that we should lose our equanimity on account of it. Let Mr Disraeli have what opinion he will of us ; it is more his affiir than ours. Ihe speech of the English Premier, however, has unquestionabl its piquant features. Hitherto it has been generally held to be /a settled rule of international good manners that Ministers in their speeches should refrain from invidious remarks

against o&er States, unless they wish to bnngd*rt a breach of friendship and peace. Any such wtah on the part of Mr Disraeli is, as we have explained, out of the question, and if in spite of tbia i he considered himself justified in making an attack on us, it will not be denied that there is something interesting in his thus attempting to introduce into the relations between friendly Stater the code oi malicious impertinence instead of the laws ot politeness. And there is another equally piquant point. In his speech Mr Disraeli alludes to Count Arnim s ; case, and points out the great advantages enjoyed , by England, where the working classes possess a higher measure of personal rights and liberties than the nobility of other nations, and have no fear of arbitary arrests or of domiciliary "viiitf. Mr Disraeli no doubt knew, and must have known, when he spoke about the Lease, L case, that the arrest of Count Arnim and the search made in his house followed a judge's order, ttad accordingly that those measures were not political but legal ones. Formerly to say what was not the fact was most severely scouted by the code of national honour. In J&m speech at the Loid Mayor's banquet, Mr JDisraeil comes forth as a bold innovator in this respect too. He knows that the arrest of Count Arnim was made in accordancewith law, and yet he does not hesitate to prove his national truthfulness by describing the simple process of the law as political and arbitary.