MR. DISRAELI AND COUNT MUNSTER.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume III, Issue 119, 6 August 1875, Page 9

MR. DISRAELI AND COUNT MUNSTER.

— ++ — Cotjnt Munsteb's indiscretion was one of the most unfortunate exhibitions of over-zeal which have happened for a long time. It ■was really a little too much to find a German Ambassador expressing himself in such a style of lively criticism upon the institutions of a country other than his own at the very crisis when the German Government was displaying such sensitiveness in respect to the-utterances of foreign opinion on German affairs. On the whole -we are not surprised to find that even the "Reptile Press" is inclined to admit that Count Munster went a little too far, and though the rumour of his recall is at least premature, there can be no doubt that the eloquence poured fourth at the " National Club" has not tended to enhance the diplomatic merits of the enthusiastic representative of Bismarkism in our country. It does credit to the courage of Mr Sullivan that he did not allow the opportunity, so i'prtunately presented to him, to pass unutilized, and the uncomplimentary manner in which the official and semi-official scribes at Berlin expand their wrath upon " the Irish Ultramontane Sullivan" is a significant indication of the discomfort which his proceedings have occasioned among the coteries of the " Culture Champions." Even, without Mr Sullivan's intervention the public opinion of the country could not fail, and did not fail, to stigmatize the extraordinary step which Count Munster had permitted himself to take. Thanks, however, to this prompt action of the member for Louth, that Bismarckism efforts to stir up bad blood among the fellow subjects of her Majesty have been placed in the pillory, so to speak, for the edification of all beholders, the Count Munster's punishment has been the more severe because it was the more notorious. Besides, the head of the Cabinet has been obliged to speak, apparently not unwillingly, and it may be quite truly said tnat he has spoken very much to the purpose. There was a vein of polished irony running all through the reply of the Prime Minister, which must have made it immeasurably more unpleasant to endure than, any serious rebuke. Mr. Disraeli had three things to do, and he did two at least of them thoroughly well. In the first he had to administer a slight rap to

the knuckles of the polemical diplomatist for his breach' of all diplomatic usages. Secondly, while rebuking the impropriety of Count Munster's harangue, he had to let it be clearly understood that in England we can afford to leave exeessesof speech in almost all cases to the correction of the public taste. • Thirdly, he had to check' the presumptuous references to the condition of Ireland, in which it has been so long the habit of the journals in the employment of Prince Bismarck to indulge, and with which the maladroit Count Munster had gratified the ultra-Protestant cravings of the members of the so-called " National Club." The only point which perhaps was not hit satisfactorily by Mr. Disraeli was the last. He showed indeed that there is nothing in.the condition of Ireland arising from religion causes which in anyway calls for the re-estab-lishment of the Garrison Church, for instance. He failed, or he did not wish, however, to demonstrate with sufficient lucidity that the whole plan of persecution is an extremely bad one for securing the peace and solidity of empires. The simple statement that there was no analogy between the condition of the Catholics in Ireland and of Prussia is at least liable to the objection that it is either trite or equivocal. Assuming that Mr. Disraeli designedly abstained from pronouncing any opinion upon the comparative merits of a policy of persecution, and one of even-handed justice, we may ask why he shirked saying plainly, as the occasion seemed to demand, that Her Majesty's Government has no intention of f ppressing the consciences of Her Majesty's Catholic subjects, and that such oppression would be the surest way not to promote loyalty, but to provoke discontent ? Mr. Disraeli need not have said a word more than that, but that would have been enough. We trust it was not, as the ' Spectator ' suggests, a certain mealymouthedness towards Germany which imposed upon Mr. Disraeli the halting and ambiguous form of words which he adopted. Probably a little over consideration for the Newdegates of his party was at the bottom of his over caution. Taken as another indication of the improved tone visible in the foreign policy of England of late, the reply of Mr. Disraeli must on the whole be considered very satisfactory. Whatever may have been the exact tenor of the remonstrances addressed by the British Government to Germany a couple of -weeks ago, it seems to be certain that their practical effect was to convince the heads of the war party at Berlin that the wealth and power of England were factors to be taken into the most serious consideration in any little schemes with reference to upsetting the peace of Europe. This is as it should be. Our interests are too vast, and the perils to which thpy would be exposed in certain contingencies are too vast also, for us to pose any longer as the snug, self-complacent, ostentatiously .indifferent and unconcerned nation which played a part so little worthy of its traditions during the successive annexations of Sleswig and Alsace. The Cabinet of Mr. Disraeli has remembered this, and if the return to a sense of prudence and dignity is somewhat late still we are told that better late than never. It may, indeed, be said that even the Government of which Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright were members could hardly have failed to be moved by recent incidents to a perception of the fact that the line of non-intervention must be drawn somewhere. It happens, at any rate, that the Conservatives are in office, and it must be ungrudingly admitted that in the recent negotiations, or whatever they may be called, the British Government has acted with equal wisdom, firmness, and success. It is so long since Englishmen have been able to say as much that there is a sensible pleasure in , saying it now. We trust that the Government will continue in the course upon which it has entered. It will find plenty of occasions for the employment of firmness and resolution so long as the policy of Germany is guided and her power wielded by the Minister who i» now her virtual master.