If the Germans had their own way at present, there is little doubt they would rush into war with England. Their newspapers have simply gone mad in their hatred of Great Britain. They would like to constitute themselves the defenders of humanity, though they could only add to the horrors of war. They received great credit for the display of their severely neutral, not to say complacent, attitude at the time of the Armenian massacres. They knew they could not have helped their fellow-Christians in Turkey; they could only have increased the horrible bloodshed so resignedly witnessed by them in Europe. Fortunately, Germany is an empire; Prussia is a monarchy; and the people know that the right of peace and war does not belong to them, but to their King and Emperor.

The United States is a Republic, and England may well be called a constitutional republic, under a monarch; but Germany is proud to be a real empire or monarchy, and may, indeed, be proud to follow such a guide as it has at present. Hence, it follows that the inflammatory cries uttered in Germany, whether in the chambers or in the newspapers, can do but little direct harm. Not a single Pomeranian will be sent to the Cape. Such powder magazines of eloquence may be fired with impunity in Germany, but not so in the United States, and not so in England. The right to declare war belongs, in England, also to the sovereign, but the sinews of war must be granted by Parliament; so that a war without Parliamentary sanction is not to be thought of in England. The same applies to the United States; and whatever power the Executive may sometimes claim, no war can be thought of without the sanction of the representatives of the people. In form it may be the same in Germany, but in fact the Germans know best whose word in those matters is law.

In this and in many other respects England and the United States are at one. They have reached the same degree in political education, and both possess all the necessary guarantees of freedom to the people and of the independence of the Executive. And that is the very reason why history hereafter will wonder that these two AngloSaxon powers should never have thought of making their united strength felt for good in the political controversies of the world. The two together, agreed as they are on what is possible in the selfgovernment of the people, and on the rules that ought to regulate the free intercourse of all nations, might surely conclude such a treaty as binds France and Russia together. They might even form an Areopagus, to be joined hereafter by any nation agreeing with them

on the general principles of international morality. They spea
same language, they share in the same history, they are, in fac
the same blood and bone. Why should they not make their char
felt abroad, by combining their moral forces, by standing alway
gether, where injustice is threatened or done, where slavery unde
name or another is practised, where the true ideals of civilized
progressive humanity are trodden under foot?

Unfortunately, at present, as soon as there is the faintest in tion of such an approach to a more intimate relation between two nations, other nations begin to be afraid. They profess t in every such attempt an intrigue directed against themselves, th it can be an intrigue only if there is anything to be intrigued aga Is there? Of course, commercial questions, which now occupy principal place in international diplomacy, may be viewed in a ferent way by Germany, by the United States, and by Engl But here, too, the views of England and the United States are to be mistaken. England is committed to free trade, the U States to protection. It is a pity that it should be so; but the nations, the American and the English, have come to a mutua derstanding, and it is difficult to see why their undisguised riv should be poisoned by foreign whisperings. Surely what appli individuals applies to states also. In private life also we kno whisperers and mischief-makers; and there is only one way of de with them, to ignore them—to live them down and trust that t will prevail in the end. Why should diplomatists imagine that the privileged, or that they can tell or suggest untruths with impunit

Take the well-known reply of a Russian general who, whe was found to have told a diplomatic lie, exclaimed, with conside warmth, “I am ready to die for my Emperor; should I be afra lie for him?" This is the old diplomacy. ommend the advice given more recently by Bismarck to a y But one cannot even diplomatist always to speak the truth, "since," he said, "no one believe what a diplomatist says." ness in all communications between nations as between individ What is required is real trut It may seem a low view to take of statesmen and diplomatists to upon them as the solicitors of their nations. It is well known Lord Salisbury once apologized to the solicitors of England for ha compared them to Gladstone. But it is quite true that solicitors be either honest and straightforward or nothing. Solicitors certainly to stand up for the interests of their clients; but no res

able firm of lawyers would consider it right to tell an untruth for the benefit of their clients. They would do their best for them, but they would rather leave a case alone, if they were required to tell an untruth or to act fraudulently. And the same lesson has long been learned by our diplomatists. No one would suppose an ambassador to take the most unfavorable view of his own country's case; but of that those who act as counsel for other countries are fully aware, and they would at last arrive at a compromise, just as lawyers in a case of contested inheritance would recommend concessions on both sides till they should arrive at a settlement tolerable for one side and not intolerable for the other.

Much mischief is done in such contests by irresponsible outsiders, the same kind of mischief which in political matters is done by people who write anonymously in the newspapers. Newspapers vary considerably in character in different countries. Nobody would mistake a French newspaper for a German or an English one, even though it were translated into German or English. English newspapers are mostly commercial undertakings, and they make no secret of it. They live on their advertisements; and if they are to be bribed at all, it can only be done either by advertisements or by early information of important events. German newspapers profess to be more patriotic, but it will take a long time before they recover from the revelations made by Bismarck as to the Press Bureau and its ramifications. If the press was raised in Germany by Bismarck himself turning journalist, it received a most damaging blow by his disclosures as to the employment of the famous, or rather infamous, Reptile fund. It cannot be doubted that both the press and the Government are so ashamed of that Reptile period that nothing of the kind will be attempted again; but the mischief once done is not so easily undone.

Even over the Schleswig-Holstein troubles the tone adopted by the German papers against England has not been such as it ought to be between two great nations. England desired to be enlightened on the Schleswig-Holstein question, which even the "Times" professed itself unable to unravel. Nor can it be denied that at that time Germany had reason to complain of England. Palmerston's flippant foreign policy gave just offence to the patriots of Germany. The Treaty of London was really an insult to Germany; and when the Prussian minister was told that he might please himself, and that the treaty would be as good with or without the signature of Prussia, this was most offensive. But the minister was not deceived; and

when at last he was ordered by his own Government to sign
treaty, he prophesied, and prophesied truly, that the first cannon
in Europe would tear that treaty to tatters.

It is not too much to say that Palmerston's, and, to a certain
tent, Lord John Russell's, foreign policy served to unite Germ
against an injustice felt by all; but it wrought permanent mis
in producing a feeling of suspicion and mistrust against Englan
the hearts of all German patriots, who did not know that the for
policy of that period was also strongly disapproved of by the
among English statesmen, and that the English people were ca
away by their enthusiasm for the Danish princess, and forgot at the
the political consequences of their inconsiderate behavior toward t
old friend and ally. Such things will happen, but they are certa
to be regretted. If people, however, imagine that in the Aus
Prussian war also the undivided sympathy of England went tow
Austria, they are greatly mistaken. There are, and there al
will be, parties in England; yet the great mass of the people n
flinched, but expressed their sympathies openly with the Prus
army and Prussian Government, as representing more legitima
than Austria the genuine Protestant element of Germany.

Then followed the Franco-German War. It was feared by so and wished by others, that England should stand by France, w has always counted a large number of friends, particularly in ar cratic circles, where it is still counted as the highest distinction noble family to have come over from France with the Norman queror. But the great mass of the people, and the Government a in spite of the occasional waverings intelligible during a Gladsto ministry, were decidedly German. No unfriendly act against many would have been sanctioned by Parliament; and all these st so sedulously propagated by the German press were either fals futile. It was stated again and again that among the French a carried off by the German army were many of English manufact That is very possible. These arms might have been bought long or might have been smuggled in by merchants caring more for its than for the risks they ran. Who does not remember the cha brought against Lord Palmerston at the time of the Prusso-Da I War, that arms actually stamped with his own name had been fou The name of the firm was Palmer & Son, and this, by Angloph patriots, had been read "Palmerston," as if the name of a P Minister were ever stamped on guns or cannons. But it should b

membered once for all that private enterprise in smuggling and selling arms and warlike munitions can never be altogether stopped; and when, during the Indian Mutiny, many arms were found there even of English manufacture, there were not wanting people in England who declared it was better that such arms should have been bought from English than from French or German manufacturers.

It is curious that while these promiscuous charges were brought against England by the German press the German Government never complained, and accepted the official explanations which were given whenever it seemed necessary. During all that time the German newspapers never ceased from troubling. Facts which stared them in their faces were ignored or denied, and it was entirely forgotten that England owed something to France also. The French statesmen and officers had personal friends in England, comrades from the time of the Crimean War, during which Germany stood so severely neutral, and seemed not always displeased with Russian victories. What more could Germany expect from literary men in England than Carlyle's triumphant panegyric, and what more could she expect than the participation of the English public in the peace rejoicings of the German societies in London and the other large towns?

But nothing will convince German writers even now that the feeling in England was not anti-German; that England is not full of envy at seeing the powerful development of Germany; and that the commercial classes in particular are not frightened by the competition of the great German houses. Now, supposing all this were true, where would be the harm? If one newspaper, for instance, formerly of small importance, suddenly rises into prominence and draws away advertisements from other papers, what do these other papers feel and, possibly, say, unless they were very discreet? It is but human nature that they should try to hold their own, or, perhaps, outbid their rivals, and warn them against being too conceited. And what human nature is in private life, that it also is between nation and nation. Let there be rivalry, by all means, and let each country run as hard as it can in the race; but, surely, this kind of Concurrenz does not mean envy, hatred, and malice. If England tries to hold her own, if she wants even to extend her influence and her commercial ramifications, don't let that be called intrigue. England, when looking at the returns of exports and imports, and of other commercial statistics, is not yet frightened. Even her far-from-successful military operations at the Cape need not perturb her. She has thrown