The Press. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1911. LORD HALDANE ON ENGLAND AND GERMANY.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14161, 29 September 1911, Page 6

The Press. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1911. LORD HALDANE ON ENGLAND AND GERMANY.

Few men are hotter qualified than Lord Haldane to speak of tho relations, the resemblances, tho differences, and tha grounds of mutual mistrust, between England and Germany. Much of his educational life was spent in Germany, and through the whole of his active career as lawyer and statesman he has retained a keen interest in German literature, philosophy, commercial do vekrpment, and national outlook. It ■was, therefore, appropriate that ■ he should be chosen to deliver the inaugural address for a course on Germany at tho Extension* Summer Meeting at Oxford. The address dealt in a general way with the evolution of modern Germany; but the portions of it which, perhaps, had most direct practical interest were those concerned specially with tho mutual relations of Germany and England. The .speaker found the root of the whole trouble in mutual ignorance, an opinion which accounts for a good deal, but not for all—not for the patent • evidences" ot German ambition directed against Great Britain. But let us consider, tinder the guidance of the speaker, one or two of the difficulties which Uo i» the way of a fuller mutual understanding. « The first pointed out ilras a racial difference in habft and- mind. Lord flaldane gave two German espreeajone

conveying the respective methods of approaching foreign politics, which we may briefly paraphrase The German is in tho habit, when facing, suppose, an international problem, of first thinking out some broad, guiding idea or principle, and then teating each aspect of the problem by reference to it. It cannot bo S3id that an English statesman docs not do something of the same kind; if this were so, English foreign politics would be a mere series of detached policies, having no continuity or cohesion. But ho does it in a far less degree than the German. Ho is less disposed to bind himself by general principles; he prefers to keep an open mind, to watch tho play of circumstances in each individual case, and give <r take, advance or retreat, according as tho situation developes. There is no doubt at all that this difference in method of approaching international questions does really create a difficulty in coming to a mutual understanding. And instead , of facing the difficulty, and each" trying to understand the point of view of the other, public opinion in both countries is liable to peculant outburete, and to a want of that forbearance and self-restraint which one might expect to operate between two highly-cultivated peoples. It would be very unfortunate if tho fact of one nation looking at things more in the abstract than tho other should be an insuperable obstacle to, at least, a workable and practical understanding.

Another difficulty is linguistic; it lies in certain defects of the German language. That language has precision and but it does not lend itself, like French, or even like English, to the finer '''nuances" of moaning. So, when an English speech or article appears translated into Gorman, the finer shades and qualifications are lost, and tho meaning conveyed ia something much harsher than the original. Over and over again misunderstanding has arisen in this way, and the spirit of an utterance has beon quite misrepresented by a translation which appears quite literal and accurate. The remedy is, of course, a more general knowledge of each other's language. Hero tho Germans have decidedly the advantage); probably fivo Germans can rood English for every one Englishman who can read German. But, until utterances on each side can be read in the language in which they wero written or epoken, this linguistic misunderstanding will always bo a source of irritation. Again, there Is a great historical fact, which goes far "to explain the irritability and fussy restlessness which always seem to characterise Germany's attitude towards foreign affaire. She had the misfortune to come on the eoene as a great Power about a century too late. For centuries, during which Germany was a geographical expression for a number of petty States, England and France wero powerful consolidated monarchies; and their "Welt-politik" had formulated itself on settled lines before Germany was in a position to have any say in the matter. This disadvantage on her part is one of the most disturbing factors for European peace. A mighty Power in a hurry is a terrible danger. She is in a hurry to build a great fleet, and she is in a hurry to make a colonial Empire, forgetful of the fact that England never made a colonial Empire as a deliberate and settled policy, but only because, in the words of Sir John Seeley, "we happened ■&> be there," or, in the words of Lord Haldane, "we were the only " people ready to do it." And, whsn we look round anxiously, and ask wherein lies the hope of peace, we are pointed by Lord Haldane to the development of the two democracies, io whom war is hateful. There is a curious irony lurking Here. A speaker, .who has been glorifying the importance, as peace -factors, of mutual knowledge of each other's thought and language, and capacity for reading each other's books, newspapers, and speeches, is obliged in the end to stake mi hopes on those great masses on both sides, who do not know each other's language at all, but have common ties and interests quite outside the region of literature, philosophy, or \ diplomacy. And perhaps the unintentional recantation is right; for the consolidation of democracy would apI pear to hold within it a promise and I guarantee- of the peace of the world.