The Dominion. FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1908. A FAMOUS "INCIDENT."

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 179, 24 April 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1908. A FAMOUS "INCIDENT."

The London newspapers to hand by yesterday's mail show that the famous incident of the Kaiser'sjletter to Lord Tweedmoutli ,in the second week of March was very different from its presentation in the sequence of cable messages dispatched to Australasia at the time. When the " Times " published the communication in which its military correspondent reported the exchange of letters between the Emperor and Lord Tweedmouth, it added such violent comments of its own that' 'the whole ■ of Europe was momentarily staggered. The sensation was firstclass. Before the London' leader writers had got to work on the day of the " bombshell/' - many of ; them— practically all, indeed, of those on the principal journals—had had time to believe that the "Times" had made a serious blunder. The Liberal Press was more concerned about the spectacle, of the "Times" descending, in its Teutophobe ardour, to,tactics of a kind incompatible with the best journalistic practice. The "Manchester Guardian," for example—a paper only second in influence to the "Times," and easily first amongst British dailies in point of dignity and honour— scouted the notion that the "Times" could have really believed that - the Kaiser was attempting to "seduce" Lord Tweedmoutli, and added that there,were two possible explanations of the London journal's action: " Either it had some idea that informal negotiations relative to the rediiction of armaments were on foot between the two countries, and in its Teutophobia was willing to stoop. to anything' to wreck them; or it is a deliberate and gratuitous attempt to embitter international feeling by making the Kaiser and a British Minister the subjects, of 1 slander." The Opposition Press, while plainly " at attention," and very alert, were generally very lukewarm in backing up their great protagonist, on any point. The judicial " Spectator," standing aloof from .persona or political parties, declared

that if the "Times" could justify its action, it would receive the thanks of all patriotic men. If not, and the "Spectator" evidently thought that tho negative hypothesis was correct, then " a great mistake has-been made, for we fear there can be no doubt thattho German Emperor and a very large section of his subjects will regard the incident as an insult." , When, three days later, the House of Lords met, the public interest wns at its height, although the British Press had almost unanimously exhibited a splendid restraint and courtesy. Lord Tweedmouth stated, and everybody at once believed, that the letter,was purely private and unobjectionable. He had, however, safeguarded himself by submitting the Emperor's letter -to the Minister for Foreign Affairs before replying to it. Sir Edward Grey decided that the letter was purely private. Lord Lansdowne, in an admirable speech, fully admitted that the letter was quite private, and, that nobody could demand its publication. He regretted that "this incident should have occurred to excite find disturb the public mind," and although he delivered a sermon upon the risks of such correspondence, his speech was obviously an absolution of the Government and Lord Tweedmouth from the insinuations of the " Times." Lord Rosebery followed with a speech of a power unusual in the British Parliament. He denounced the " absolutely insane inferences " . drawn from the correspondence, inferences that, had made the nation and the Government ridiculous, and lie pointed out 'that thd Emperor was "a potentate of remarkable intelligence, bom 'of an English. mother, who has paid pany visits to this country, and who' is intimately acquainted ,with our-, political constitution." " I am quite sure," he added, " that it never would have entered into his head or the head of any educated person outside a lunatic asylum in Germany that by private communications .'to my noble friend lie could exercise any influence whatever on the progression of British armaments." . He denounced also'the papers could use a " trivial incident" to excite " morbid suspicion between the two countries," and he wound up with a stern warning to the Jingo. Press._ After' Lord Rosobery's speech, nothing more was to be said, and the British Press practically dismissed the situation at once. The " Times," • naturally, had got into a painful enough .position. With the "Standard" rejoicing over the correctness of the Opposition leaders, and the "Daily Telegraph" , scornfully ; condemning the "foolish superstructure" built upon a small affair, the "Times", must have felt that -its ."bombshell" was indeed a very damp squib, or even a boomerang. Yet it was courageous to the last, and it found an ingenious enough way of escape. Its military correspondent, when the noise had died away, and almost all the other journals had directly or by implication censured the ( action of the "Times," explained, that his "calculated indiscretion'' was inspired by .a desire to force the Government's hand oil the' naval estimates, and he claimed 1 the crediti -of shaving been • responsible'for Mi;. Asquith's "big navy" speech. This seems rather like .impudence in the dock; /but,. even if it , were the truth, it would not be pleasant to reflect that the " Times"' should have adopted such a daiigerous and such an unfair method of journalism: The. gratifying feature of the whole deplorable affair was' tli6 statesmanlike; tone of"the British Press: generally; and in the European Press comments there is evidence that the incident, instead of embittering the relations' between' the two countries, haS cleared away a good deal "'of misunderstanding. 'When the "Times" fired-the chimney, it did not' burn down the house; it I .did a good deal towards clearing the flue.